DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 7/23/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending, claim 16 has been added. A final action on the merits of claims 1-20 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 15 and 17 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.
Claim 15 states the “first electrode body is configured to electrically couple to the second electrode tip.” This is new matter added as a result of the amendment and does not have support in the specification of the instant application. In paragraph [0049] of the specification, it states that the electrode tip of the second electrode can be transiently coupled to the electrode body of the second electrode, and paragraph [0073] states that each electrode can be configured to transiently receive electrode tips of any type. However, based on the claims on which claim 15 depends, the second electrode tip is part of the second electrode and is not intended to be connected to the first electrode while remaining connected to the second electrode. Therefore, because there is not support in the specification for the second electrode tips being electrically connected to the first electrode body, the claim is rejected.
Claim 17 is rejected due to its dependance on claim 15.
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 15 and 17 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 15 states “first electrode body is configured to electrically couple to the second electrode tip.” It is unclear how the second electrode tip is intended to electrically connect to the first electrode body. When the second electrode tip is connected to the second electrode body, the specification does not disclose how it would also electrically connect to the first electrode body. Therefore, because it is indefinite how the second electrode tip is configured to electrically connect to the first electrode body, the claim is rejected.
Claim 17 is rejected due to its dependance on claim 15.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al. (hereinafter ‘Jovanovic’, US 20170258400 A1) in view of Cramer et al. (hereinafter ‘Cramer’, US 20170055903 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jovanovic discloses a headset for collecting biosignal data (system shown in Figs. 4A-E), comprising:
a band (band 108 in Fig. 4B);
an electrode body (electrode body 500 in Fig. 10);
a support block (support 440n in Fig. 4D) comprising a distal surface (inner surface facing toward the head in Fig. 4D):
inwardly offset from the band (the supports 440a-n have inward offsets as seen in the circled portion of 440b in Fig. 4D; inward offset also visible as the portion of 440n under the band in Fig. 4D);
configured to rest against a head of a user (440n rests against head of user in Fig. 4D);
configured to support a first portion of a weight of the headset on the head of the user ([0078]: the supports are configured to provide support for the electrodes; the support 440n is supporting a portion of the weight of the band connecting to it in Fig. 4D since it contacts the head and the band does not); and
adjacent to the electrode body (the supports surround the electrode body as seen in Fig. 4D and are thus adjacent to the electrode)
an electrode tip (tip comprising points 510 and 512 in Fig. 7-11) comprising a set of contact surfaces (contact surfaces 1008 in Fig. 10) configured to contact the scalp of the user ([0087]: the contact surfaces 1008 contact the scalp); and
a spring element (spring 504 in Fig. 10 and 11) coupled to the electrode body (coupled to the movable portion 1000 of the electrode body as seen in Fig. 10):
configured to locate the set of contact surfaces of the electrode tip inwardly past the distal surface of the support block ([0089]: in the resting position, the top ends of the electrode body are flush with the opening of the guide and the ends are extended towards the scalp past the opening in the support) and support a second portion of the weight of the headset on the head of the user ([0089]: in the resting position, the top ends of the electrode body are flush with the opening of the guide and the ends are extended towards the scalp past the opening in the support; thus when in use, the spring supports a portion of the weight of the headset on the head of the user as it supporting the pressure of the head on the electrode tip)
configured to enable displacement of the electrode body toward the band responsive to contact between the electrode tip and the scalp of the user ([0091]: in the retracted position, the top ends of the movable portion of the electrode body are forced through the opening in the guide and the spring is placed under tension and provides force against the scalp when the electrodes are secured against the scalp).
PNG
media_image1.png
265
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Jovanovich does not disclose that the support block enables manual access.
Cramer discloses a holding arrangement for bioelectric use where the electrode is attached to a spring element and positioned on the body’s surface ([Abstract]). Cramer further discloses that the system is a headband as shown in Fig. 12 wherein the electrodes are disposed between support blocks 70a and 70b as shown in Fig. 3. The support blocks maintain a certain distance between the electrode and the tissue surface and provides additional comfort to the user ([0038]). It would be of routine skill in the art to modify the support block of Jovanovich that surrounds the electrode to the support block arrangement of Cramer as doing so would not affect the functionality of Jovanovich and would simply lead to the expected outcome of providing open space on the front and back of the electrode. 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 support of Jovanovich with the support of Cramer such that support blocks are disposed adjacent to each side of the electrode with openings on the front and back which would allow for manual access as doing so would create distance between the electrode body and tissue and provide for additional user comfort.
However, the Jovanovich/Cramer combination does not disclose that the spring, in a compressed position, enables displacement of the electrode body toward the band responsive to contact between the electrode tip and the scalp of the user.
The spring 504 of Jovanovich is extended to provide compressive force against the scalp of the user as described in paragraph [0091]. 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 move the spring into the inner space of the electrode as shown in the annotated image below because the spring would still function in the same manner. Placing a spring internal to the electrode such that it exerts downward pressure when compressed is contemplated by Jovanovic through springs 1006. Modifying the spring 504 to a spring like 1006 is of routine skill in the art. In a relaxed position, the tops of the electrode tips would be flush with the opening and in a compressed position, a force would still be applied to the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp. Therefore, moving the spring would not affect functionality and solve the same issues, namely providing a force onto the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp, as the instant application and Jovanovich, thus it would be an obvious design choice.
PNG
media_image3.png
498
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the Jovanovich/Cramer combination discloses the headset of Claim 1, wherein the electrode body further comprises:
a proximal end (top end of electrode body 500 in Fig. 10) coupled to a first node (first node 202a in Fig. 3) of the headset ([0093]: the signals are transferred through the electrodes to the first connector 202a through electrical coupling; the proximal end of the electrode body would couple with the aperture 200a when connected to the connector 506); and
a first magnetic element (connector 506 in Fig. 5 is magnetic) arranged on a distal end of the electrode body (connector 506 can be arranged on a distal end of the electrode body as seen in Figs. 11 and 15 when in the applied state), comprising a conductive surface ([0093]: electrical signals are transferred through the connectors; the ability to transfer electrical signals discloses a conductive surface), and electrically coupled to the controller ([0075]: a controller can be connected to electrical connector 300 which can be connected to traces that connect to the PCBs and then the electrodes; [0093]: the EEG signal is transferred from the pins through the electrode protrusions through the connector which connects to the PCB).
Regarding claim 3, the Jovanovich/Cramer combination discloses the headset of Claim 1, wherein the electrode body further comprises a retraction shoulder (shoulders in Fig. 8 circled below; are capable of being used to press the electrode back and out of the connection to the headband) extending laterally from the electrode body (extend outward from the center of the electrode body as seen in Fig. 8) between the band and the electrode tip (they are above the electrode tips as seen in Fig. 8 and would be below the band based on the apertures in Fig. 4E when connected).
PNG
media_image4.png
270
208
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the Jovanovich/Cramer combination discloses the headset of Claim 1:
wherein the spring element is:
interposed between the band and the electrode body (based on Fig. 10, the spring 504 is coupled to connector 506; [0053]: the connector couples to the band; and the spring extends above the connector into the electrode body as seen in Fig. 11, thus the body of the spring would be between the band and the top of the electrode body when connected); and
configured to support manual retraction of the electrode tip past the distal surface of the support block toward the band in order to separate the electrode tip from the scalp of the user (configured to language interpreted functionally and the tips of Jovanovic are capable of manual retraction towards the band as seen in Figs. 9 and 11 where the tips retracted even with the body of the electrode)
Regarding claim 5, the Jovanovich/Cramer combination discloses the headset of Claim 1, further comprising a second electrode tip ([0081]: multiple electrode units 500 are used in the system which comprise additional contact tips) comprising a second set of contact surfaces (contact surfaces 1008 in Fig 10) distinct from the set of contact surfaces ([0081]: multiple electrode units 500 are used, this statement discloses that the subsequent electrodes would have the same parts as the first one but are present on a separate, distinct unit).
Regarding claim 6, the Jovanovich/Cramer combination discloses the headset of Claim 5/1 and described above:
wherein the set of contact surfaces defines a first set of pronged contact elements (the first electrode unit 500 has pronged contact elements 1002 that form the body of the contact surface as seen in Fig. 10) of a first length (the first length is the length of the pronged elements on the first electrode unit); and
wherein the second set of contact surfaces of the second electrode tip (tip comprising points 510 and 512 in Fig. 7 of the second electrode unit) defines a second set of pronged elements (the second electrode unit 500 has pronged contact elements 1002 that form the body of the contact surface as seen in Fig. 10) of a second length (the second length is the length of the pronged elements on the second electrode unit).
the Jovanovich/Cramer combination discloses the claimed invention except for the second length being greater than the first length. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the second length greater than the first length to improve scalp contact, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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 7, the Jovanovich/Cramer combination discloses the headset of Claim 6, wherein the spring element is configured to:
drive the first set of contact surfaces of the first electrode tip into the scalp of the user with a first force within the range of target electrode tip forces ([0087]: the spring on the first electrode supplies force to the tip of the electrode such that the electrode contacts the scalp with enough force to read EEG signals and increase comfort and wearability); and
drive the second set of contact surfaces of the second electrode tip into the scalp of the user with a second force approximating the first force ([0087]: the spring on the second electrode supplies force to the tip of the electrode such that the electrode contacts the scalp with enough force to read EEG signals and increase comfort and wearability, which would be the same force as the first electrode since the electrode units are identical).
Claim(s) 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic.
Regarding independent claim 8, Jovanovic discloses a biosignal headset system (headset system shown in Figs. 4A-E) comprising:
a band (band 108 in Fig. 4B);
a support block (support 440n in Fig. 4D) arranged on the band (support 440n is on the band as seen in Fig. 4D) and comprising a distal surface (inner surface facing toward the head in Fig. 4D) configured to support a portion of a weight of the headset on a head of a user ([0078]: the supports are configured to provide support for the electrodes; the support 440n is supporting the weight of the band connecting to it in Fig. 4D since it contacts the head and the band does not);
a first electrode body (electrode body 500 in Fig. 10) arranged adjacent the support block ([0078]: support 440n has aperture 200n that center and support the electrodes; as seen in Fig. 4D the support surrounds the electrode and is thus adjacent to it) and coupled to an electrode (electrode tips comprising points 510 and 512 in Fig. 7 with contact surfaces 1008);
a second electrode body ([0081]: multiple electrode units 500 are used in the system) arranged opposite the first electrode body and adjacent the support block (since opposite is not defined, it is interpreted as opposite a side of the support block; second electrode space shown below); and
a spring element (spring 504 in Fig. 10) coupled to the first electrode body (coupled to the movable portion of the electrode body 1000 as seen in Fig. 10) such that:
in a resting position (resting position shown in Figs. 8 and 10), the spring element locates a set of contact surfaces of an electrode tip, coupled to the first electrode body, inwardly past the distal surface of the support block ([0089]: in the resting position, the top ends of the electrode body are flush with the opening of the guide and the ends are extended towards the scalp past the opening in the support); and
the spring element enables displacement of the first electrode body toward the band responsive to contact between the electrode tip and the scalp of the user ([0091]: in the retracted position, the top ends of the movable portion of the electrode body are forced through the opening in the guide and the spring is placed under tension and provides force against the scalp when the electrodes are secured against the scalp).
PNG
media_image5.png
393
341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Jovanovich does not disclose that the spring, in a compressed position, enables displacement of the electrode body toward the band responsive to contact between the electrode tip and the scalp of the user.
The spring 504 of Jovanovich is extended to provide compressive force against the scalp of the user as described in paragraph [0091]. 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 move the spring into the inner space of the electrode as shown in the annotated image above because the spring would still function in the same manner. Placing a spring internal to the electrode such that it exerts downward pressure when compressed is contemplated by Jovanovic through springs 1006. Modifying the spring 504 to a spring like 1006 is of routine skill in the art. In a relaxed position, the tops of the electrode tips would be flush with the opening and in a compressed position, a force would still be applied to the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp. Therefore, moving the spring would not affect functionality and solve the same issues, namely providing a force onto the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp, as the instant application and Jovanovich, thus it would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 9, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 8, wherein the electrode tip comprises a set of contact surfaces (contact surfaces 1008 in Fig. 10) configured to contact the head of the user ([0087]: the contact surfaces 1008 contact the scalp).
Regarding claim 10, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 9, wherein the first electrode body is further configured to transiently couple to the electrode tip and to communicate a sense signal from the electrode tip to a controller ([0075]: a controller can be connected to electrical connector 300 which can be connected to traces that connect to the PCBs and then the electrodes; [0093]: the EEG signal is transferred from the pins through the electrode body through the connector which connects to the PCB).
Regarding claim 11, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 10, wherein the first electrode body further comprises:
a proximal end (top end of electrode body in Fig. 10) coupled to a first node (first node 202a in Fig. 3) of the headset ([0093]: the signals are transferred through the electrodes to the first connector 202a through electrical coupling; the proximal end of the electrode body would couple with the aperture 200a when connected to the connector 506); and
a first magnetic element (connector 506 in Fig. 5 is magnetic) arranged on a distal end of the electrode body (connector 506 can be arranged on a distal end of the electrode body as seen in Figs. 11 and 15 when in the applied state), comprising a conductive surface ([0093]: electrical signals are transferred through the connectors; the ability to transfer electrical signals discloses a conductive surface), and electrically coupled to the controller ([0075]: a controller can be connected to electrical connector 300 which can be connected to traces that connect to the PCBs and then the electrodes; [0093]: the EEG signal is transferred from the pins through the electrode protrusions through the connector which connects to the PCB).
Regarding claim 12, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 9, wherein the second electrode body is coupled to a second electrode tip (tip comprising points 510 and 512 in Fig. 7 of the second electrode unit) comprising a second set of contact surfaces (contact surfaces 1008 in Fig 10) configured to contact the head of the user ([0087]: the contact surfaces 1008 contact the scalp).
Regarding claim 13, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 12/9/8 and described above:
wherein the set of contact surfaces defines a first set of pronged contact elements (the first electrode unit 500 has pronged contact elements 1002 that form the body of the contact surface as seen in Fig. 10) of a first length (the first length is the length of the pronged elements on the first electrode unit); and
wherein the second set of contact surfaces of the second electrode tip defines a second set of pronged elements (the second electrode unit 500 has pronged contact elements 1002 that form the body of the contact surface as seen in Fig. 10) of a second length (the second length is the length of the pronged elements on the second electrode unit).
Jovanovic discloses the claimed invention except for the second length being greater than the first length. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the second length greater than the first length to improve scalp contact, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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 14, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 13,
wherein the spring element is configured to drive the first set of contact surfaces of the first electrode tip into the scalp of the user with a first force within the range of target electrode tip forces ([0087]: the spring on the first electrode supplies force to the tip of the electrode such that the electrode contacts the scalp with enough force to read EEG signals and increase comfort and wearability); and
further comprising a second spring element (spring element 504 of second electrode) configured to drive the second set of contact surfaces of the second electrode tip into the scalp of the user with a second force approximating the first force ([0087]: the spring on the second electrode supplies force to the tip of the electrode such that the electrode contacts the scalp with enough force to read EEG signals and increase comfort and wearability, which would be the same force as the first electrode since the electrode units are identical).
Regarding claim 15, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 12, wherein the second electrode body (second electrode body 500 in Fig. 10) is further configured to electrically couple to the second electrode tip and to communicate a sense signal from the electrode tip to a controller ([0075]: a controller can be connected to electrical connector 300 which can be connected to traces that connect to the PCBs and then the electrodes; [0093]: the EEG signal is transferred from the pins through the electrode body through the connector which connects to the PCB).
Regarding claim 16, Jovanovic discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising:
a second support block (support adjacent to 440n as highlighted above in Fig. 4D) comprising a second distal surface (inner surface of second support facing toward the head in Fig. 4D):
configured to support a second portion of the weight of the headset on the head of the user ([0078]: the supports are configured to provide support for the electrodes; the second support is supporting the weight of the band connecting to it in Fig. 4D since it contacts the head and the band does not); and
coupled to the second electrode body ([0078]: supports have apertures like 200n that center and support the electrodes; as seen in Fig. 4D the support surrounds the electrode and is coupled to it);
a second electrode tip (tip comprising points 510 and 512 in Fig. 7 of the second electrode unit) comprising a set of contact surfaces (contact surfaces 1008 in Fig 10) configured to contact the head of the user ([0087]: the contact surfaces 1008 contact the scalp); and
a second spring element (spring element 504 of the second electrode) coupled to the second electrode body (coupled to movable part 1000 of the second electrode as in Fig. 10):
configured to support a third portion of the weight of the headset on the head of the user ([0089]: in the resting position, the top ends of the electrode body are flush with the opening of the guide and the ends are extended towards the scalp past the opening in the support; thus, when in use, the spring supports a portion of the weight of the headset on the head of the user as it supporting the pressure of the head on the electrode tip); and
configured to enable displacement of the second electrode body toward the support block responsive to contact between the second electrode tip and the scalp of the user ([0091]: in the retracted position, the top ends of the movable portion of the electrode body are forced through the opening in the guide and the spring is placed under tension and provides force against the scalp when the electrodes are secured against the scalp).
However, Jovanovich does not disclose that the second spring, in a compressed position, enables displacement of the electrode body toward the band responsive to contact between the electrode tip and the scalp of the user.
The second spring 504 of Jovanovich is extended to provide compressive force against the scalp of the user as described in paragraph [0091]. 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 move the spring into the inner space of the electrode as shown in the annotated image above because the spring would still function in the same manner. Placing a spring internal to the electrode such that it exerts downward pressure when compressed is contemplated by Jovanovic through springs 1006. Modifying the second spring 504 to a spring like 1006 is of routine skill in the art. In a relaxed position, the tops of the electrode tips would be flush with the opening and in a compressed position, a force would still be applied to the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp. Therefore, moving the spring would not affect functionality and solve the same issues, namely providing a force onto the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp, as the instant application and Jovanovich, thus it would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 17, Jovanovic discloses the system of Claim 15, further comprising the controller ([0075]: a controller can be connected to electrical connector 300) transiently connectable to the electrode tip or the second electrode tip ([0075]: a controller can be connected to electrical connector 300 which can be connected to traces that connect to the PCBs and then the electrodes; [0093]: the EEG signal is transferred from the pins through the electrode body through the connector which connects to the PCB).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic in view of Hagedorn (US 20150051663 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Jovanovic discloses a biosignal data collection system (system shown in Figs. 4A-E) comprising:
an electrode body (electrode body 500 in Fig. 10) arranged on a headset band (electrodes 500 connect to apertures 200 on the headset in Figs. 4A-E) and comprising a first magnetic element (connector 506 in Fig. 5 is magnetic) arranged on a distal end of the electrode body (connector 506 can be arranged on a distal end of the electrode body as seen in Figs. 11 and 15 when in the applied state) and comprising a conductive surface ([0093]: electrical signals are transferred through the connectors; the ability to transfer electrical signals discloses a conductive surface);
a kit of electrode tips (electrode tips 510 and 512 in Fig. 7), each electrode tip in the kit of electrode tips:
defining a length proportional to a length of a support block (the electrode tips in Fig. 7 have a length; this length defines a length that is proportional to a length of the support block because each has a length; the claim does not require that the lengths of the electrode tips change or be adjustable)
the support block (support 440n in Fig. 4D) arranged on the headset band (supports are arranged on band 108 as seen in Figs. 4B) and configured to support a weight of a headset on the scalp of the user ([0078]: the supports are configured to provide support for the electrodes; the support 440n is supporting the weight of the band connecting to it in Fig. 4D since it contacts the head and the band does not); and
a spring element (spring 504 in Fig. 10) coupled to the electrode body (coupled to the movable portion 1000 electrode body as seen in Fig. 10) such that:
in a resting position (resting position shown in Figs. 8 and 10), the spring element locates the electrode tip inwardly past the distal surface of the support block ([0089]: in the resting position, the top ends of the electrode body are flush with the opening of the guide and the ends are extended towards the scalp past the opening in the support); and
the spring element enables displacement of the electrode body toward the headset band responsive to contact between the electrode tip and the scalp of the user ([0091]: in the retracted position, the top ends of the electrode are forced through the opening in the guide and the spring is compressed when the electrodes are secured against the scalp).
However, Jovanovic does not disclose each electrode tip in the kit of electrode tips comprising a secondary magnetic element configured to transiently couple the electrode tip to the first magnetic element.
Hagedorn teaches utilizing a headset as seen in Fig. 8 to collect EEG data ([0037]). Hagedorn further teaches utilizing magnets such that dry sensors can be attached and provide for easy removal and replacement and to allow for alternate sensor or electrode type attachments to be utilized ([0100]). It would be routine for one skilled in the art to add magnets to the sensing electrode tips of Jovanovic which would result in the ability to remove the tips and transiently couple them to the first magnetic connector which is attached to the body of the electrode. 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 magnetic attachments of Hagedorn with the sensing electrode tips of Jovanovic so they can be easily removed and exchanged for other types of tip attachments.
However, the Jovanovich/Hagedorn combination does not disclose that the spring, in a compressed position, enables displacement of the electrode body toward the band responsive to contact between the electrode tip and the scalp of the user.
The spring 504 of Jovanovich is extended to provide compressive force against the scalp of the user as described in paragraph [0091]. 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 move the spring into the inner space of the electrode as shown in the annotated image above because the spring would still function in the same manner. Placing a spring internal to the electrode such that it exerts downward pressure when compressed is contemplated by Jovanovic through springs 1006. Modifying the spring 504 to a spring like 1006 is of routine skill in the art. In a relaxed position, the tops of the electrode tips would be flush with the opening and in a compressed position, a force would still be applied to the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp. Therefore, moving the spring would not affect functionality and solve the same issues, namely providing a force onto the electrodes to maintain contact with the scalp, as the instant application and Jovanovich, thus it would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 19, the Jovanovic/Hagedorn combination discloses the system of Claim 18, wherein the kit of electrode tips comprises:
a first electrode tip (electrode tip 510 in Fig. 7) comprising a first contact surface (contact surface 1008 on tip 510 in Fig. 10) in a first configuration (510 is on the left-hand side of the electrode body in Fig. 10, creating the first configuration); and
a second electrode tip (electrode tip 512 in Fig. 7) comprising a second contact surface (contact surface 1008 on tip 512 in Fig. 10) in a second configuration (512 is on the right-hand side of the electrode body in Fig. 10 creating a second configuration) distinct from the first configuration (the configurations are distinct as the first tip is on the left-hand side of the electrode body and the second tip is on the right-hand side of the electrode body).
Regarding claim 20, the Jovanovic/Hagedorn combination discloses the system of Claim 19, wherein the spring element is configured to:
drive the first contact surface of the first electrode tip into the scalp of the user with a first force within the range of target electrode tip forces ([0087]: the spring on the first electrode tip supplies force to the tip of the electrode such that the electrode contacts the scalp with enough force to read EEG signals and increase comfort and wearability); and
drive the second contact surface of the second electrode tip into the scalp of the user with a second force approximating the first force ([0087]: the spring on the second electrode tip supplies force to the tip of the electrode such that the electrode contacts the scalp with enough force to read EEG signals and increase.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 7/23/2025, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objections of the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 7/23/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added claim 16. The objection of claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 7/23/2025, with respect to the 112b rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 9, 12, 14, and 17-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 112b rejections of claims 1-14, and 17-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112b rejection of claim 15 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 15 to state that the first electrode body is electrically coupled to the second electrode tip. This is indefinite because the specification does not disclose the first electrode body electrically coupled to the second electrode tip. Therefore, the claim is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 18 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant relies on the suggestions from the interview dated 6/11/2025 for the amendments to claims 8 and 18. While the applicant has amended claims 8 and 18 which approaches the examiner’s suggestions regarding defining the lengths of the electrodes in the kit and the electrodes and support blocks being alternating entities, the amendments are not specific enough to overcome Jovanovic. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 7/23/2025, with respect to the statutory double patenting of claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments and the terminal disclaimer filed. The statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 7/23/2025, with respect to the non-statutory double patenting of claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the terminal disclaimer filed. The non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been withdrawn.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at (571)272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794