DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 4/27/2026. Claims 1, 8, and 11 are pending, claims 2-7 and 9-10 have been cancelled. A final action on the merits of claims 1, 8, and 11 is as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following limitation in claim 1 lacks support in the original disclosure, “each of the two electrode parts respectively has a protrusion part extended toward another electrode part and each of the two electrode parts is convex-shaped to form a convex-shape.” While the protrusion parts are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and the specification states on page 7 that the electrode parts are convex shaped, there is not support for each electrode part having a protrusion part and being convex shaped and both parts together forming a convex shape. A convex shape, by definition, is a shape where all interior angles are less than 180 degrees, as defined by Cuemath (Convex Polygon, https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/convex/). The protrusion parts form interior angles that point towards the center of the shape which are 270 degrees, forming a concave shape as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on Figs. 4 and 5 of the instant application, the protrusions make the electrode parts into a concave shape, thus they do not form a convex shape. Additionally, the disclosure does not state anywhere that the electrode parts are each convex shaped with protrusion parts that extend towards each other to form a convex shape. The shapes shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are concave as stated above and the specification is silent to this limitation. Therefore the newly added limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement and the newly added limitation requires claim 1 to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as new matter.
If the applicant wishes to claim the forms shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the examiner recommends amending to claim the actual shape of the electrode parts. The shapes shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are not convex shapes nor do they come together to form a convex shape. The shape should be specifically described rather than simply stating it is a convex shape with a protruding part, which lacks support.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected due to their dependance on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states that “single electrode connection part arranged on the body, through the body and electrically connected to the two electrode connection parts of the two conductive cloths, wherein each of the two electrode parts respectively has a protrusion part extended toward another electrode part and each of the two electrode parts is convex-shaped to form a convex-shape.” This claim limitation appears to be attempting to claim the embodiment shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Convex shapes are shapes in which all interior angles are individually less than 180 degrees as evidenced by Cuemath (Convex Polygon, https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/convex/). However, the embodiments of Figs. 4 and 5 which show the protruding part show concave shapes while page 7 of the instant application states that the electrode parts form convex shapes and is silent to the protruding parts. Based on the instant application, it is unclear how the two separate conductive cloths connected to a single connector with protruding parts form symmetrical and convex shapes, or how the two electrode parts together form a convex shape as the claim now requires. Furthermore, the claim requires the electrode part to have protrusions and the individual electrode parts to form the convex shape. This does not have support in the instant application and, if anything, the protrusions are what make the shape concave. Based on claim 1, the specification, and the drawings of the instant application, it is unclear how the conductive cloths connected to a single connector are meant to form convex shapes and thus the claim is indefinite. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected due to their dependance on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (hereinafter ‘Zhang’, CN 106580306 A) in view of Liu et al. (hereinafter ‘Liu’, CN 205433673 U) and in further view of Liu et al. (hereinafter ‘Liu ‘927’, US 20220369927 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhang discloses a textile-type dry electrode plate comprising:
a body being (electrode body 1 in Fig. 1) a sheet-shaped body (body 1 is shaped like a rectangular sheet);
a conductive cloth (conductive cloth 3 in Fig. 1) made by a silver fiber cloth ([Page 4 of translation]: the conductive fabric 3 is made of a silver-plated conductive fiber) and arranged on one side of the body (the conductive cloth is arranged on one side of the body 1), wherein the conductive cloth respectively comprises one electrode part ([Page 4 of Translation]: the conductive cloths are made of silver-plated conductive fibers; the silver plated fibers are the electrode part because on pages 6 and 8 of the instant application it states that the specific pattern of the conductive cloth is used as the electrode part to achieve the effect of receiving and transmitting signals which is the purpose of the silver-plated conductive fibers; the instant application does not provide specific structure to the electrode part other than it being a pattern of the conductive cloth);
a single electrode connection part ([page 4 of translation]: electrode connection parts 4 and 5 which form two parts of a single button via their locked, tight connection and corresponding to each conductive cloth in Fig. 2) arranged on the body (electrode connection part 5 is arranged on the body 1 as seen in Fig. 2), through the body (electrode connection part 4 extends through the body and is locked to part 5 and the electrode cloth 3) and electrically connected to the electrode part of the conductive cloth ([Page 4 of Translation]: the conductive fabric layer 3 connected on the upper conductive screw buckle 4, on the conductive button 4 passes through the base 1 and lower conductive button 5, a conductive fabric layer 3 through conductive button 4, lower conductive button 5 and the leads are electrically connected to the controller), and
an adhesive layer ([Page 2 of translation]: the base body is provided with an adhesive or snap);
wherein the electrode connection part is configured to transmit a current onto the conductive cloth, so that the electrode part of the conductive cloth is configured to generate an effect of an electrotherapy or a thermotherapy, or both the electrotherapy and the thermotherapy simultaneously (this is interpreted functionally as there is no controller or processor claimed that generates the stimulation signal as well as no structure claimed that would limit these electrodes as only stimulation electrodes; the conductive cloth electrodes are capable of electrotherapy stimulation as they are electrically conductive and connected to a controller that if programmed to send a signal, the electrodes would be capable of conducting said signal);
the electrode part is configured to receive physiological electric signals transmitted by a human body and transmit the physiological electric signals back to an apparatus through the electrode connection part to measure the physiological electric signals ([Page 4 of Translation]: the conductive fabric layer is connected to the controller such that it can quickly and accurately transmit the detection signal; the controller is provided for receiving electric signal processing unit, the electric signal may be but is not limited to EMG signal, electrocardiogram signal, and/or electroencephalogram signal).
Zhang further discloses the use of multiple conductive cloths, each with its own electrode portion and connection part as seen in Figs. 1 and 2 which is the same as the instant application’s alternate embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
As explained on page 7 of the instant application’s specification, the electrode plate 10 shown in Fig. 4 functions as a single electrode. The conductive cloths/electrode parts both connect to a single connector 3. The therapy is applied to the connection part 3 and the single signal is transmitted onto each of the conductive cloths. The connection part 3 is further shown as a single button as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. This is a single conductive structure. The instant application does not disclose that the button can separate the signals going to or received from each piece of conductive cloth/electrode part. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the conductive cloths/electrode parts to be a single electrode split into two symmetrical and convex shaped pieces with protruding parts.
However, Zhang does not disclose that each functioning electrode is split into two pieces with two conductive cloths that are symmetrical and convex shaped.
Liu teaches a wearable physiological measuring device that is made from a flexible base body and utilizes a conductive fabric on the flexible base to receive the signals, similar to the device of Zhang ([Abstract]). Similar to Zhang, the device of Liu is provided with a jack 7 and a conductor 5 which electrically connects to the conductive fabric 2 ([page 3 of translation]). Furthermore, Liu teaches that multiple sensing bodies can be used, which are all electrically connected to each other and to the conductor 5 ([page 3 of translation]). Utilizing multiple, electrically connected sensing portion increases the area of contact between the conductive fabric 2 and the subject being measured, thus improving measurement precision ([page 3 of translation]). Additionally, Liu teaches that the shape of each sensing portion can be freely selected according to need ([page 4 of translation]). For instance, each sensor portion can be a cylinder, quadrangular prism, pentagonal prism, hexagonal prism, etc. ([page 4 of translation]). Each of the shapes listed is a convex shape since all of the interior angles are less than 180 degrees. The sensing bodies can be at least two sensing bodies ([page 3 of translation]). Placing two sensing bodies of the same shape side by side would inherently form a symmetrical structure. Modifying Zhang such that the single functioning electrode is split into two pieces with two conductive cloths that are symmetrical and convex shaped is simply an obvious change of shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the electrodes of Zhang into whatever form or shape was desired or expedient since the applicant has not provided criticality to the chosen embodiment and in fact discloses the embodiment shown in Zhang as an alternative. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Zhang such that the single functioning electrode is split into two pieces with two conductive cloths that are symmetrical and convex shaped because changing the shape and number of electrode pieces connected to a single connection part is known in the art as taught by Liu in order to improve the contact area and measurement quality of the electrode.
However, the Zhang/Liu combination is silent to the electrode parts having protrusion parts which are arranged to directly contact the electrode connection part.
Liu ‘927 teaches an apparatus for collecting multi-lead ECG signals ([Abstract]). As seen in Fig. 4A, the electrodes form squares with protruding parts which connect to a centrally located connection portion. The protrusion is labelled as “interconnect” which is the same layer as the electrode as shown by Figs. 1 and 3. The protrusions of each electrode converge on a singular location for connection to the circuitry as seen in Fig. 4A ([0042], [0047]). Since Liu already teaches that there can be two electrode parts of any shape electrically connected to a single connector, it would be an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the electrode parts to shapes taught by Liu ‘927 such that each electrode part has a protrusion part that directly contacts the single connection area. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Furthermore, adjusting the location of the connection part of the Zhang/Liu combination such that it directly contacts the protrusion parts is within ordinary level of skill in the art. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The instant application does not provide any criticality to this shape or the connection to a single connection part. This is evidenced by the inclusion of alternate embodiments, such as that in Fig. 1, which simply show singular, square electrode parts each connected to a single connection part, which is the same as the structure disclosed by Zhang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the shape of the electrode parts of the Zhang/Liu combination as taught by Liu ‘927 such that they have symmetrical protrusion parts to directly connect to the connection part and to rearrange the location of the connection part of Liu such that it is centered between the two protrusions for direct contact.
However, the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination is silent to the adhesive layer and the two conductive cloths being arranged on the same one side of the body and the adhesive layer not completely covered by the two electrode parts of the two conductive cloths.
Zhang further discloses that the substrate can be an elastic bandage ([Page 3 of translation]). It is known in the art that elastic bandages comprise adhesives on the skin side of the bandage in order to adhere to the skin, as evidenced by Docuses (https://docuses.com/docuses.com/elastic-adhesive-bandage-10cm-x-1m-box-pack-1/?srsltid=AfmBOoqdEArqBDgt4uKgPiLw3o1LIP-sRkaHlhmuS-_L5tn2KeEcxPkL). Similar to the instant application, Zhang can be a non-adhesive bandage as described in the non-final rejection comprising snaps and a tight fit, or be an adhesive bandage as described on page 2 of the translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the adhesive disclosed by Zhang on the skin side of the bandage in order to adequately adhere to the skin which would result in the adhesive layer not being completely covered by the two electrode parts of the conductive cloths as the conductive cloths only cover a small portion of the base body and the adhesive layer would need access to the skin.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Castagna et al. (hereinafter ‘Castagna’, US 20190313968 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination discloses the invention of claim 1 as described above. Zhang further discloses that the electrode cloths are made of silver-plated fibers which are interpreted to form the electrode parts (Zhang [Page 4 of Translation]).
However, Zhang is silent to whether the fibers are woven to create a mesh-like structure.
Castagna teaches a wearable electrode apparatus for ECG signal acquisition ([0001]). Castagna further teaches the cloth electrodes are composed of horizontally and vertically embroidered stainless steel yarns crossing one another over the cloth fabric, in a single manner or associated to silver- and/or carbon-based dye or paste or fabric, so as to form a mesh to widen the surface contacting the underlying skin ([0048]). The electrodes of the fabric are composed of stretchable silver- and/or carbon-based conductive pastes, dyes or fabrics to print low voltage electric circuits over elastic films and textile substrates, having excellent stretchability, gripping capability and conductibility ([0048]). Because both the Zhang/Liu combination and Castagna utilize silver-based fabrics to create cloth electrodes, it would be of routine skill in the art to combine the cloth electrodes of Castagna with those of the Zhang/Liu combination. This combination would create a mesh cloth, which inherently creates mesh pores, that imparts improved contact, stretchability, gripping capability, and conductibility. Additionally, the combination of the two cloth electrodes would maintain operability of the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination and would not lead to any unexpected effects as the electrode cloths would continue to receive sensed signals, just with improved mechanical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrode cloth of Castagna with that of the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination such that the electrode cloths are a woven mesh of silver and/or stainless fibers that imparts improved electrical and mechanical properties.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Simhag et al. (hereinafter ‘Simhag’, WO 2017039518 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination discloses the invention substantially in claim 1 as described above.
However, the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination is silent to using a wire to connect the electrode parts of the conductive cloths to the electrode connection part.
Simhag teaches an adhesive patch with electrodes for measuring ECG. Simhag further teaches that the electrodes are embedded in a bandage, similar to that of the Zhang/Liu combination ([0049]). The electrodes of Simhag are connected to wires 40 which then connect to an electrical connection 60 which is a port for transmission ([0054]). The port 60 acts in the same manner as the electrical connection of the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination as it connects the electrode to the controller or device for further processing. While the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination does not require a wire connection as the lower part 4 is already maintaining electrical communication with the conductive fibers of the conductive cloths, the addition of a wire connecting the conductive cloth and the electrical connection portion would not adversely affect the operating nature of the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination. The device of the Zhang/Liu/Liu ‘927 combination would maintain operability and no unexpected results would occur if a wire were to be included between the conductive cloths and the connection part. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a wire between the conductive cloth and the connection port like Simhag, since applicant has not disclosed that the use of a wire between the conductive cloth and the connection part over a direct connection between the cloth and the connection part solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a direct connection between the cloth and connection part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objection are persuasive in light of the newly submitted drawings. The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claim requires each electrode part to have a protrusion part. Based on Figs. 4 and 5 of the instant application, the protrusions make the electrode parts into a concave shape, thus they do not form a convex shape. Additionally, the disclosure does not state anywhere that the electrode parts are each convex shaped with protrusion parts that extend towards each other to form a convex shape. The shapes shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are concave as stated above and the specification is silent to the electrode parts being both convex and having protrusion parts. The protrusion parts are a part of the electrode part and the specification states that the electrode parts each form convex shape. The only support for the protrusion parts is in Figs. 4 and 5 which show concave electrode parts. The instant application does not have support for the electrode parts being convex with protrusion parts nor does it have support for the two electrode parts together forming a convex shape. Thus, claim 1 is rejected under 112a for introducing new matter and 112b because it is unclear how the claimed shape is intended to be formed.
Should the applicant wish to claim the protruding parts of Figs. 4 and 5, the shape formed cannot be described as convex since it is not, by definition, a convex shape. Instead, the shape of each electrode part or the shape they form together should be specifically described.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Liu ‘927 is now used to teach forming electrode parts that are convex shaped with protruding parts that converge on a single contact area. Then a rearrangement of parts is used to move the connection part to the convergence, which is well within an ordinary level of skill in the art, which would lead to direct contact. Liu teaches that there can be two or more electrode parts of any shape electrically connected to a single connector, it would be an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the electrode parts to shapes taught by Liu ‘927 such that each electrode part has a protrusion part that directly contacts the single connection area. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Furthermore, adjusting the location of the connection part of the Zhang/Liu combination such that it directly contacts the protrusion parts is within ordinary level of skill in the art. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The instant application does not provide any criticality to this shape or the connection to a single connection part. This is evidenced by the inclusion of alternate embodiments, such as that in Fig. 1, which simply show singular, square electrode parts each connected to a single connection part, which is the same as the structure disclosed by Zhang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the shape of the electrode parts of the Zhang/Liu combination as taught by Liu ‘927 such that they have symmetrical protrusion parts to directly connect to the connection part and to rearrange the location of the connection part of Liu such that it is centered between the two protrusions for direct contact.
Therefore, the rejection to claim 1 remains.
The rejections to the dependent claims were not specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments and thus their rejections remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E MOSSBROOK whose telephone number is (703)756-1936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights