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 statement (IDS) submitted on September 18, 2025 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on September 18, 2025 was considered by the examiner. Claims 37-56 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 17-23, 27A-30, and 33-36 contains photographs; however, photographs are not the only practicable medium to show the depicted elements, see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 44-53 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 claims contain 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 44 recites “wherein a ratio of the cushion height to an electrode tip height is between 1:4 and 1:8” in lines 7-8. The specification details that the electrode tip height may be “between approximately 10.0 mm to 20.0 mm (e.g., about 17.5 mm)”, “can be between approximately 5.0 mm and 10.0 mm” or “can be between approximately 20.0 mm and 50.0 mm” (see specification ¶[0211]). The specification also details that the cushion height “can be between about 2.0 mm to about 10.0 mm (e.g., 5.0 mm)”, “can also be between about 10.0 mm and 20.0 mm”, or “greater than 20.0 mm” (see specification ¶[0285]). The specification only describes a relationship of the cushion height to the leg height (see specification ¶[0286]-[0287]). There is no description of the various electrode tip heights to the various cushion heights. Therefore, the specification does not disclose “a ratio of the cushion height to an electrode tip height is between 1:4 and 1:8”. As such, one of skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claims 45-53 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 44.
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 54-56 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 54 recites the limitation "the perimeter" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to “a perimeter” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 55-56 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 54.
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.
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 37-38 and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0141788 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Chi, and in view of Song et al. (Korean Patent Document KR 2017/0019033 A – cited in prior action, citing to translation provided by Espacenet), hereinafter Song, and in view of Richardson-Burns et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0087315), hereinafter Richardson-Burns.
Regarding Claim 37, Chi teaches a transducer assembly including leg structures supporting the transducers (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which in an exemplary embodiment the transducers are electrodes in an EEG system (see ¶[0042]). Chi teaches an electrode tip for sensing bioelectrical potentials at a surface (¶[0027]-[0033] the support electrode 12/42, the tip would be considered the distal side, ¶[0041]-[0042] the device may sense bioelectric potentials, and may be implemented as electrodes in an EEG system; Figs. 1-9), comprising:
an electrode tip body (¶[0027]-[0033] the support electrode 12/42; Figs. 1-9);
wherein the end is a distal terminal end of the electrode tip body (¶[0027]-[0033] the support electrode 12/42, the tip is the distal side (skin contacting side); Figs. 1-9).
Chi teaches that the assembly (support electrode and probes (the legs)) may be coated with a conductive material (see ¶[0039]), and that the support electrode 12/42 may contact the skin of the user when the device flexes under pressure (see ¶[0030] and ¶[0033]; Figs. 6 and 9), but does not specifically teach a UV-cured conductive cushion which coats or covers an end of the electrode tip body, wherein the UV-cured conductive cushion comprises a UV-cured conductive cushioning material extending continuously from the end of the electrode tip body, wherein the UV-cured conductive cushioning material is configured to contact the surface.
Song teaches an electrode for being positioned on the human body for detecting a biosignal (see abstract). Song teaches the electrode 110 placed on substrate portion 100 (see ¶[0024] and Fig. 1)), which is covered by the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel extending continuously from the electrode 110 to the skin of the user (see ¶[0035]-[0036]; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the conductive UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel of Song as the coating/covering of the assembly of Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the hydrogel material is flexible, is comfortable to wear, and maintains adhesion even when there are foreign substances on the skin (see Song ¶[0035]).
Chi contemplates dip-coating (see ¶[0039]), but the modified Chi does not specifically teach that the UV-cured conductive cushion is dip-coated on.
Richardson-Burns teaches bioelectrodes including enhanced biocompatible and biomimetic features (see abstract), which may utilize UV-initiated hydrogel coatings (see ¶[0010], ¶[0198], ¶[0206]-[0210], and ¶[0215]-[0219]; Fig. 13) that may be dip-coated onto the electrode (see ¶[0198], ¶[0206]-[0210], and ¶[0215]-[0219]; Fig. 13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the dip coating hydrogel coating modality of Richardson-Burns as the coating modality of the modified Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the modified Chi requires a modality of coating the electrode with hydrogel and Richardson-Burns teaches one such modality.
Regarding Claim 38, Chi in view of Song and Richardson-Burns teaches the device of claim 37 as stated above. The modified Chi further teaches the UV-cured conductive cushioning material comprises a hydrogel (see Song ¶[0035]-[0036] the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel).
Regarding Claim 40, Chi in view of Song and Richardson-Burns teaches the device of claim 37 as stated above. The modified Chi further teaches a plurality of electrode legs coupled to the electrode tip body (see Chi ¶[0027]-[0033] the probes 14/44 (legs) that are connected via branch 22/52 to the support electrode 12/42; Figs. 1-9) wherein the UV-cured conductive cushioning material is coupled to a segment of the plurality of electrode legs (see Chi ¶[0039] the support electrode 12/42 and the probes 14/44 may be coated with the conductive material; see Song ¶[0035]-[0036] the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel).
Regarding Claim 41, Chi in view of Song and Richardson-Burns teaches the device of claim 40 as stated above. Chi further teaches the plurality of electrode legs are substantially parallel to one another in a non-biased configuration (¶[0033] the probes 44 are substantially parallel in the non-flexed position; Fig. 7), and wherein the plurality of electrode legs are substantially non-parallel to one another in a splayed configuration (¶[0033] the support electrode 12/42 may contact the skin of the user when the device flexes under pressure, the probes 44 are non-parallel in the flexed position; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 42, Chi in view of Song and Richardson-Burns teaches the device of claim 40 as stated above. Chi further teaches the UV-cured conductive cushion is ovoid- shaped, ellipsoid-shaped, teardrop-shaped, spherical-shaped, or a combination thereof (¶[0032] the ovoid/ellipsoid/spherical shaped support electrode 42; Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 43, Chi in view of Song and Richardson-Burns teaches the device of claim 40 as stated above. The modified Chi further teaches each of the plurality of electrode legs is an elongate rod (see Chi ¶[0027]-[0033] the leg structure 20/48; Figs. 1-9) having a leg proximal end (see Chi ¶[0027]-[0033] the proximal end of the leg structure 20/48; Figs. 1-9) and a leg distal end (see Chi ¶[0027]-[0033] the proximal end of the leg structure 20/48; Figs. 1-9), wherein the UV-cured conductive cushion extends beyond the leg distal end of at least one of the plurality of electrode legs (see Chi ¶[0039] the support electrode 12/42 and the probes 14/44 may be coated with the conductive material; see Song ¶[0035]-[0036] the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel). Here, the modified Chi teaches that the conductive hydrogel is coated on at least the distal ends of the support electrode 12/42 and the probes 14/44. Therefore, as the hydrogel is an external coating, it will necessarily extend beyond the distal end of the probes 14/44, as it will be the most distal contact point of the probes 14/44 to the skin.
Claims 44-45 and 49-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi, and in view of Song, and in view of Gopinathan et al, (US Patent Application Publication 2002/0016538), hereinafter Gopinathan.
Regarding Claim 44, Chi teaches a transducer assembly including leg structures supporting the transducers (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which in an exemplary embodiment the transducers are electrodes in an EEG system (see ¶[0042]). Chi teaches an electrode tip for sensing bioelectrical potentials (¶[0027]-[0033] the support electrode 12/42, the tip would be considered the distal side, ¶[0041]-[0042] the device may sense bioelectric potentials, and may be implemented as electrodes in an EEG system; Figs. 1-9), comprising:
an electrode tip body (¶[0027]-[0033] the support electrode 12/42; Figs. 1-9);
lateral struts coupled to the electrode tip body (¶[0027]-[0033] the branches 22/52; Figs. 1-9);
electrode arms coupled to the lateral struts (¶[0027]-[0033] the flexible joints 26/30/54; Figs. 1-9);
electrode legs coupled to the electrode arms (see Chi ¶[0027]-[0033] the leg structure 20/48; Figs. 1-9).
Chi teaches that the assembly (support electrode and probes (the legs)) may be coated with a conductive material (see ¶[0039]), and that the support electrode 12/42 may contact the skin of the user when the device flexes under pressure (see ¶[0030] and ¶[0033]; Figs. 6 and 9), but does not specifically teach a conductive cushion having a cushion height which coats or covers a segment of the electrode legs.
Song teaches an electrode for being positioned on the human body for detecting a biosignal (see abstract). Song teaches the electrode 110 placed on substrate portion 100 (see ¶[0024] and Fig. 1)), which is covered by the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel extending continuously from the electrode 110 to the skin of the user (see ¶[0035]-[0036]; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the conductive UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel of Song as the coating/covering of the assembly of Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the hydrogel material is flexible, is comfortable to wear, and maintains adhesion even when there are foreign substances on the skin (see Song ¶[0035]).
The modified Chi teaches that the conductive cushion has a cushion height (see Chi ¶[0039] the support electrode 12/42 and the probes 14/44 may be coated with the conductive material; see Song ¶[0035]-[0036] the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel). As the cushion exists in three-dimensional space, it would necessarily have a height. The modified Chi does not specifically teach that a ratio of the cushion height to an electrode tip height is between 1:4 and 1:8. However, the claimed device is not patentable distinct from the device of the modified Chi. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In this case, the only difference between the device of the modified Chi and the claimed device is the relative dimension of the ratio of the cushion height to an electrode tip height is between 1:4 and 1:8; therefore, the claimed device is not patentable distinct from the device of the modified Chi.
Alternatively and/or additionally, Gopinathan teaches an electrode sensor attachable to a substrate for sensing electrical activity of a patient (see abstract; Figs. 2a-2c) including an elongated body 112 and a conductive head 118 of a first end 114 with a conductive epoxy resin (see ¶[0032]-[0033]; Figs. 2a-2c), in which the elongated body may have a length of about 8 mm, 10 mm, or 12 mm (see ¶[0026]), and the mesh of the first end may have a size of 0.8 mm, 1.0 mm, or 1.2 mm (see ¶[0028]).
The undisclosed heights of the cushion height and the electrode tip height of the modified Chi, and the variable heights in Gopinathan, suggests that the heights, and thus the ratio of the two, is subject to optimization based on the desired performance (i.e., the ability of the electrode tip to traverse the hair of the wearer and EEG signal collection). As such, the ratio is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the desired performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the ratio of the cushion height to the electrode tip height to between 1:4 and 1:8, using the variable sizes of Gopinathan as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired performance. Thus, the ratio being between 1:4 and 1:8 would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 45, Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan teaches the device of claim 44 as stated above. Chi further teaches the electrode tip body is a cylindrical body (¶[0028] and ¶[0032] the support electrode 12/42 may be of any shape, the cylindrical shaped support electrode 42; Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 49, Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan teaches the device of claim 44 as stated above. Chi further teaches the lateral struts are uniformly positioned around a circumference of the electrode tip body and extend radially outward from the electrode tip body (see Figs. 2 and 7, the branches 22/52 are uniformly positioned around a circumference of the support electrode 12/42 and extend radially outward from the support electrode 12/42).
Regarding Claim 50, Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan teaches the device of claim 44 as stated above. Chi further teaches the lateral struts and the electrode arms coupled thereto have a same cross-sectional shape (see Figs. 2-4 and 8, the branches 22/52 and the flexible joints 26/30/54 have a same cross-sectional shape).
Regarding Claim 51, Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan teaches the device of claim 44 as stated above. Chi further teaches each of the electrode arms comprises a proximal arm end (¶[0027]-[0033] the proximal end of the flexible joints 26/30; Figs. 1-6) and a distal arm end (¶[0027]-[0033] the distal end of the flexible joints 26/30; Figs. 1-6), and wherein each of the electrode arms curves along a pitched or descending helical trajectory such that the distal arm end is vertically lower or below the proximal arm end (see Figs. 1-6, the flexible joints 26/30 curves such that the distal end of the flexible joints 26/30 is below the proximal end of the flexible joints 26/30).
Regarding Claim 52, Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan teaches the device of claim 44 as stated above. Chi further teaches the electrode legs are radially offset from the lateral struts such that each of the electrode legs is not radially aligned with a neighboring or flanking lateral strut (see Figs. 7-9, the leg structure 48 is not radially aligned with a neighboring or flanking branch).
Regarding Claim 53, Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan teaches the device of claim 44 as stated above. Chi further teaches the electrode legs are radially aligned with the lateral struts such that each of the electrode legs is substantially in line with a neighboring or flanking lateral strut (Figs. 1-6, the leg structure 20 is radially aligned with a neighboring or flanking branch).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi in view of Song and Richardson-Burns as applied to claim 37 above, and in view of Kato et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0217079 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Kato.
Regarding Claim 39, Chi in view of Song and Richardson-Burns teaches the device of claim 37 as stated above. The modified Chi is silent regarding the UV-cured conductive cushioning material retains or is saturated with one or more conductors.
Kato teaches about a gel sheet (see abstract) to be used with an electrode (see ¶[0002] and ¶[0013]), in which the gel is a hydrogel (¶[0013] and ¶[0015]-[0016]), in which the gel sheet may comprise a conductor, in the form of an electrolyte, to impart conductivity on the gel material (see ¶[0052]-[0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the electrolyte conductors of Kato as the conductivity imparting implement of the modified Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the modified Chi requires a conductive hydrogel and Kato teaches one such implementation of a conductive hydrogel.
Claims 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan as applied to claim 45 above, and in view of Jovanovic et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0258400 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Jovanovic.
Regarding Claim 46, Chi in view of Song and Gopinathan teaches the device of claim 45 as stated above. The modified Chi is silent regarding the electrode tip body defining a void along a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical body.
Jovanovic teaches of example headsets and electrodes for an EEG system (see abstract, ¶[0004], and ¶[0050]; Fig. 1). Jovanovic teaches a magnetic coupling of the electrode units to the headset (see ¶[0053]-[0055]), in which the electrode unit 500 comprises a housing 514 (which has a first void via opening 521) that allows insertion of the guide 508 containing the spring 504, held via a magnetic connector 506 (which has a second void, smaller than the first void) (see ¶[0081]-[0087], ¶[0092], and Figs. 5-11). Here, the first void of the housing 514 and second void of the connector 506 can be seen from cross-sectional view in Figs. 10-11, in which the connector 506 extends past the housing 514, such that the second void is extended further than the first void.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the structure of the electrode unit of Jovanovic as the structure of the electrode tip body of the modified Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Chi contemplates the usage of the transducer assembly with an EEG system and Jovanovic teaches one such EEG system; and/or (3) the spring would allow the transducer assembly to transition between the flexed and non-flexed position; and/or (4) the magnetic couplings between the headset and the electrode units 500 provide an easy to attach/detach individual connection (see Jovanovic ¶[0092]).
Regarding Claim 47, Chi in view of Song, Gopinathan, and Jovanovic teaches the device of claim 46 as stated above. The modified Chi further teaches the void further comprises a first void portion having a first void diameter and a second void portion concentric with the first void portion having a second void diameter (see Jovanovic Figs. 10-11, the first and second voids are concentric, with the first void diameter larger than the second void diameter).
Regarding Claim 48, Chi in view of Song, Gopinathan, and Jovanovic teaches the device of claim 47 as stated above. The modified Chi further teaches the second void diameter is less than the first void diameter (see Jovanovic Figs. 10-11, the first void diameter is larger than the second void diameter) and the second void portion extends further into the electrode tip body than the first void portion (see Jovanovic Figs. 10-11, the connector 506 extends past the housing 514, such that the second void is extended further than the first void).
Claims 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi in view of Song, and in view of Jovanovic.
Regarding Claim 54, Chi teaches a transducer assembly including leg structures supporting the transducers (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which in an exemplary embodiment the transducers are electrodes in an EEG system (see ¶[0042]). Chi teaches an electrode tip for sensing bioelectrical potentials at a surface (¶[0027]-[0033] the support electrode 12/42, the tip would be considered the distal side, ¶[0041]-[0042] the device may sense bioelectric potentials, and may be implemented as electrodes in an EEG system; Figs. 1-9), comprising:
an electrode tip body (¶[0027]-[0033] the support electrode 12/42; Figs. 1-9);
having a proximal end (¶[0027]-[0033] the proximal end (the side opposite of the skin contacting side) of the support electrode 12/42; Figs. 1-9) and a distal end (¶[0027]-[0033] the distal end (skin contacting side) of the support electrode 12/42; Figs. 1-9),
wherein the electrode tip body is a cylindrical body (¶[0028] and ¶[0032] the support electrode 12/42 may be of any shape, the cylindrical shaped support electrode 42; Fig. 7).
Chi teaches that the assembly (support electrode and probes (the legs)) may be coated with a conductive material (see ¶[0039]), and that the support electrode 12/42 may contact the skin of the user when the device flexes under pressure (see ¶[0030] and ¶[0033]; Figs. 6 and 9), but does not specifically teach a conductive cushion coupled to the distal end of the electrode tip body, wherein the conductive cushion comprises a conductive cushioning material extending around the perimeter of the electrode tip body and extending continuously away from the distal end of the electrode tip body, wherein the conductive cushioning material is configured to contact the surface.
Song teaches an electrode for being positioned on the human body for detecting a biosignal (see abstract). Song teaches the electrode 110 placed on substrate portion 100 (see ¶[0024] and Fig. 1)), which is covered by the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel extending continuously from the electrode 110 to the skin of the user (see ¶[0035]-[0036]; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the conductive UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel of Song as the coating/covering of the assembly of Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the hydrogel material is flexible, is comfortable to wear, and maintains adhesion even when there are foreign substances on the skin (see Song ¶[0035]).
The modified Chi now teaches that the conductive cushioning material extends around the perimeter of the electrode tip body and extending continuously away from the distal end of the electrode tip body (see Chi ¶[0039] the support electrode 12/42 and the probes 14/44 may be coated with the conductive material. Fig. 2, the distal ends of the legs 14 extend outward around the perimeter of the support electrode 12; see Song ¶[0035]-[0036] the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel).
The modified Chi is silent regarding a void is defined along a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical body at the proximal end.
Jovanovic teaches of example headsets and electrodes for an EEG system (see abstract, ¶[0004], and ¶[0050]; Fig. 1). Jovanovic teaches a magnetic coupling of the electrode units to the headset (see ¶[0053]-[0055]), in which the electrode unit 500 comprises a housing 514 (which has a first void via opening 521) that allows insertion of the guide 508 containing the spring 504, held via a magnetic connector 506 (see ¶[0081]-[0087], ¶[0092], and Figs. 5-11). Here, the void is the void of the housing 514.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the structure of the electrode unit of Jovanovic as the structure of the electrode tip body of the modified Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Chi contemplates the usage of the transducer assembly with an EEG system and Jovanovic teaches one such EEG system; and/or (3) the spring would allow the transducer assembly to transition between the flexed and non-flexed position; and/or (4) the magnetic couplings between the headset and the electrode units 500 provide an easy to attach/detach individual connection (see Jovanovic ¶[0092]).
Regarding Claim 55, Chi in view of Song and Jovanovic teaches the device of claim 54 as stated above. The modified Chi further teaches the conductive cushioning material comprises a UV-cured hydrogel (see Song ¶[0035]-[0036] the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi in view of Song and Jovanovic as applied to claim 54 above, and in view of Wingeier et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0022981), hereinafter Wingeier.
Regarding Claim 56, Chi in view of Song and Jovanovic teaches the device of claim 54 as stated above. The modified Chi further teaches a magnetic component positioned within the void (¶[0092] the magnetic connector 506 positioned within the void of the housing 514; Figs. 5-11).
The modified Chi does not specifically teach that the component is ferromagnetic.
Wingeier teaches an electronic stimulation system for a user (see abstract and Figs. 1A-1B), which utilizes a ferromagnetic coupling (see ¶[0111]; Fig. 5C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ferromagnetic coupling of Wingeier as the magnet of the connector 506 of the modified Chi because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Chi requires a magnetic coupling and Wingeier teaches one such magnetic coupling; and/or (3) the ferromagnetic connector 506 would not require an external magnetic field to retain its magnetism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-6, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 37-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and § 112(b) that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on September 18, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 37-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 37-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection are made in view of Richardson-Burns et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0087315).
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 44-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and/or Gopinathan et al, (US Patent Application Publication 2002/0016538).
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 54-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. The Applicant argues that none of the cited references teach or disclose “around the perimeter of the electrode tip body and [extends] continuously away from the distal end of the electrode tip body”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. This claim element only requires that the conductive cushioning material (that extends continuously away from the distal end of the electrode tip body) extends around the perimeter of the electrode tip body. This is disclosed by the modified Chi in view of Song (see Chi ¶[0039] the support electrode 12/42 and the probes 14/44 may be coated with the conductive material. Fig. 2, the distal ends of the legs 14 extend outward around the perimeter of the support electrode 12; see Song ¶[0035]-[0036] the pad 300 and the conductive member 200, both formed of a UV-hardened (cured) hydrogel). In this case, the claim requires the conductive cushioning material extending around the perimeter (see for example Chi Fig. 2), not extending from the perimeter itself. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejections to the claims 54-56 are maintained under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791