DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on April 15, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1 and 19 were amended. Claims 42-46 are new. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on April 15, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112B
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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as it stems from cancelled base claim 14. As such, claim 41 is not treated on the merits.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 15, 18, 31, 36, 38, 39, 40, and 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0005608 A1) (hereinafter “Evans”)1.
With respect to claim 1, Evans teaches a device for collecting and processing an electromyography (EMG) signal of a human body (par.002 “electromyography (EMG) systems… which detect physiological electrical activity at locations on, or within, an individual’s body”), comprising: an electrode module configured to collect the EMG signal of the human body, the electrode module including a base structure, at least two electrodes (abstract “a first electrode unit… and a second electrode unit… placed on or in proximity to the individual’s skin”; par.0055 “electrode units 204 may be detachable from base unit 202”), and a 600… against the individual’s skin”), the at least two electrodes being arranged at intervals on a surface of the base structure (two or more electrode units 104A, 104B, 104C are arranged at intervals with respect to different locations/surface of base structure 102/202; see Figs. 4A-4D), connection between the suction cup/hole and the skin, thereby holding electrode unit 600 (or sensor portion 604 of electrode unit 600) against the individual's skin”).
Although Evans does not expressly teach a plurality of sucker structures, further modification to incorporate more than one sucker structure would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) when the invention was filed for the following reasons. First, Evans expressly teaches placement of multiple electrode units in relation to the individual’s body, skin, etc. (abstract, par.0070). Second, Evans, as cited above, expressly discloses adhering an electrode unit 600 to the skin via sucker structure (par.0075 “electrode unit 600… may comprise a suction cup or suction hole… thereby holding electrode unit 600… against the individual’s skin”). Evans also expressly discloses “any one or more of electrode units 104, 204, 304 may comprise an electrode unit 600” (par.0070). As such, utilizing more than one sucker structure with one or more electrodes would be obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed. Lastly, modifying Evans to utilize a plurality of sucker structures, in the manner recited, would have been further obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 2, Evans teaches wherein the at least two electrodes include a first electrode and a second electrode arranged side by side on the surface of the base structure (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 3, Evans suggests wherein the at least two electrodes further include a reference electrode, and the first electrode, the reference electrode and the second electrode are arranged side by side in sequence on the surface of the base structure; or the at least two electrodes further include a third electrode and a fourth electrode arranged side by side on the surface of the base structure, wherein the first electrode is arranged side by side with the third electrode, and the second electrode is arranged side by side with the fourth electrode (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 5, Evans suggests wherein the electrode module includes a plurality of protruding structures located on surfaces of the at least two electrodes or a surface of the base structure (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 7, Evans suggests wherein the protruding structures are hollow inside, and a hollow part of each of the protruding structures has a filler (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 11, Evans suggests wherein the plurality of sucker structures are distributed on the surface of the base structure around the at least two electrodes (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 15, Evans suggests wherein the electrode module further includes a plurality of bump structures located on the surface of the base structure or the surfaces of the at least two electrodes (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 18, Evans suggests wherein the electrode module further includes a plurality of air holes located on the electrodes and/or the base structure to make the electrode module have a certain air permeability (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 31, Evans suggests wherein the protruding structures are arranged in an array or randomly distributed on the surfaces of the at least two electrodes or the surface of the base structure (abstract; par.0070, 0075; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 35, Evans suggests wherein two of the at least two electrodes in the electrode module are arranged at intervals along a length direction of a muscle fiber (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0121; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 38, Evans suggests wherein each of the at least two electrodes includes a first electrode part and a second electrode part, the first electrode part and the second electrode part are connected with each other, the first electrode part and the second electrode part have a height difference, wherein the first electrode part is configured to contact the human skin, and the second electrode part is configured to connect with a data wire so as to transmit an EMG signal collected by the first electrode part (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 39, Evans suggests wherein the plurality of protruding structures and the at least two electrodes are distributed on different surfaces of the base structure (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 40, Evans suggests wherein the plurality of the protruding structures are made of an elastic material including at least one of a soft polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a resin, or a silicone (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0113, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 41, Evans suggests wherein the middle structure is made of soft and deformable material with a certain elasticity (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0113, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 42, Evans suggests wherein at least part of the sucker structure is made of elastic materials, the elastic materials include at least one of a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), a polypropylene (PPE), or a polyurethane-acrylate based polymer (s- PUA) (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0113, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 43, Evans suggests wherein each of at least one of the at least two electrodes is a composite electrode formed by stacking a metal fabric electrode and a conductive silicon electrode; the conductive silicon electrode is used to contact the human skin; and the metal fabric electrode is located between the conductive silicon electrode and the base structure (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0113, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D; see also claims 8, 36, 37).
With respect to claim 44, Evans suggests wherein a size of the metal fabric electrode is greater than a size of the conductive silicon electrode (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0113, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D; see also claims 8, 36, 37).
With respect to claim 45, Evans suggests wherein the electrode module further includes a plurality of bump structures, the plurality of bump structures are arranged between the at least two electrodes so as to block body surface fluids between the at least two electrodes and prevent a short circuit of the at least two electrodes (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0113, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D).
With respect to claim 46, Evans suggests wherein the middle structure is connected to a top wall of the hollow part to form a first connection point; through a pressing force between the middle structure and a side wall of the hollow part, the middle structure is in contact with but not fixed to the side wall of the hollow part to form a second connection point and a third connection point; the middle structure, the top wall, and the side wall form a first space area via the first connection point and the second connection point, and form a second space area via the first connection point and the third connection point; the middle structure, the side wall, and the human skin form a third space area; the first space area, the second space area, and the third space area are in communication with each other; when the external force acts on the sucker structure, the hollow part and the middle structure deform, and liquid on the human skin in the third space area enters the first space area and the second space area through the second connection point and the third connection point; after the external force is removed, the sucker structure and the middle structure restore shapes, thereby generating a negative pressure adsorption force between the hollow part and the human skin, causing the sucker structure to be absorbed on the human skin, and the liquid in the third space area remains in the first space area and the second space area (abstract; par.0070, 0075, 0109, 0113, 0121-0122; Figs. 4A-4D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see prior art section above for more detail, updated citations (new Evans reference), and updated obviousness rationale.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 Claim 41 not treated on the merits as it depends from cancelled claim 14.
Prosecution Insights