DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Claim Status
The amendment filed on 10/06/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 101 rejections, the amendment to claim 1 has overcome the 101 rejection.
Regarding 102 rejections, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 20220233124 A1), herein referred to as “Connor”, in view of Chi et al. (WO 2019094609 A1), herein referred to as “Chi”.
Regarding claim 1, Connor discloses: A biological electrode comprising an electrode member ([0033]; “disclosed herein are EEG electrodes for use on a hair-covered portion of a person's head”), wherein the electrode member has an electrode body having a plate shape and a plurality of electrode protrusions provided so as to protrude from an electrode protrusion forming surface of the electrode body ([0464] “an electrode base 4201; a ring of electroconductive proximal protrusions (e.g. pins, prongs, teeth, spikes, fingers, and/or protrusions), including protrusion 4202, which extend out in a non-perpendicular manner from the electrode base toward the person's head… and come into contact with the surface of the person's head” , [Figure 42] ), the plurality of electrode protrusions each including a proximal end attached to the electrode protrusion forming surface ([Figure 42]; Connor discloses an embodiment in which protrusions (4202) and a proximal portion attached to the protrusion forming surface) and a distal end that is configured to be in contact with the body of the subject [0464]; “which extend out in a non-perpendicular manner from the electrode base toward the person's head… and come into contact with the surface of the person's head”), the plurality of electrode protrusions are arranged on a virtual circle that travels about an outer peripheral part of the electrode protrusion forming surface of the electrode body ([Figure 42]; Connor discloses an embodiment in which protrusions (4202) are located in the peripheral of electrode body in a virtual circle), a center of a cross-section of the proximal end of each electrode protrusion being positioned on the virtual circle ([Figure 42]) and a protrusion height of each electrode protrusion from the proximal end thereof to the distal end thereof in a direction perpendicular to the electrode protrusion forming surface is 6 to 15mm ([0275]; “an electrode can comprise a base which is worn a first distance from the surface of a person's head and a plurality of conductive protrusions which extend inward from the base through the person's hair to a second distance from the surface of the person's head, wherein the second distance is 1 mm to 10 mm less than the first distance”). Connor does not disclose: a center of a cross-section of the distal end of each electrode protrusion being positioned radially outward from the virtual circle.
However, Chi discloses: and a center of a cross-section of the distal end of each electrode protrusion being positioned radially outward from the virtual circle ([Claim 5]; “ rigid housing bends said prongs so as to dispose said prongs(s) in a radially outward pattern”, [Figure 5])
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode as disclosed by Connor with the radially outward projecting protrusions as disclosed by Chi the motivation being to improve penetration through hair ([Claim 5]).
Regarding claim 2, Connor in view of Chi disclose: The biological electrode according to claim 1. Connor further discloses: wherein each of the plurality of electrode protrusions is arranged so as to be located on the circumference of one virtual circle or a plurality of virtual concentric circles on the outer peripheral part of the electrode protrusion forming surface. ([Figure 42]; Connor discloses an embodiment in which protrusions (4202) are located in the peripheral of electrode body in a virtual circle)
Regarding claim 3, Connor in view of Chi disclose: The biological electrode according to claim 1. Connor further discloses: wherein the plurality of electrode protrusions are arranged at equal intervals on the outer peripheral part of the electrode protrusion forming surface ([0434]; “In an example, a set of electroconductive proximal protrusions can comprise at least three protrusions which extend out different polar angles relative to a central point, wherein the polar angles are evenly distributed around a 360-degree circle”).
Regarding claim 4, Connor in view of Chi disclose: The biological electrode according to claim 1. Connor further discloses: wherein each of the plurality of electrode protrusions has an oblique conical shape with a rounded apex. ([0110];” In an example, a protrusion can have a conic shape”)
Regarding claim 5, Connor in view of Chi disclose: The biological electrode according to claim 1. Connor further discloses: which is used for electroencephalography of a subject ([0033]; “disclosed herein are EEG electrodes for use on a hair-covered portion of a person's head with a plurality of conductive protrusions which extend out from a distal electrode base portion toward a person's head”)
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