DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 3/6/2026. Claims 1-8 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-8 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhold et al. (hereinafter ‘Reinhold’, US 20140081118 A1) in view of Druke et al. (hereinafter ‘Druke’, US 20180200514 A1) and in further view of Lim et al. (hereinafter ‘Lim’, US 2016/0143554 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Reinhold discloses a belt (belt seen in Fig. 6), comprising:
a belt body (belt bands in Fig. 6) formed in a band shape having a longitudinal direction and a width direction perpendicular to said longitudinal directions (forms a band around the body as seen in Fig. 8 with the proper longitudinal and width directions); and
an electrode (electrode V3/23 in Fig. 6) including a plurality of electrode pieces (the electrode includes 3 pieces as seen in Fig. 6) disposed on one main surface of the belt body (disposed on the inside of the belt as seen in Fig. 6), the plurality of electrode pieces located side by side in said width direction of the belt body (the electrode pieces are stacked side by side in the short direction of the belt body as seen in Fig. 6), and connected to each other in a series by a signal line (the three of the electrode are connected in a straight line as indicated by the connecting line in Fig. 6).
wherein the belt body is flexible ([0084]: the electrode belt may be made from neoprene covered with nylon fabric which is ideal for repeated flexing applications and the belt is a stretch belt) and the electrode pieces are displaceable according to an upper arm when the belt body is wrapped around the upper arm (attaching the device to the upper arm is the intended use of the device as a chest strap can also be attached to the upper arm which would result in the electrode and corresponding pieces displacing around the upper arm – the claim is not specific as to how the electrodes displace relative to each other because even if the electrodes are attached to a rigid piece on the belt, they would all displace relative to other electrodes on the band when attached to the user’s body when the user moves; it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Fig. 6 of Reinhold appears to show that electrode V3 contains multiple electrode pieces connected in series by a signal line. These three pieces in Fig. 6 also appear to be plate shaped with gaps in between the individual pieces.
However, the specification of Reinhold is silent to this configuration so it is unclear if the pieces are simply illustrative or constitute individual sensing components of the electrode.
Druke teaches a patch which contains electrodes and further states that the same electrodes and components can be used for either stimulating or sensing depending upon whether they are connected to a stimulating circuit or a sensing circuit ([0052]). Druke further states that each electrode may contain a plurality of conductive contacts that give the electrode the ability to adjust the depth, directionality, and spatial distribution of the applied electric field ([0075]). These benefits would be obvious for a sensing electrode as well because they are able to adjust the directionality and spatial distribution based on the sensed field. Additionally, as seen in Fig. 9, these electrode pieces are plate shaped and can take multiple orientations such as those seen in the second and fourth electrode examples, which stack the electrode pieces in varying directions on the band. These pieces are plate shaped since they are rectangular and flat and have gaps between each of the individual pieces. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 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 formed of electrode pieces stacked in the width direction of the band as taught by Druke with the electrodes of Reinhold such that each electrode is made of multiple plate shaped electrode pieces, separated by gaps, stacked in the width direction of the band which would allow for the electrodes the ability to adjust directionality and spatial distribution when applied to the intended surface.
This would inherently result in the electrode plate shaped electrode pieces with gaps between displacing relative to the upper arm when the band is placed around the upper arm since the electrode pieces would all move when the arm is flexed or moved. The claim does not require that the electrode pieces displace in any particular direction or that they displace relative to each other.
However, the Reinhold/Druke combination is silent to the electrode pieces being connected in series by a signal line.
Lim teaches a headband apparatus used for measuring bioelectrical signals which includes sensor electrodes capable of sensing brainwaves, ECG, EMG, ENG, or EOG signals ([Abstract], [0023]). Lim provides multiple options for the apparatus, including wearing around the wrist. For instance, paragraph [0048] states “the apparatus may include a band worn on the wrist. The apparatus may have a wristwatch shape. The main body of the apparatus may be provided on a watch portion of the wristwatch shape. The sensor electrode (or the sensor module) may be provided on an inner surface of the main body.” The headband of Lim contains multiple sensor modules 150 as seen in Fig. 1. Each sensor module has a plurality of electrode protrusions 151 as seen in Fig. 4. The electrode protrusions 151 may be connected in series by a wire which allows for the voltage measures of the biological signals to be summed together ([0235]). Summing the bioelectrical signals from the plurality of sensor electrodes allows for the detection of the signals that may normally be weak to be enhanced ([0235]). Furthermore, because the signals from each of the electrode protrusions are summed together, the sensor module functions as a single electrode. Each sensor module 150 functions as the electrodes 23 of Reinhold/Druke combination as each electrode/sensor module is detecting a discrete signal to be processed. 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 device of Reinhold/Druke combination with the series connection taught by Lim, thus each electrode piece of the plurality of electrode pieces are connected in series by a signal line to allow for the signals detected by each piece to be summed, thus enhancing the signal and arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discloses the invention substantially in claim 1 and described above. The combination further teaches the belt wherein lengths along a short direction of the plurality of electrode pieces along the width direction of the belt body are equal (widths of the electrode pieces are equal as seen in Fig. 9 of Druke).
Regarding claim 3, the Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discloses the invention substantially in claim 1 and described above. The combination further discloses the plurality of electrode pieces are three electrode pieces (there are at least three electrode pieces Druke Fig. 9)
Druke further teaches that there may be many other arrangements of electrodes and electrode contacts other than those shown in Fig. 9 ([0075]). While the instant application states that having a middle electrode piece larger than the end electrode pieces allows for better contact, this is not critical to the invention. The drawings of the instant application show 4 different electrode piece sizes and shapes as seen in Figs. 3, 6, 8, and 10. Each embodiment has its own benefit, for instance the embodiment in which the electrode pieces are the same shape and size reduces manufacturing costs (Instant application [0012]). Because the applicant provides a variety of options for the size and shape of the electrodes, it is not a critical aspect of the invention. The applicant even claims two separate embodiments as claim 2 claims equal sized electrode pieces. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of each electrode piece as taught by Druke such that the width of the middle electrode piece is increased relative to the end electrode pieces, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and doing so is of routine skill in the art depending on the use case as taught by Druke. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, the Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discloses the invention substantially in claim 1 and described above. The combination further discloses the belt wherein a plurality of the electrode, each including a plurality of electrode pieces, are disposed on said one main surface of the belt (there are multiple electrodes 23 on the inside of the belt as seen in Reinhold Fig. 6; since these are the electrodes as taught by Druke, each electrode contains a plurality of pieces disposed on the inside of the belt).
Regarding claim 5, the Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discloses an electrocardiographic measurement apparatus (apparatus in Reinhold Fig. 2-6) comprising:
the belt according to claim 1 (Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discussed above);
a device body (housing 11 in Reinhold Figs. 2-6) including a control board (control units shown in Fig. 4; [0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11) built in the device body ([0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11);
a wiring portion (Reinhold [0069]: electrical wiring is used to connect the electrodes) disposed on the belt body (in order to connect to the electrodes and the device body, the wiring is inherently disposed on the belt body at least where it connects to the electrodes) and electrically connecting the control board and the electrode (Reinhold [0069]: the electrical wirings connect the electrodes allow for the transfer of electrical activity of the heart collected by the electrodes to be transferred to the device).
Regarding claim 6, the Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discloses an electrocardiographic measurement apparatus (apparatus in Reinhold Fig. 2-6) comprising:
the belt according to claim 2 (Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discussed above);
a device body (housing 11 in Reinhold Figs. 2-6) including a control board (control units shown in Fig. 4; [0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11) built in the device body ([0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11);
a wiring portion (Reinhold [0069]: electrical wiring is used to connect the electrodes) disposed on the belt body (in order to connect to the electrodes and the device body, the wiring is inherently disposed on the belt body at least where it connects to the electrodes) and electrically connecting the control board and the electrode (Reinhold [0069]: the electrical wirings connect the electrodes allow for the transfer of electrical activity of the heart collected by the electrodes to be transferred to the device).
Regarding claim 7, the Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discloses an electrocardiographic measurement apparatus (apparatus in Reinhold Fig. 2-6) comprising:
the belt according to claim 3 (Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discussed above);
a device body (housing 11 in Reinhold Figs. 2-6) including a control board (control units shown in Fig. 4; [0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11) built in the device body ([0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11);
a wiring portion (Reinhold [0069]: electrical wiring is used to connect the electrodes) disposed on the belt body (in order to connect to the electrodes and the device body, the wiring is inherently disposed on the belt body at least where it connects to the electrodes) and electrically connecting the control board and the electrode (Reinhold [0069]: the electrical wirings connect the electrodes allow for the transfer of electrical activity of the heart collected by the electrodes to be transferred to the device).
Regarding claim 8, the Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discloses an electrocardiographic measurement apparatus (apparatus in Reinhold Fig. 2-6) comprising:
the belt according to claim 4 (Reinhold/Druke/Lim combination discussed above);
a device body (housing 11 in Reinhold Figs. 2-6) including a control board (control units shown in Fig. 4; [0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11) built in the device body ([0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic layout of the electronic components within the housing 11);
a wiring portion (Reinhold [0069]: electrical wiring is used to connect the electrodes) disposed on the belt body (in order to connect to the electrodes and the device body, the wiring is inherently disposed on the belt body at least where it connects to the electrodes) and electrically connecting the control board and the electrode (Reinhold [0069]: the electrical wirings connect the electrodes allow for the transfer of electrical activity of the heart collected by the electrodes to be transferred to the device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 regarding Reinhold have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially argues that Reinhold does not teach or suggest that the electrodes are not individual pieces connected in series but rather Fig. 6 is merely illustrative to show that the “multiple contacts” are redundancies for chest size accommodation. This is not persuasive. The specification of Reinhold is completely silent to whether the electrodes are multiple pieces and the reference to the accommodation of chest sizes relates to the different sized bands and electrode positions and makes no mention to Fig. 6, specifically. Additionally, applicant’s arguments regarding the V-leads is not persuasive. Each individual electrode is a V-lead in Reinhold. Each V-lead senses a signal. This does not address the line visible in Fig. 6 between each illustrated piece. Additionally, modifying the electrodes such that they have individual pieces that sum together to enhance the signal would be an obvious benefit to the device of Reinhold and is taught by Druke and Lim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the composition of the electrodes are not persuasive. While applicant states that even if the electrode pieces were provided in Reinhold, that they would be formed on an integral member of a resin material. Even if this were the case, which the specification of Reinhold does not clearly state, the claim language would still be met. There are still visible gaps between the electrode pieces and the pieces can all still displace around the upper arm. There is nothing in the claim to state that the gaps cannot be filled by another material and the claim is not specific to how the electrode pieces displace. When they are all connected, they still can displace relative to their original position on the body, they just all displace together. The claim does not state that they must displace relative to each other.
Regardless whether or not Reinhold discloses electrode pieces and a series connection through a signal line, Druke and Lim are used as teaching references to show that electrodes can contain multiple pieces and that those pieces can be connected in series to enhance a single measured signal.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the electrode pieces and Lim Applicant’s arguments with respect to Lim disclosing plate shaped electrode pieces have been 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, Druke is not used to teach a single electrode made of plate-shaped electrode pieces stacked in the width direction of the band.
Applicant’s arguments that Lim teaches summing between separate electrodes and not electrode pieces are not persuasive. This is simply semantics. The “electrodes” 151 of Lim sum together a single signal. They are sensing the same signal and summing together to provide a stronger output ([0235]). Each sensor module 150 has a plurality of protrusions 151 as seen in Fig. 4. Multiple sensor modules are used as seen in Fig. 40, for instance. Each sensor module is detecting a different signal. The use of electrodes vs. electrode pieces is simply semantics as the sensor structure (except for the shape and location which Lim is not used to teach) and function of the electrodes vs. the electrode pieces of Lim and the instant application are the same. Should there be a clear structural/functional difference between the series connection of the “electrodes” of Lim and the “electrode pieces” of the instant application, the applicant is encouraged to claim such a difference.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the “significance of differences” are not persuasive because the claim is not written specifically enough to capture these differences. The claim is not specific to how the electrode pieces displace relative to each other or whether the gaps between the electrodes are hollow or filled. Furthermore, the claim does not discuss the dimensions of the electrode pieces and thus the argument regarding the dimensions of Reinhold’s electrode pieces are not persuasive. Similarly, the claim does not recite that each electrode piece allows for independent movement along the belt and plate tilt, thus the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Wang are not persuasive because Wang is no longer used.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 remains because Druke has been introduced to teach the claimed electrode shape and disposition and the applicant’s arguments regarding Reinhold and Lim are not persuasive.
The rejections to the dependent claims remain because the rejection of claim 1 remains.
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