DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 03/26/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-22 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly. As a result, the claim objections of the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (WO 2020/091012) in view of Chon (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0289775).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa teaches A surface electrode having a first surface, the surface electrode (Figs 1-2, 6, electronic components 51 each comprising an electrode as disclosed on Pg 8 of translation) comprising: a plurality of electrode elements on the first surface and spaced from each other in a manner so as to be configured to contact a measured surface of an object to be measured (see Fig 1-2, electrodes 51; a stretchable wire electrically connecting the plurality of electrode elements (Figs 1-2, 6; wiring 52 has bellowed shape and is stretchable; see Pg 9 of translation); and a stretchable insulator covering a side of the stretchable wire adjacent to the plurality of electrode elements (Figs 1-2, 6; support portion 40 defines stretchable insulator covering side of wiring 52; Pg 8 discloses support portion 40 disclosed of variety of insulating materials); wherein the stretchable insulator covers the stretchable wire in any direction (Figs 1-2, 6, stretchable insulator 40 covers wire 6 in a direction; Fig 27 discloses further insulating layer 59 disposed on wiring).
Ogawa fails to teach such that the stretchable insulator is between the plurality of electrode elements and the stretchable wire.
In related prior art, Chon discloses a similar surface electrode wherein a similar insulator is between the plurality of electrode elements and the stretchable wire (Fig 13, wire 120 entirely encapsulated by insulator in insulating region 217 such that the insulation 217 is between wire 120 and mesh 214 of electrode 150’). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretchable insulator of Ogawa in view of the insulator of Chon to incorporate the stretchable insulator entirely surrounding the stretchable wire such that the stretchable insulator is between the plurality of electrode elements and the stretchable wire to arrive at claim 1. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as providing an insulator entirely surrounding the corresponding conductive wire is well-known in the art to yield the advantageous and predictable result of preventing any interference or current leakage from any portion of the wire that is exposed ([0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa teaches wherein, in a plan view of a cross section orthogonal to the first surface (Fig 6), the stretchable wire has a contour containing a straight line parallel to the first surface (Fig 6A, wiring 52 directly adjacent electronic component 51 defines straight line parallel to first surface) and a curve (Fig 6A bellow shape defines multiple curves).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa teaches wherein the surface electrode further has a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig 1, second surface opposite first surface interpreted as bottom most surface of Fig 1 and 6A), and a distance between the straight line and the first surface is shorter than a distance between the straight line and the second surface (Fig 6A, straight portion of wiring 52 is closer to first (top) surface than the second (bottom-most) surface).
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa teaches wherein the surface electrode further has a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig 6A, second surface interpreted as surface 41 of support portion 40), and a distance between the straight line and the first surface is longer than a distance between the straight line and the second surface (Fig 6A, straight line of wire 52 directly contacts surface 41 and is therefore closer to the surface 41 than the first surface at the top of electronic component 51).
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa teaches wherein a total length of the curve is longer than a total length of the straight line (Fig 6A, bellowed portion is longer than straight portion of wire).
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa teaches wherein, in a plan view of the first surface viewed in a direction orthogonal to the first surface (Fig 2A shows this plan view), an area occupied by the plurality of electrode elements is greater than an area outside the electrode elements (Fig 2A, total area occupied by electronic components 51 is greater than “an area outside of the electrode elements”; examiner notes “an area outside the electrode elements” is not limited to recite an entire or cumulative area outside of the electrode elements, rather the claim simply recites “an area”, therefore one could reasonably “an area” as any arbitrarily selected area shown in Fig 2A (e.g., an area of a single wire 521, an area of an arbitrary dimension between the wires 521 that is smaller than the area of electrodes 51, etc.) to anticipate the claim).
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa teaches wherein a shortest distance between two adjacent electrode elements of the plurality of electrode elements is greater than a thickness of any of the plurality of electrode elements (Fig 1, distance between adjacent electrodes 51 is greater than thickness of electrode 51).
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa teaches wherein the surface electrode further has a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig 6A surface 22 is opposite first upper surface of electrode 51), the surface electrode further comprising a substrate on the second surface (Fig 5-6A, stretchable portion 20 opposite to the first surface), the substrate being made of a material that is softer than that of the plurality of electrode elements (Pg 13 of translation; stretchable portion 20 enables expansion/contraction of device and prevents deformation of electronic components 51 (i.e., stretchable portion 20 is softer than components 51 given its elasticity and lack of elasticity of components 51)).
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa teaches the device of claim 8 as stated above. Ogawa further teaches wherein the material of the stretchable wire is similar to that of the substrate (Pg 9 of translation “When the material itself used for the wiring 52 has stretchability, the stretchability of the material is similar to that of the stretchable portion 20”).
Ogawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the material of the substrate is harder than that of the stretchable wire.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate or stretchable wire of Ogawa to incorporate the substrate as harder than the stretchable wire, since applicant has not disclosed that the substrate being harder than the stretchable wire solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the substrate being equally hard as the stretchable wire or softer than the stretchable wire as long as the configuration still enables the expansion/contraction of the device as taught by Ogawa. Furthermore, the examiner finds no criticality to the claimed configuration in light of applicant’s specification disclosing the alternative configuration in which the substrate is softer than that of the stretchable wire.
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa teaches the device of claim 8 as stated above. Ogawa further teaches wherein the material of the stretchable wire is similar to that of the substrate (Pg 9 of translation “When the material itself used for the wiring 52 has stretchability, the stretchability of the material is similar to that of the stretchable portion 20”).
Ogawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the material of the substrate is softer than that of the stretchable wire.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate or stretchable wire of Ogawa to incorporate the substrate as softer than the stretchable wire, since applicant has not disclosed that the substrate being softer than the stretchable wire solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the substrate being equally soft as the stretchable wire or harder than the stretchable wire as long as the configuration still enables the expansion/contraction of the device as taught by Ogawa. Furthermore, the examiner finds no criticality to the claimed configuration in light of applicant’s specification disclosing the alternative configuration in which the substrate is harder than that of the stretchable wire.
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa teaches wherein a distance between the stretchable wire and a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig 6A surface 41 is second surface opposite first surface) is shorter than a distance between the stretchable wire and the first surface (Fig 6A, straight line of wire 52 directly contacts surface 41 and is therefore closer to the surface 41 than the first surface at the top of electronic component 51).
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa teaches wherein a length of the stretchable wire in a direction toward a closest electrode element of the plurality of electrode elements on the first surface is longer than a length of the closest electrode element of the plurality of electrode elements (Fig 1 length of wire 521 between electrode elements 51 is longer than a length of the electrode element 51 itself).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Chon and Chevreux (CN 102727182).
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa/Chon teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
Ogawa fails to teach a via between the stretchable wire and the plurality of electrode elements, the via electrically connecting the stretchable wire to the plurality of electrode elements, wherein in a mixture of a conductive material and a resin material forming the via, the conductive material contains a carbon-based conductive material.
In related prior art, Chevreux teaches a similar device comprising a via between the stretchable wire and the plurality of electrode elements, the via electrically connecting the stretchable wire to the plurality of electrode elements, wherein in a mixture of a conductive material and a resin material forming the via, the conductive material contains a carbon-based conductive material (Pg 14 of translation [0113] and Fig 13; connection applied between element 210 and layer 414 is achieved by a via of conductive resin with carbon particles). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the wire and electrode of Ogawa in view of Chon and Chevreux to incorporate the resin and carbon conductive via to interconnect the components to arrive at claim 11. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one well-known electrical interconnection for another well-known electrical interconnection to yield the predictable result of electrically connecting the wire to the electrode to transmit signals.
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa/Chon teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Ogawa further teaches wherein in plan view of a cross section orthogonal to the first surface (Fig 6A shows plan view of a cross section orthogonal to first surface), the stretchable wire extends beyond an outside diameter of an end portion of the via toward an end portion of the surface electrode, as viewed in a direction orthogonal to the cross section (Fig 6A, wire 52 extends beyond diameter of interconnect of electode 51 and toward an end portion of the surface electrode).
Ogawa fails to teach a via between the stretchable wire and the plurality of electrode elements, the via being configured to electrically connect the stretchable wire to the plurality of electrode elements.
In related prior art, Chevreux teaches a similar device comprising a via between the stretchable wire and the plurality of electrode elements, the via being configured to electrically connect the stretchable wire to the plurality of electrode elements (Pg 14 of translation [0113] and Fig 13; connection applied between element 210 and layer 414 is achieved by a via of conductive resin with carbon particles). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the wire and electrode of Ogawa in view of Chon and Chevreux to incorporate conductive via to interconnect the components to arrive at claim 12. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one well-known electrical interconnection for another well-known electrical interconnection to yield the predictable result of electrically connecting the wire to the electrode to transmit signals.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Chon, and Kuzum (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0172446).
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa/Chon teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Ogawa further teaches wherein a first distance between a first set of adjacent electrode elements of the plurality of electrode elements spaced apart in an expansion and contraction direction of the stretchable wire (Fig 2 distance between upper left electrode 31 and upper middle electrode 31) and a second distance between a second set of adjacent electrode elements of the plurality of electrode elements spaced apart in a direction perpendicular to the expansion and contraction direction (Fig 2, distance between upper right electrode 51 and middle right electrode 51).
Ogawa fails to teach wherein the first distance is longer than the second distance.
In related prior art, Kuzum teaches a device comprising a similar electrode array and teaches that the electrode arrays may be made with varying electrode spacing based on the design of the electrode ([0037]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spacing of the electrode elements of Ogawa in view of Chon and Kuzum to incorporate the second distance between the second set of adjacent electrode elements to be longer than the first distance to arrive at claim 15. Doing so would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode array with varied spacing as is known in the art to yield predictable results therein (Kuzum [0037]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Chon, and Li (U.S. Patent No. 9,380,698).
Regarding claim 16, Ogawa/Chon teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Ogawa further teaches wherein the plurality of electrode elements each have a protrusion protruding in a direction orthogonal to the first surface (Fig 1 elements 51 protrude orthogonal to first surface).
Ogawa fails to teach and the protrusion is embedded in the stretchable insulator or in the stretchable wire.
In related prior art, Li teaches a similar device wherein the protrusion is embedded in the stretchable insulator or in the stretchable wire (Fig 4c and Col 5 lines 30-32, stretchable wire 240 and circuit components 210/220 are embedded in elastic layer 205). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretchable insulator of Ogawa in view of Li to incorporate the stretchable insulator sealing the protrusion of the electrode elements to arrive at claim 16. Doing so would advantageously embed and enclose the conductive wires and circuit components as taught by Li (Col 5 lines 30-32 and Fig 4C).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Chon, Ghaffari (U.S. Patent No. 2010/0298895) and Radivojevic (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0167196).
Regarding claim 17, Ogawa/Chon teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
Ogawa fails to teach wherein the stretchable wire contains a liquid.
In related prior art, Ghaffari teaches a similar device wherein a similar wire comprises a liquid ([0101] stretchable interconnect can comprise conductive wires or traces; [0107] disclosing flexible circuits formed from ink printing). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wiring of Ogawa in view of Ghaffari to incorporate the liquid ink traces. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known conductive interconnect (wires) for another well-known conductive interconnect (ink traces) to yield the predictable result of electrically interconnecting electrical components of a device.
Ogawa fails to teach a magnet, wherein the stretchable wire contains a ferromagnetic material; and in plan view of the magnet viewed in a direction normal to the first surface, the magnet overlaps at least one of the electrode elements of the plurality of electrode elements.
In related prior art, Radivojevic teaches a device comprising a magnet (Fig 2 magnet 5), wherein the stretchable wire contains a liquid and a ferromagnetic material (Figs 1-3, electrode 3 is analogous to wire and is flexible as disclosed in [0038]); and in plan view of the magnet viewed in a direction normal to the first surface, the magnet overlaps at least one of the electrode elements of the plurality of electrode elements (Fig 1 magnet 5 overlaps electrode 3 and conductive contact 23/33/35 contacting skin 21). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ogawa in view of Chon, Ghaffari and Radivojevic to incorporate the magnet and ferromagnetic stretchable wire to arrive at claim 17. Doing so would advantageously enable secured alignment and connection of the stretchable wire with the electrode ([0042]).
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Chon, and Lobodzinski (U.S. PGPub No. 2006/0004273).
Regarding claim 18, Ogawa/Chon teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
Ogawa fails to teach a sealing portion sealing the stretchable wire, wherein the sealing portion includes a first sealing portion and a second sealing portion disposed outside the first sealing portion.
In related prior art, Lobodzinski teaches a sealing portion sealing the stretchable wire, wherein the sealing portion includes a first sealing portion (Fig 4, coating 48 sealing filaments 42) and a second sealing portion disposed outside the first sealing portion (Fig 4 second coating 50). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretchable wire of Ogawa in view of Chon and Lobodzinski to incorporate the first and second sealing portions sealing the stretchable wire to arrive at claim 18. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known wire (Ogawa disclosing basic wire) for another well-known wire configuration (Lobodzinski Fig 4 filaments 42 with porous sealing portion 48/50 to allow diffusion of conductive medium 46 to filaments 42) to yield the predictable result of transmitting electrical signals.
Regarding claim 19, Ogawa/Chon/Lobodzinski teaches the device of claim 18 as stated above.
Ogawa/Chon/Lobodzinski discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except the modulus of elasticity of the first sealing portion is greater than a modulus of elasticity of the second sealing portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first sealing portion with a greater modulus of elasticity than the second sealing portion, since applicant has not disclosed that the relative modulus of elasticity between the sealing portions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the sealing portions having an opposite or equal modulus of elasticities. This lack of criticality is evidenced by the instant application disclosing alternative embodiment in which the modulus of elasticity is greater in the second sealing portion.
Regarding claim 20, Ogawa/Chon/Lobodzinski teaches the device of claim 18 as stated above.
Ogawa/Chon/Lobodzinski discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except the modulus of elasticity of the second sealing portion is greater than a modulus of elasticity of the first sealing portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second sealing portion with a greater modulus of elasticity than the first sealing portion, since applicant has not disclosed that the relative modulus of elasticity between the sealing portions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the sealing portions having an opposite or equal modulus of elasticities. This lack of criticality is evidenced by the instant application disclosing an alternative embodiment in which the modulus of elasticity is greater in the first sealing portion.
Regarding claim 21, Ogawa/Chon/Lobodzinski teaches the device of claim 18 as stated above.
Lobodzinski further teaches wherein the stretchable wire contains a liquid (Fig 4 electrolyte 46); and the first sealing portion contains a porous material (Fig 4 and [0011] coating 48 is porous). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretchable wire of Ogawa in view of Chon and Lobodzinski to incorporate the wire containing a liquid and porous first and second sealing portions sealing the stretchable wire to arrive at claim 21. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known wire (Ogawa disclosing basic wire) for another well-known wire configuration (Lobodzinski Fig 4 filaments 42 with porous sealing portion 48/50 to allow diffusion of conductive medium 46 to filaments 42) to yield the predictable result of transmitting electrical signals.
Regarding claim 22, Ogawa/Chon teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
Ogawa fails to teach wherein the stretchable wire contains a liquid and a porous material.
In related prior art, Lobodzinski teaches wherein the stretchable wire contains a liquid (Fig 4 electrolyte 46); and the first sealing portion contains a porous material (Fig 4 and [0011] coating 48 is porous). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretchable wire of Ogawa in view of Chon and Lobodzinski to incorporate the wire containing a liquid and porous first and second sealing portions sealing the stretchable wire to arrive at claim 22. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known wire (Ogawa disclosing basic wire) for another well-known wire configuration (Lobodzinski Fig 4 filaments 42 with porous sealing portion 48/50 to allow diffusion of conductive medium 46 to filaments 42) to yield the predictable result of transmitting electrical signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-22 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Chon reference.
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 Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights