DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 01/05/2026 Claims 1-21 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-21 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly. As a result, the claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections of the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoch (U.S. Patent No. 5,313,952) in view of Marcolongo (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0211223).
Regarding claim 1, Hoch teaches A belt, comprising: a belt body configured to be wrapped around a living body (Fig 1 belt 12; Col 1 lines 15-20 discloses cardiac monitoring); three or more bases all disposed in a longitudinal direction of the belt body (Fig 1, apertures 26), the three or more base electrodes comprising the entirety of base electrodes on the belt body (apertures 26); and two or more cap electrodes detachable and attachable to the base electrodes and smaller in number than the number of base electrodes (Fig 1 electrode pad assemblies 14 is fewer in number than apertures 26), each cap electrode configured to be detachably combined with a base electrode (Figs 1-3, each electrode assembly 14 is detachably combined with an aperture 26); and wherein which pair of the two or more cap electrodes is selected to make an electrocardiogram measurement is configured to be the pair of the two or more cap electrodes exhibiting the highest intensity waveform (Col 4 lines 7-15 disclose selecting optimum electrode locations for precise placement on the body; the device is capable of allowing for the selected pair of cap electrodes 14 being the electrodes exhibiting the highest intensity waveform (i.e., the structure of the device enables a user to select the placement of two electrodes based on a tested highest intensity waveform of all possible pairs)).
Hoch fails to teach wherein the apertures are base electrodes configured for ECG measurement.
In related prior art, Marcolongo teaches a similar belt device, comprising: a belt body to be wrapped around a living body (Fig 6, belt body, [0013-0015] disclosing chest belt for ECG); three or more base electrodes configured for ECG measurement (Fig 6, [0030] contact members 1 are attached to underlying “supporting structures and the related electric wires in place”; examiner notes those structures are interpreted as the “base electrodes” for conveying physiological signals from a user); and two or more cap electrodes detachable and attachable to the base electrodes ([0030], contact members 1 are detachable). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apertures and cap electrodes of Hoch in view of Marcolongo to incorporate base electrodes of Marcolongo in place of the apertures and corresponding detachable cap electrodes such that there are fewer cap electrodes than base electrodes to arrive at claim 1. Doing so would advantageously enable the device for quick and easy placement of the cap electrodes in appropriate positions (Col 3 lines 51-55 of Hoch). Specifically providing the base and cap electrodes as described by Marcolongo would advantageously provide for quicker, easier, and cheaper preparation of the belt device of Hoch ([0030] Marcolongo).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the combination of claim 1 above, Hoch further teaches and the cap electrodes are fixed to the base electrodes selectively and detachably and attachably by inserting, magnetic force, or screwing (Fig 1 electorde assemblies 14 are selectively and detachably inserted into apertures).
Marcolongo further teaches wherein the base electrodes are fixed to the belt body by affixing, sewing, inserting, crimping, or magnetic force (base electrodes defined as “supporting structures and the related electric wires in place” are affixed to the belt device), and the cap electrodes are fixed to the base electrodes selectively and detachably and attachably by inserting, magnetic force, or screwing ([0030] press-fitting or snap fitting interpreted as ‘inserting’). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apertures and cap electrodes of Hoch in view of Marcolongo to incorporate base electrodes of Marcolongo in place of the apertures and corresponding detachable cap electrodes such that there are fewer cap electrodes than base electrodes to arrive at claim 2. Doing so would advantageously enable the device for quick and easy placement of the cap electrodes in appropriate positions (Col 3 lines 51-55 of Hoch). Specifically providing the base and cap electrodes as described by Marcolongo would advantageously provide for quicker, easier, and cheaper preparation of the belt device of Hoch ([0030] Marcolongo).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, in view of the combination of claims 1 and 2 as stated above, Hoch/Marcolongo further teaches wherein the cap electrodes include surfaces that are configured to be brought into contact with the living body, the surfaces being formed in a circular shape or a polygonal shape (Hoch electrode assemblies have circular shape and configured to be brought in contact with body; Marcolongo Fig 4-5 contact member is circular I shape and includes circular contact pads 3’’ to contact living body).
Regarding claims 4 and 9-11, in view of the combination of claims 1, 2, 3, and 8 as stated above, Hoch/Marcolongo further teaches wherein one of the base electrode and the cap electrode includes a recess, and another of the base electrode and the cap electrode includes an insertion portion to be inserted into the recess (Hoch Fig 1, electrode assembly 14 includes insertion portion to be received within aperture 26; Marcolongo [0030] disclosing snap fit or press fit which includes a recess and insertion portion).
Regarding claims 6 and 15-20, Hoch/Marcolongo further teaches wherein the cap electrode is a dry electrode or a wet electrode (electrodes are necessarily either dry or wet).
Regarding claim 7, the Hoch/Marcolongo combination teaches An electrocardiographic measurement apparatus, comprising: the belt according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a device body configured to detect an electrocardiographic waveform by the cap electrodes mounted on the base electrodes (Marcolongo, [0015] Fig 7, wireless transmitter 7 and control unit). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hoch in view of Marcolongo to incorporate a device body to detect an ECG waveform from the cap electrodes mounted to base electrodes to arrive at claim 7. Doing so would advantageously enable the device to measure and monitor ECG waveforms of a user to detect heart conditions as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 21, in view of the combination of claim 7 above, Hoch further teaches wherein electrode pairs of combined base and cap electrodes are configured to be selected over other possible combinations of electrode pairs (Col 3 lines 51-55, electrode assemblies are positioned at desired positions based on a selected aperture 26 selected over other possible apertures, thus are capable of being selected over other possible combinations of electrode pairs based on the intensity of ECG waveforms).
Marcolongo teaches a device body configured to detect an electrocardiographic waveform by the cap electrodes mounted on the base electrodes (Marcolongo, [0015] Fig 7, wireless transmitter 7 and control unit). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hoch in view of Marcolongo to incorporate a device body to detect an ECG waveforms such that the apertures/base electrodes are selected based on respective ECG waveforms to arrive at claim 21. Doing so would advantageously enable the device to measure and monitor ECG waveforms of a user to detect heart conditions as is known in the art such that the desired position of cap electrodes on a corresponding base electrode is based on an intensity of an ECG waveform.
Claim(s) 5 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoch in view of Marcolongo, and in further view of Zenkich (U.S. Patent No. 3,581,736).
Regarding claims 5 and 12-14, in view of the combination of claims 4, 9, 10, and 11, Hoch/Marcolongo teaches a snap fit or press fit connection between the recess and insertion portion (Marcolongo [0030]).
Hoch/Marcolongo fails to explicitly teach wherein the recess and the insertion portion are shaped to restrict rotation of the insertion portion around an axis of the insertion portion.
In related prior art, Zenkich teaches a similar device wherein an insertion portion and recess are shaped to restrict rotation of the insertion portion around an axis of the insertion portion (Fig 1 and Col 1 lns 35-41). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified base-cap electrode connection of Hoch in view of Marcolongo and Zenkich to incorporate the snap-fit connection preventing rotation around an axis of the insertion portion to arrive at the device of claims 5 and 12-14. Doing so would advantageously prevent the electrodes from rotating on the skin surface thus preventing undesired noise interference and discomfort to the user (Col 1 lines 35-41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2 of the remarks, applicant argues at point 1 that Hoch or Marcolongo do not teach “base electrodes”. These arguments are unpersuasive as Marcolongo explicitly teaches the use of base electrodes as underlying support structures that are capable of detachable connection to contact members 1 (i.e., cap electrodes). Applicant further argues that modifying Hoch in view of Marcolongo to provide said base electrodes as underlying conductive elements, rather than apertures would “fundamentally alter Hoch’s device” because “Hoch relies on the electrode assemblies being fully detachable and positionable in any subset of apertures to allow custom placement based on patient anatomy”. These arguments are unpersuasive as the substitution of the apertures of Hoch for the underlying conductive elements with detachable cap electrodes of Marcolongo would clearly still enable the selective placement of the electrodes on various “base electrodes” based on the patient’s anatomy. The applicant provides no evidence to the contrary except for an increased complexity and cost of the device.
At point 2 of the remarks, the applicant argues there is lack of motivation to provide fewer cap electrodes than base electrodes. These arguments are unpersuasive as the Hoch reference discloses fewer cap electrodes 14 than base electrodes 26, thus no motivation or modification is needed to teach the claimed limitation.
At point 3 of the remarks, the applicant argues that Hoch and Marcolongo fail to teach longitudinal arrangement of an entirety of the base electrodes. These arguments are unpersuasive as Hoch clearly teaches longitudinal arrangement of all electrodes.
In response to applicant's argument that neither Hoch or Marcolongo teach “measuring waveforms from different possible cap combinations on the excess conductive bases and configuring the system to use only the highest-intensity pair for ECG measurement” (Pg 4 of remarks), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The limitation corresponding to the above noted argument recites “wherein which pair of the two or more cap electrodes is selected to make an electrocardiogram measurement is configured to be the pair of the two or more cap electrodes exhibiting the highest intensity waveform”. It is noted that there are no processing or algorithmic claim language recited similar to that discussed on pages 5-7 of the remarks. The limitation, as presently recited, is merely functional and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and prior art. In the instant case, the Hoch reference is capable of (i.e., configured to) allowing for the measurement of waveform of different possible electrode combinations and selecting the highest intensity pair for ECG measurement.
For the purposes of expedited prosecution, the Examiner does note that the Kaib (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0288605) reference discloses in at least [0090-0091] that it is known in the art to utilize processing circuitry to measure waveforms of different electrode combinations and selecting the best quality signal.
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 Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794