DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims 1-5 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection, however, do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 08/20/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues: Banet does not teach "...an extraction electrode (50) which is connected to the electrode terminal (30) and has a terminal unit (51) exposed on an upper surface (22) of the insulating base material (20)". Examiner respectfully disagrees as stated in office action mailed 08/20/2025 Banet teaches: “[Figure 6]; Banet teaches electrode (13), which is seen as an extraction electrode. Banet further teaches Electrode (13) connected to electrical traces (21a-c) and bulkhead connector (33), which is seen as a terminal unit.” However, to further describe how Banet teaches the claim examiner will amend as follows, italicized for emphasis: “[Figure 6, which is the top view of electrode assembly]; Banet teaches electrode (13), which is seen as an extraction electrode. Banet further teaches Electrode (13) connected to electrical traces (21a-c) and bulkhead connector (33), which is seen as a terminal unit. Further the bulkhead connector is exposed”. Banet teaches the exposed terminal and therefore claim 1 is still rejected under 32 U.S.C §102 and dependent claims are further rejected as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Banet et al. (US 20140213881 A1) herein referred to as “Banet”.
Regarding claim 1, Banet teaches: A biological signal detection electrode ([0003]; “The present invention relates to electrodes and sensors that use them to measure physiological signals from patients.”) used by being adhered to a skin surface of a living body ([0057]; Banet teaches the electrodes adhering to a patients skin), comprising: an insulating base material having electrical insulation ([0059]; Banet teaches electrode spacer (12), which is seen as a base material, made from electrically insulating material); an electrode terminal buried in the insulating base material ([Figure 6]; Benet teaches electrical traces 21a-c, that are seen as electrode terminals, that are in the electrode holder (12), which is seen as electrode terminal buried in the insulating base material because the electrode traces and implanted in the electrode holder) the electrode terminal including a signal detection surface on a lower surface of the electrode terminal which is in contact with the skin surface of the insulating base material ([Figure 4]; Banet teaches electrode (13) which lower surface facing skin surface (14) is seen as a signal detection surface) ; a conductive gel film provided on the lower surface of the insulating base material to cover the signal detection surface ([Figure 7B]; Banet teaches conductive gel (22a-c) on the lower surface of electrode (13), which is seen as the lower surface signal detection surface of electrode spacer (12)); an extraction electrode ([Figure 4] Banet teaches electrode (13)) which is connected to the electrode terminal and has a terminal unit exposed on an upper surface of the insulating base material ([Figure 6]; Banet teaches electrode (13), which is seen as an extraction electrode. Banet further teaches Electrode (13) connected to electrical traces (21a-c) and bulkhead connector (33), which is seen as a terminal unit); and a magnetic body disposed below the terminal unit in the insulating base material. ([Figure 7a-b]; Banet teaches magnetics (17a-c), which are seen as magnetic bodies that are found within the insulating base material)
Regarding claim 2, Banet teaches: The biological signal detection electrode according to Claim 1, wherein the electrode terminal is made of a corrosion-resistant material that is not corroded by the conductive gel film ([Figure 7B]; Banet teaches film (18a-c) [0060]; Banet further teaches the film being made of AG/GCL which is seen as a corrosion-resistant material).
Regarding claim 3, The biological signal detection electrode according to Claim 2, wherein the corrosion-resistant material is selected from Ag-AgCl, Ag paste, AU, Pt, or carbon. ([0056]; Banet teaches lower surface of the electrode to be coated (18a-c) with AgCl. [0060]; Banet teaches coating (18a-c) being made of a gold material).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banet in view of Morita et al. (US 10835140 B2) herein referred to as “Morita”.
Regarding claim 4, Banet discloses: The biological signal detection electrode according to claim 1. Banet does not disclose: wherein the extraction electrode is made of Ag paste.
However, Morita discloses: wherein the extraction electrode is made of Ag paste. ( [Column 4 lines 42-45]; Morita discloses electrode (11), which is seen as an extraction electrode, with Ag paste layer (11a), which is seen as being made of Ag paste)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of claimed invention to modify the biological signal detection electrode as disclosed by Banet with the electrode made of Ag paste as disclose Marita the motivation being the simple substitution of a conductive element with an electrode, a conductive element, with the expected outcome of transmission of electrical current.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banet in view of Marita further in view of Kuhn (US 4657023) herein referred to as “Kuhn”.
Regarding claim 5, Banet in view of Marita disclose: The biological signal detection electrode according to Claim 4. Banet does not disclose: wherein the electrode terminal is made of Ag paste in the same manner as the extraction electrode.
However, Kuhn discloses: wherein the electrode terminal is made of Ag paste in the same manner as the extraction electrode. ([Figure 2]; Kuhn discloses substrate (16) which is seen as an electrode terminal [column 2 lines 44-48]; Kuhn further discloses the substrate may be rendered conductive with the use of Ag paste, which is seen as being made of Ag paste)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to modify the biological signal detection electrode according as disclosed by Banet in view of Marita with the electrode terminal as disclosed by Kuhn the motivation being the simple substitution of an electrode terminal with an electrode to obtain the predictable result of recording biological signals.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CASEY GEORGE CHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/CASEY GEORGE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights