DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the new claims depend from withdrawn claims. The examiner is assuming these claims to be withdrawn as well. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker, II (US 5,974,344, hereinafter “Shoemaker”) in view of Solosko et al. (US 2010/0228113, hereinafter “Solosko”).
In regards to claim 1, Shoemaker discloses an electrode pad for low-frequency therapy for use in contact with a living body (Fig. 1; as a conductive electrode, the device can have any signal the user chooses applied to it, including low-frequency therapy), the electrode pad comprising:
a conductive material having moisture permeability and liquid permeability (Fig. 1, element 12; col. 2, lines 62-64; permeability provided by perforations 26), the conductive material including:
a first face facing a side opposite to a side where a body surface of a user is located in a contact state for the electrode pad to be in contact with the living body, a second face facing the body surface of the user in the contact state (Fig. 1, top and bottom faces of 12, respectively); and
a plurality of holes each penetrating the conductive material in a thickness direction of the conductive material (Fig. 1, elements 26; col. 2, lines 62-64);
a member having insulating properties, the member provided on the first face (Fig. 1, element 22; fast-dries the skin, col. 1, lines 57-61); and
a gel layer with conductivity (Fig. 1, element 16; col. 2, lines 47-50), the gel layer provided on the second face (Fig. 1), wherein
the gel layer has hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency (necessarily present in a hydrogel; see also col. 3, lines 14-16 and 34-36),
the gel layer includes a moisture and liquid absorbing structure (Fig. 1, elements 34; col. 3, lines 17-27),
the moisture and liquid absorbing structure includes a plurality of holes penetrating the gel layer in a thickness direction of the gel layer, and the moisture and liquid absorbing structure is configured to absorb liquid from the body surface of the user by the plurality of holes (col. 3, lines 12-27), and
the member is disposed on the first face of the conductive material (Fig. 1, element 22), and the gel layer is disposed on the second face of the conductive material, so that the plurality of holes of the gel layer are connected to the plurality of holes of the conductive material, and the liquid absorbed by the plurality of holes of the gel layer is drawn to the member through the plurality of holes of the conductive material (col. 3, lines 12-27).
Although Shoemaker discloses providing a nonconductive, open-celled foam such as polyurethane as the member 38, Shoemaker does not expressly disclose that this is a fast-drying member that dissipates the absorbed liquid. However, Solosko in the same field of endeavor of body surface electrodes teaches providing a breathable (“fast-drying”) polyurethane foam layer (par. 0060) to provide the predictable results of allowing skin moisture to evaporate and seals against outside moisture from entering and causing electrical shorting between electrodes (par. 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shoemaker by providing a fast-drying polyurethane foam layer that dissipates the absorbed liquid to provide the predictable results of allowing skin moisture to evaporate and seals against outside moisture from entering and causing electrical shorting between electrodes.
In regards to claim 6, Shoemaker discloses a low-frequency therapy apparatus, comprising the electrode pad according to claim 1 (col. 1, lines 9-30; as evidence that the direct current therapy of Shoemaker is considered “low-frequency therapy” in the art, please see US 3,954,111 to Sato at col. 1, lines 56-61).
In regards to claim 19, the fast-drying member comprises at least one of an insulating fabric, a nonwoven fabric, and a porous member (col. 3, lines 50-53; open-celled foam).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker and Solosko, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freeman et al. (US 2020/0101278, hereinafter “Freeman”).
In regards to claim 3, Shoemaker’s modified invention discloses the essential features of the claimed invention except for wherein the contact surface includes a groove that crosses the thickness direction of the gel layer and extends to a side face of the gel layer. However, Freeman in the same field of endeavor of stimulation electrodes teaches providing a skin-contacting gel layer wherein the contact surface includes a groove that crosses the thickness direction of the gel layer and extends to a side face of the gel layer (Fig. 10C) to provide the predictable results of facilitating improved moisture evaporation from the skin (par. 0179). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Shoemaker by providing a skin-contacting gel layer wherein the contact surface includes a groove that crosses the thickness direction of the gel layer and extends to a side face of the gel layer to provide the predictable results of facilitating improved moisture evaporation from the skin.
In regards to claim 12, Shoemaker discloses a low-frequency therapy apparatus, comprising the electrode pad according to claim 1 (col. 1, lines 9-30; as evidence that the direct current therapy of Shoemaker is considered “low-frequency therapy” in the art, please see US 3,954,111 to Sato at col. 1, lines 56-61).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker and Solosko, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hzuka (US 2021/0198403, hereinafter “Hzuka”).
In regards to claim 4, Shoemaker’s modified invention discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, but does not expressly disclose wherein a woven fabric, a knitted fabric or a nonwoven fabric, having hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency, is embedded in the gel layer in a manner to be exposed on a side face of the gel layer.
However, Hzuka in the same field of endeavor of gel electrodes teaches providing a woven fabric, a knitted fabric or a nonwoven fabric, having hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency, embedded in the gel layer in a manner to be exposed on a side face of the gel layer (Fig. 2, see exposed side faces; par. 0048, the natural fibers, including silk, have a hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency) to provide the predictable results of a hydrogel sheet that has excellent followability to an object and is excellent in handleability (par. 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freeman by providing a woven fabric, a knitted fabric or a nonwoven fabric, having hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency, embedded in the gel layer in a manner to be exposed on a side face of the gel layer to provide the predictable results of a hydrogel sheet that has excellent followability to an object and is excellent in handleability.
In regards to claim 13, Shoemaker discloses a low-frequency therapy apparatus, comprising the electrode pad according to claim 1 (col. 1, lines 9-30; as evidence that the direct current therapy of Shoemaker is considered “low-frequency therapy” in the art, please see US 3,954,111 to Sato at col. 1, lines 56-61).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker, Solosko and Freeman, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hzuka.
In regards to claim 9, Shoemaker’s modified invention discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, but does not expressly disclose wherein a woven fabric, a knitted fabric or a nonwoven fabric, having hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency, is embedded in the gel layer in a manner to be exposed on a side face of the gel layer.
However, Hzuka in the same field of endeavor of gel electrodes teaches providing a woven fabric, a knitted fabric or a nonwoven fabric, having hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency, embedded in the gel layer in a manner to be exposed on a side face of the gel layer (Fig. 2, see exposed side faces; par. 0048, the natural fibers, including silk, have a hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency) to provide the predictable results of a hydrogel sheet that has excellent followability to an object and is excellent in handleability (par. 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freeman by providing a woven fabric, a knitted fabric or a nonwoven fabric, having hygroscopicity and liquid absorbency, embedded in the gel layer in a manner to be exposed on a side face of the gel layer to provide the predictable results of a hydrogel sheet that has excellent followability to an object and is excellent in handleability.
In regards to claim 17, Shoemaker discloses a low-frequency therapy apparatus, comprising the electrode pad according to claim 1 (col. 1, lines 9-30; as evidence that the direct current therapy of Shoemaker is considered “low-frequency therapy” in the art, please see US 3,954,111 to Sato at col. 1, lines 56-61).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nielsen et al. (US 2023/0034369) is another example of a multi-layer wound dressing/electrode.
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 MICHAEL W KAHELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571)270-5213. 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.
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792