DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on June 23, 2026. Claims 1-11 and 13 are pending. Claim 12 is cancelled. A final action on the merits of claims 1-11 and 13 is as follows.
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 . 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-3 and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a plurality of the curved protrusions”. However, it is unclear if “one or more curved protrusions” of claim 1 is one of or different from the plurality of the curved protrusions. Applicant should amend the claim limitation to recite “the one or more curved protrusions comprises two protrusions”.
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of the electrodes”. However, it is unclear if limitation refers to “one or more electrodes” of claim 1 is one of or different set of electrodes. Applicant should amend the claim limitation to recite “the one or more electrodes comprises a plurality of electrodes”.
Claim 10 recites “a plurality of the curved protrusions”. However, it is unclear if “one or more curved protrusions” of claim 1 is one of or different from the plurality of the curved protrusions. Applicant should amend the claim limitation to recite “the one or more curved protrusions comprises two protrusions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinlan et al. (hereinafter ‘Quinlan’, EP 3 370 598), and further in view of Neese et al. (hereinafter ‘Neese’, U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,96).
In regards to independent claim 1, Quinlan discloses a sensor patch (health monitor patch 100 in Fig. 1), the sensor patch comprising:
a first side (surface of the patch 100 comprising an adhesive surface 152 as shown in Fig. 1C) having one or more electrodes configured to contact a user’s skin (one of the electrodes 160a & 106b are configured to attach to a subject’s skin, [0032]), and
a second side (upper surface comprising first and second end regions 110a and 110b and open center 120, and flexible ribs 107) opposed to the first side, the second side having one or more curved protrusions located opposite to a part on the first side where the one or more electrodes is positioned (the first and second end regions 110a and 110b are curved and opposite to electrodes 160a and 160b).
However, Quilan does not disclose a belt and the sensor patch designed to be positioned on a user by means of the belt, wherein the sensor patch is designed to be separably from the belt, the sensor patch being configured to allow the belt to slide over the one or more curved positions, and to exercise a normal force on the sensor patch mainly at the part where the one or more electrodes is positioned to produce a friction force between the one or more electrodes and the user’s skin.
Neese teaches an elastic band (30 in Fig. 1) configured to be used to secure and position an electrode (the reference electrode 44 on a lower surface of the body 40 in Fig. 2; col. 7, ln. 61-col. 8, ln. 5). The concept of providing an elastic band over a separable electrode such that the elastic band applies a normal force or compression against the electrode is known by Neese. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Quilan and incorporate the elastic band of Neese as to cover and secure the adhesive patch, as providing an additional securing means and apply further compressive force upon the sensor patch, specifically, along the electrodes since the band is elastic, engaging the curved protrusions of Quilan to produce a friction force between the electrode and the user’s skin. In addition, since the band is not securely attached to the sensor patch, the band is capable of being slidable along the upper surface of the sensor patch when the sensor patch is adhered onto the skin.
In regards to claim 2, Quilan further discloses wherein the second side has a plurality of curved protrusions (the upper surface comprises two curved protrusions, 110a and 110b as shown in Fig. 1B).
In regards to claim 3, Quilan further discloses wherein the first side has the one or more electrodes (electrodes 160a and 160b in Fig. 1C) and the second side has a corresponding plurality of curved protrusions respectively located opposite the one or more electrodes (the first and second end regions 110a and 110b are curved and opposite to electrodes 160a and 160b).
In regards to claim 4, Quilan further discloses wherein: the sensor patch comprises a first friction element on the first side (the lower surface comprises an adhesion surface 152 which is considered a frictional element to prevent moving of the patch 100).
In regards to claim 5, Quilan further discloses the first friction element on the first side is located next to the one or more electrodes (the adhesion surface 152 surrounds the electrodes 160a and 160b in Fig 1C).
In regards to claim 6, Quilan further discloses the sensor patch as a lateral extension provided with a further electrode (the two electrodes 160a and 160b in Fig. 1C are laterally extended from the center of the lower surface of the path; therefore, the adhesive surface 152 comprising the other electrode of 160a and 160b is interpreted to be the lateral extension).
In regards to claim 8, Quilan further discloses wherein the sensor patch is flexible ([0012]: “In some embodiments, the health-monitor patch comprises a flexible and waterproof strip”).
In regards to claim 9, Quilan further discloses wherein the curved protrusion comprises a low friction material ([0016]: “The flexible strip assembly [105 in Fig. 1A-1B] may comprise a flexible polymer such as, but not limited to, silicone”).
In regards to claim 10, Quilan further discloses the second side has a plurality of curved protrusions that are separated from each other, and are separably or inseparably attached to the first side (the portions 110a and 110b of the flexible and waterproof strip 105 in Fig. 1A-1B are separated from each other by a distance and are separable from a replaceable electrode strip 152), and wherein the first side is partly or solely made of a flexible material ([0017]-[0018]: the replaceable electrode strip is peeled off of the lower surface of the flexible strip assembly 105 and the adhesion surface 152 is flexible comprising flexible electrodes and flexible adhesive layer).
In regards to claim 11, Quilan further discloses the sensor patch comprises a motion sensor ([0026]: “In operation, a health-monitor patch may collect physiological data (e.g., cardiac data, temperature data, blood oxygenation data, etc.) and/or motion data (e.g., accelerometer data) from one or more of its sensors.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinlan and Neese as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otero (U.S. Pat. No. 5,197,471).
In regards to claim 7, Quilan/Neese combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 and discussed above.
However, Quilan/Neese combination does not disclose wherein the lateral extension comprises a second friction element on the first side.
Otero discloses an electrode for medical use for recording biopotentials on a skin surface of a human body (see Fig. 1-3, & 17). Specifically, Otero discloses providing friction elements along a bottom surface on an electrode to penetrate and stay anchored within the skin (col. 2, ln. 45-49: “FIG. 1 shows a view of the bottom part of an electrode without protective foil, including an electroconductive circular plate 1, with a plurality of sharp end bosses radially aligned and with conical, pyramidal or truncated end shape 2”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the electrode along the first surface of Quilan and incorporate a plurality of sharp end bosses radially aligned and with conical, pyramidal, or truncated end shape as taught by Otero so that the electrodes is configured to penetrate and stay anchored within the skin (abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinlan and Neese as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bahney et al. (hereinafter ‘Bahney’, U.S. PGPub. No. 2014/0206977).
In regards to claim 13, Quilan/Neese combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 and discussed above. Quilan further discloses the sensor patch comprises a motion sensor ([0026]: “In operation, a health-monitor patch may collect physiological data (e.g., cardiac data, temperature data, blood oxygenation data, etc.) and/or motion data (e.g., accelerometer data) from one or more of its sensors.”).
However, Quilan does not disclose that the motion sensor is an optical motion sensor.
Bahney teaches various motion sensors including a strain gauge, piezoelectric sensor or optical sensor to detect motion artifact of an electrode patch ([0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any of the known motion sensors, such as strain gauge, piezoelectric sensor optical sensor for their use in sensing motion and the selection of any one of these known equivalents to detect motion artifact when wearing an electrode patch would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks filed on June 23, 2026 is fully acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Quinlan (EP Pat. No. 3370598) have been considered but are moot because of the newly added limitation.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the canceled claim 12 now incorporated in independent claim 1, that Dawson (U.S. PGPub. No. 2014/0062508) in view of Quinlan is moot. The Examiner notes that independent claim 1 requires the subject matter of previously presented claim 12, now canceled, along with a change of scope from the adhesive patch including an electrode to one or more electrodes. Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of claims 1-6, and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinlan and newly recited reference, Neese (U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,965) is made above.
The concept of providing an elastic band over a separate electrode such that the elastic band applies a normal force or compression against the electrode is known by Neese (the reference electrode 44 on a lower surface of the body 40 is surrounded by an elastic band in Fig. 2; col. 7, ln. 61-col. 8, ln. 5). Even more, the concept of providing a band to hold an object against a body in the medical art, such as an ice pack and to apply a compressive force against the object is old and routine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Quilan and incorporate the elastic band as taught by Neese as doing so covers, secures, and applies force against the adhesive patch even though Quilan’s adhesive patch is applied to the skin via an adhesive in view of Neese.
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 EUNHWA KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights