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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/29/2025.
With regards to the applicant’s Remarks, filed 07/29/2025, page 6, the Examiner has reviewed the argument and does not find it to be persuasive. It is the Examiner’s position that the method detailed in claims 12-15 are outside of the scope of the claimed invention in claims 1-11, and contains patentably distinct material directed to a method outside of the apparatus of claims 1-11. This places an undue search burden on the Examiner that requires different fields of search for claims 12-15 outside of examination for claims 1-11. Further, there is no generic claim linking the two applications (i.e., the method does not mirror the language of the apparatus, and instead discloses a patentably distinct method). Therefore, the restriction has been deemed proper and made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 03/01/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US Patent Publication US 202103612235).
Regarding claim 1, Bai teaches “a cap body provided with a plurality of electrode set installation holes distributed according to an international 10-20 EEG positioning system standard, the electrode set installation holes being arranged in a manner of penetrating through the cap body” in Figure 16, with electrode holders considered to be penetrating through the electrode cap body as described in Figure 1 and 12. Figures 1 and 12 shows that the electrode penetrates through the cap body in order to make contact with the skin of the scalp. Note that p.[0060] describes that the mounting holes are preinstalled in the cap, suggesting that the mounting hole is embedded and fixed into the recess, thereby penetrating through the cap body as required by the claimed limitation.
Bai teaches “a plurality of electrode sets, wherein the electrode sets are installed in the electrode set installation holes, first ends of the electrode sets are located at an outer side of the cap body, and second ends of the electrode sets are located at an inner side of the cap body” in Figure 4. The electrode sets are installed in the electrode cap body via the mounting holes and includes electrode sensing units 21, which are located on the outer side of the cap body as shown in Figure 4, and the second end of the electrode sets (fixing seat 3) being located on the inner side of the cap body as shown in 5a. This teaches the claimed structure as described.
Bai teaches “a plurality of electrode slices, wherein the electrode slices are installed on the electrode sets, and the electrode slices are connected with the EGG monitoring device through an electrode harness” in Figure 4. Reinforcing plate 7 is considered to be an electrode slice given that it is a piece of metal and used to connect the electrode sets to the EEG monitoring device (see Figure 4, p.[0055]). It is assumed that each electrode set has an electrode slice, therefore teaching a plurality of electrode slices.
Bai teaches “a plurality of electrode conductive mediums, wherein the electrode conductive mediums are installed at the second ends of the electrode sets and are in contact with the electrode slices installed on the same electrode sets, and one ends, far away from the electrode slices, of the electrode conductive mediums are in contact with a scalp of a subject” in p.[0007] "the fixing seat also includes a cavity for accommodating a conductive medium or a conductive medium preform;" p.[0023], and "the conductive medium perform includes a capsule prefilled with a conductive medium, a liquid absorbing material impregnated with a conductive medium, or a rubber tube filled with a conductive medium", see conductive medium via the soft support body 6 in Figure 6, and Figure 7, which shows conductive medium 4 in soft support body 6. The electrode conductive mediums are in contact with the scalp of the subject via the soft support body as detailed in p.[0059] and therefore teaches the limitation as described.
Lastly, Bai teaches “and a plurality of buffer members which are arranged at the second ends of the electrode sets” in p.[0059]. The examiner is interpreting the soft support body 6 to be the buffer member, given that the specification of the instant application describes that the buffer member is used to be in contact with the scalp and otherwise hold or contain conductive mediums. The soft support body 6 is described moreover in p.[0059].
The Examiner notes that different components of the claimed limitations are taught across varying embodiments of the disclosure of Bai. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use components from each embodiment described above of Bai to arrive at the claimed invention. As stated in Bai (p.[0077]), “The above are merely the preferred embodiments of the present disclosure. It should be noted that, a person of skilled in the art may make improvements and modifications without deporting from the principle of the present disclosure, and these improvements and modifications shall also fall within the scope of the present disclosure.”
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Bai teaches “wherein electrode grooves in which the electrode slices are installed are formed in the first ends of the electrode sets” in Figure 6 and 7 show that there are grooves to accommodate the placement of the base plates, and therefore teaches the limitation as described. This is further detailed in p.[0057], which states "the electrode sensing unit 21 is provided with an opening or a groove".
Bai teaches “the electrode sets are provided with electrode conductive medium cabins in which the electrode conductive mediums are installed, each electrode conductive medium cabin is provided with a first opening and a second opening, the second openings of the electrode conductive medium cabins are arranged toward the inner side of the cap body so that the electrode conductive mediums are in contact with the scalp of the subject” in p.[0070] "the conductive medium preform is a rubber tube 5c filled with a conductive medium. The rubber tube 5c is easily crushed and broken due to a fragile structure 51 provided at one end thereof, so that the conductive medium 4 can easily flow out During use, it is only needed to tear off the frangible structure 51 to release the conductive medium..." Note that a tube inherently has two holes, and moreover, when the structure 51 is torn off the tube explicitly has two openings that facilitates the contact of the electrode conductive medium with the scalp of the subject, and therefore teaches the limitation as described.
Bai teaches “and the first openings of the electrode conductive medium cabins are communicated with the electrode grooves, so that the electrode slices are in contact with the electrode conductive mediums” in p.[0057] "a reinforcing plate 7 is provided on a surface of the electrode sensing unit 21 distal to the head to be inspected. The reinforcing plate 7 is provided with an opening or groove which is corresponding to the opening or grove of the electrode sensing unit 21." See further in Figure 6-7 for example, which shows plate 7 being in contact with electrode conductive medium 4.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. Bai does not teach the structure as described, however, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Bai.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. Bai teaches “wherein a height of each electrode conductive medium is higher than that of the second opening of each electrode conductive medium cabin, each buffer member surrounds a periphery of the electrode conductive medium cabin, and a height of each buffer member is lower than that of each electrode conductive medium, and is the same as that of the second opening” in Figure 6, which shows buffer 6 being lower than the second hole of cavity 32, with buffer 6 at least partially surrounding a portion of the periphery of the cavity 32 (the bottom portion of cavity 32), and therefore teaches the limitation as described.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. Bai teaches “wherein a fixed end for fixing the electrode conductive medium is arranged in each electrode conductive medium cabin and the fixed end is connected to the electrode set” in Figure 6, which shows fixed walls arranged on the sides of the cavity 32, which are attached to the electrode set, and therefore teaches the limitation as described.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. Bai teaches “wherein an insertion direction of each electrode groove is perpendicular to a penetration direction of each electrode conductive medium cabin, one end of each electrode groove along the insertion direction is a closed end, and the other end of each electrode groove along the insertion direction is an electrode insertion hole for allowing insertion of the electrode slice” in Figure 6, which shows that the electrode groove is in the X or horizonal plane, whereas the penetration direction of the electrode conductive medium cabin is in the Y or vertical axis, where the groove is closed on both ends by the electrode slice once the electrode slice is inserted into the groove, thereby teaching the limitation as described.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Bai teaches “wherein a groove is formed in a periphery of each electrode set, and is clamped with the electrode set installation hole” in Figure 4, 5a,5b and p.[0056], which states "At least one clamping slot 43 is defined in the fixing seat 3, and the electrode sensing unit 21 of the electrode array is engaged in the clamping slot 34", teaching the limitation as described.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US Patent Publication US 202103612235) in view of Wang (CN 107468245).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Bai does not teach the claimed limitation; however, Wang does in an analogous EEG device. Figure 2 of Wang shows "liquid absorbing material" 29, which is in the shape of a U and can be made from cotton and acts as a sponge by absorbing a conductive medium (p.[0075]), has contact with the inner electrode slice (or electrode body), and contacts the scalp, therefore teaching the limitation as described. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cotton, u-shaped sponge, as taught in Wang, in Bai. As stated in Wang, the use of the cotton sponge " increases the contact area between the electrode body 11 and the scalp, making the contact between the electrode body 11 and the scalp more reliable, the contact impedance lower, and the acquired signal more stable." (p.[0075]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US Patent Publication US 202103612235) in view of Willis (US Patent Publication 2020/0237248).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. Bai does not teach that the electrode set is provided with a supplementing hole for supplementing normal saline, located at one side close to the outer side of the cap and communicated with the electrode groove, but Willis does in an analogous EEG cap. Willis describes the use of supplementary holes 22 and 22a that can be used to distribute additional fluid to the scalp of the user, therefore teaching the limitation as described (p.[0062-0063]. The Examiner notes that Willis describes these holes for use with a gel, not saline. It is the Examiner's position that the hole would also function for providing saline, given that both the gel and saline perform the same function and display similar characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Willis in Bai. As stated in Willis, the use of the secondary hole allows for additional placement of gel or saline on the patient's head as needed during EEG monitoring and produces predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US Patent Publication US 202103612235) in view of Yakob (WO 2014/158803).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Bai teaches “wherein the electrode harness is connected with the EEG monitoring equipment through a connector, and a female terminal is arranged at one end, far away from the electrode slices, of the electrode harness” in p.[0002-0007], specifically, "the electrode array includes a connector end, a plurality of electrode sensing units and a plurality of conductive lines, wherein the conductive One end of the circuit is connected with the electrode sensing unit, and the other end is connected with the plug-in end; the electrode sensing unit is connected with the fixing base."
Bai does not explicitly teach that the connector is provided with a female and male connector, however, Yakob does in an analogous EEG cap. Yakob teaches in p.[0062] that "FIG. 2 illustrates the example first female connector 134 of the example first strip 104 coupled to the corresponding example first male connector 154. " It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a male terminal and female terminal to connect the electrode harness to the EEG monitoring equipment, as taught in Yakob, in Bai. It is known in the art of electronics and EEGs to use complimentary terminal configurations and such modifications produce predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US Patent Publication US 202103612235) in view of Park (KR 20130093302).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Bai does not teach the electrode cap is provided with a plurality of airholes, but Park does in an analogous EEG cap device. Park teaches in p.[0053] "The conductive polymer foam 114 is provided in the housing 111, and a plurality of porous air holes A are formed." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Park in view of Bai. As stated in Park, the use of air holes allows for the conductivity of the system to be adapted to fit the needs of the user and produces predictable results (p.[0055]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 5712724764. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794