DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2025, 01/16/2026, and 02/27/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claims Accounting
Applicant' s arguments, filed 12/12/2025, have been fully considered.
The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 12/12/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 17-19 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 1-10, 12-13, and 17-19 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 1 has been amended to recite “the first cable is held on the exterior surface of the first arm and along the extending direction of the first arm”. There is insufficient support for the claim limitation of “the first cable is held on the exterior surface of the first arm” in the original disclosure. Figs. 1-2 depict the cables being held on the interior surface of the first arm. Figs. 6-9 seem to depict details related to the cables being held on the interior of the first and second arms. Further, there is no recitation of the terms exterior, outside, or lateral that may coincide with the meaning of exterior in the written description that may provide support for this claim limitation.
As this claim limitation was not a part of the original disclosure, it is considered new matter. No support was found for the first cable being held on the exterior surface of the first arm.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10, 13, and 17-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AlterEgo: A Personalized Wearable Silent Speech Interface (2018) by Kapur et al. – previously cited, hereinafter “Kapur” in view of US Patent Publication 2018/0103850 by Tanaka, hereinafter “Tanaka”.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 1, Kapur teaches a wearable device attachable to a head and neck portion of a subject (AlterEgo wearable device shown worn on the head and neck in Figs. 3 and 6), the wearable device comprising: a base (See annotated Fig. 3); a first arm extending from the base (See annotated Fig. 3); a second arm extending from the base (See annotated Fig. 3); a first sensor that detects physical body data of the subject (Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, par. 1; “Signals are captured using electrodes”); and a signal processor (Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, par. 1-2; hardware to amplify signals, mark events, and wirelessly send data) that processes a detection signal from the first sensor (to process the data (i.e., detection signal)).
Kapur does not teach wherein a first cable is disposed along the first arm, the first sensor is connected to a first end of the first cable, or the signal processor is connected to the second end of the first cable, or wherein the signal processor is attached to the base.
Kapur teaches using the signals generated by the electrodes (Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware). It would be prima facie obvious to use a wired connection (e.g. a cable) to connect the sensors taught by Kapur to the signal processor to facilitate the transfer of data. This modification is obvious to try, comprising choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2141-III-E. The identified, predictable solutions include the sensors (electrodes) being connected to the signal processor via a wired connection or via a wireless connection. It is noted that this combination would result in each sensor taught by Kapur connecting to the first end of their respective cables, the cables disposed along the arm of the device, and the second end of the cable connecting to the signal processor. It is also noted that in this combination the base is attached to the first arm, which is attached to the first cable, which is attached to the signal processor. Therefore, the base is attached to the signal processor via the first arm and first cable.
Modified Kapur does not teach wherein the first cable is held on the exterior surface of the first arm and along the extending direction of the first arm.
Figs. 3-7 of Tanaka teaches a holding part 30 configured to maintain the length of a cable (in an extending direction and on the exterior of the device) within the part such that a probe (i.e., sensor) is held in place during use. The holding portion allows for adjustment to the length of the cable such that the probe is correctly positioned, and holds the cable such that the probe can be used stably for a long period of time ([0078}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device of Kapur such that the first cable is held on the exterior surface of the first arm and along the extending direction of the first arm, in order to enable adjustment and long-term holding of the cables when the sensors are in use, as taught by Tanaka ([0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, further comprising a first adjustment portion formed in the first arm and capable of adjusting a length of a portion of the first cable that protrudes from the first arm (Kapur, Wearable Form Design, “The extensions are designed to attach to the frame in a modular manner such that specific extensions and electrodes could be pulled out for further experimentation.” If the extensions are pulled out, the expandable portion must be housed in the first arm.).
Regarding claim 3, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second cable disposed along the second arm; and
a second sensor that is connected to a first end of the second cable (Kapur, Electrode; See Annotated Fig. 3) and detects physical body data of the subject (Kapur, Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, par. 1; “Signals are captured using electrodes”), wherein a second end of the second cable is connected to the signal processor (to process the data the cable must connect to the signal processor).
It is noted that in the modification of Kapur in the rejection of claim 1 above, cables connect each of the sensors to the signal processor and are disposed along their respective arms.
Regarding claim 4, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 3, further comprising a second adjustment portion formed in the second arm and capable of adjusting a length of a portion of the second cable that protrudes from the second arm (Kapur, Wearable Form Design, “The extensions are designed to attach to the frame in a modular manner such that specific extensions and electrodes could be pulled out for further experimentation.” If the extensions are pulled out, the expandable portion must be housed in the second arm.).
Regarding claim 10, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor detects a myoelectric potential of the subject (Kapur, Speech Synthesis and Electrophysiology, the myoelectric signature is detected by the system), the wearable device further comprises: a third cable disposed along the first arm; and a third sensor that is connected to a first end of the third cable (any of the remaining sensors on the first arm of Annotated Fig. 3 can be considered the third sensor, and the third cable is its corresponding wire/cable/lead) and a second end of the third cable is connected to the signal processor (to process the data the cable must connect to the signal processor).
Kapur in view of Tanaka does not teach that the third sensor detects a reference potential with the third sensor attached to a body of the subject who is wearing the wearable device.
Kapur teaches that a reference electrode may be placed either at the wrist or the earlobe (Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have further modified the third sensor of Kapur in view of Tanaka to detect a reference potential with the third sensor attached to a body of the subject who is wearing the wearable device.
Regarding claim 13, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein the first arm and the second arm are shaped to be in line symmetry with respect to the base (See annotated Fig. 3 and Fig. 3, the first and second arms are shaped symmetrically with respect to the base).
Regarding claim 17, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches a detection system comprising: the wearable device according to claim 1; a controller (Kapur, Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, external computer where signal processing device transmits the data); wherein the signal processor processes the detection signal to generate a control signal (Kapur, Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, The signal processor amplifies signals and mark events), and transmits the control signal to the controller (Kapur, Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, “the signal streams are wirelessly sent to an external computing device”).
Kapur in view of Tanaka does not teach a display device and wherein the controller causes the display device to show information based on the control signal.
Kapur teaches that the signal processor transmits the data wirelessly to an external computational device for further processing (Kapur, Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, par. 2). Kapur also teaches that the signals are further processed, analyzed, and used to train models and used to generate plots such as Fig. 5 and Fig. 8. It is obvious to do these functions a computer is necessary, comprising a monitor (i.e., display) to display the plots/graphs and visualize the data.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have further modified the system of Kapur in view of Tanaka to include a display device and such that the controller causes the display device to show information based on the control signal, to enable the visualization and analysis of the data.
Regarding claim 18, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 17, wherein the signal processor wirelessly transmits the control signal to the controller (Kapur, Signal Capture, Processing and Hardware, “The streams are sent to a mobile computational device through Bluetooth LE”).
Regarding claim 19, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein the base is disposed at a back side head of the subject in a state in which the subject wears the wearable device (See Annotated Fig. 3 and Fig. 6).
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapur in view of Tanaka in view of US Patent Publication 2009/0180653 by Sjursen et al. – previously cited, hereinafter “Sjursen”.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claims 2 and 4, wherein the first adjustment portion includes a first holding portion that holds the first cable in an extending direction of the first cable (The extension of the first adjustment portion can be considered the first holding portion as it holds the cable in an extending direction), and wherein the second adjustment portion includes a third holding portion that holds the second cable in an extending direction of the second cable (The extension of the second adjustment portion can be considered the third holding portion as it holds the cable in an extending direction).
Kapur in view of Tanaka does not teach a second holding portion that holds a portion of the first cable in the extending direction of the first cable, the portion of the first cable being different from a portion of the first cable that is held by the first holding portion, and the length of the portion of the first cable that protrudes from the first arm is adjustable based on a slack of the first cable that is formed between the first holding portion and the second holding portion; and a fourth holding portion that holds, in the extending direction of the second cable, the second cable held by the third holding portion, and the length of the portion of the second cable that protrudes from the second arm is adjustable based on a slack of the second cable that is formed between the third holding portion and the fourth holding portion.
Fig. 4A of Sjursen teaches a head-wearable device with an adjustable cable. The cable passes through openings 430, 428, and 432 both in an extending direction (toward the earpiece 108) and the length of the cable that extends from the holder in the extending direction is adjustable based on the radius (i.e., slack) of loop 106A ([0016]). Any two of the elements between opening 430 and 432 (including 430, 428, 410, 412, 414, and 432) can be considered first and second holding portions, as they each hold different portions of the cable.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the adjustment portions of the device taught by modified Kapur in view of Tanaka by replacing them with the adjustment portions taught by Sjursen such that the first adjustment portion includes a first holding portion that holds the first cable in an extending direction of the first cable, and a second holding portion that holds a portion of the first cable in the extending direction of the first cable, the portion of the first cable being different from a portion of the first cable that is held by the first holding portion, and the length of the portion of the first cable that protrudes from the first arm is adjustable based on a slack of the first cable that is formed between the first holding portion and the second holding portion; wherein the second adjustment portion includes a third holding portion that holds the second cable in an extending direction of the second cable and a fourth holding portion that holds, in the extending direction of the second cable, the second cable held by the third holding portion, and the length of the portion of the second cable that protrudes from the second arm is adjustable based on a slack of the second cable that is formed between the third holding portion and the fourth holding portion. This combination comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
It is noted that the combination of Kapur, Tanaka, and Sjursen would result in a sensor at the end of a flexible lead, without the force of a rigid extension to keep the electrode in contact with the head of the subject. However, it would be prima facie obvious to use an adhesive to attach the electrode to the skin of the patient to maintain contact of the electrode with the skin. It is further noted that the combination of Kapur, Tanaka, and Sjursen would include the holding portions on the exterior of the arm as taught by Tanaka. This variation would still enable the functionality of Sjursen, while maintaining the stability and ease of adjustment as taught by Tanaka.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kapur, Tanaka, and Sjursen teaches the wearable device according to claim 5, wherein at least one of the first holding portion and the second holding portion is a groove portion in which the first cable is disposed (Sjursen, [0029]; “The cable 106 may be further guided along a channel formed by the guides 410, 414, 416”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kapur, Tanaka, and Sjursen teaches the wearable device according to claim 5, wherein at least one of the first holding portion and the second holding portion is a tube portion through which the first cable is able to pass (Sjursen; Openings 430, 428, and 432 have circular cross sections and can be considered tubes, allowing the cable to pass).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapur in view of Tanaka in view of Sjursen, as applied to claim 6, in view of US Patent Publication 2019/0049433 by Ehret et al. – previously cited, hereinafter “Ehret”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kapur, Tanaka, and Sjursen teaches the wearable device according to claim 6, but does not teach wherein the groove portion has a lug for retaining the first cable.
Figure 9A of Ehret teaches a retainer for holding cables that connect to sensors. The retainer comprises a mouth 910 which can be smaller in diameter than the cable and a recess 908 that can be larger than the diameter of the cable ([0052]). This configuration of the retainer allows the cables to be snapped into the recess (i.e., groove) and retained while allowing longitudinal movement ([0052]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the groove portion taught by the combination of Kapur, Tanaka, and Sjursen to include a lug for retaining the first cable to retain the cable while allowing for longitudinal movement as taught by Ehret ([0052]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapur in view of Tanaka, as applied to claim 3, in view of US Patent Publication 2017/0339484 by Kim et al. – previously cited, hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 12, Kapur in view of Tanaka teaches the wearable device according to claim 3, but does not teach wherein the first sensor and the second sensor detect physical body data different in type from each other.
Kim teaches a head wearable device with a plurality of electrical bio-sensors. The electrical bio-sensors can be used to measure a plurality of types of data, such as EMG, electrocardiogram (ECG), electrooculography (EOG), and galvanic skin response (GSR) with the use of a differential amplifier ([0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device taught by Kapur in view of Tanaka to include a differential amplifier such that the first sensor and the second sensor detect physical body data different in type from each other, as taught by Kim to create a more comprehensive wearable device, capable of monitoring more health conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered.
The amendments to claim 19 overcomes the objections of record.
The amendments to claim 7 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s assertion regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is acknowledged. This assertion is moot as it is based on amendments to the claims not entered at the time of the previous Office action. The newly presented limitations are rejected on new grounds above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791