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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 2/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “there is no evidence of record to show that the claimed apparatus can be used as the Office has alleged or that the claimed process can be practiced by another apparatus or by hand”. This is not found persuasive because the claimed apparatus can be used for materially different process as follows: invention I includes a BCI system, and invention I can be used to display a non-Arabic spelling image, such as shapes or colors, and the electrode can be prepared differently, such as not using pyrrole monomers. Alternatively, the claimed process can be practiced by another apparatus as follows: recording and monitoring brain activities can be done with a processing unit that does not have a dongle, or the method can be done with an electrode that is not shaped like a racket, instead it can be shaped elliptical or rectangular. The traversal is also on the grounds that search of all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the Office. However, different classifications or search queries are needed to search for both inventions. For example, for invention I, the classification would be in G06F3/015 and for invention II, in A61B5/291. For invention I, search queries could include structures of EEG electrodes, while invention I search queries would include chemical compositions of the electrodes.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/19/2026.
Claims 1-7 are hereby under examination.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180310855A1 (Connor, Robert A.), hereto referred as Connor, and in view of US20240148302A1 (Murphy et. al), hereto referred as Murphy, and in view of US20230172468A1 (Kaplan et. al), hereto referred as Kaplan.
As to claim 1, Connor teaches a brain-computer interface (BCI) system, comprising: a cap comprising a plurality of wired electrodes (Connor, Fig. 1, sensor-positioning member 102);
wherein the plurality of wired electrodes comprises at least one electrode selected from the group consisting of a graphene-based electrode (Connor, [0118], "In an example, an electrode can be made with...graphene") and a reduced graphene oxide (rGO)-coated electrode;
a data acquisition and processing unit (Connor, [0107], "control unit 104 ");
wherein the cap is operatively connected to the data acquisition and processing unit via the plurality of wired electrodes (Connor, [0105], "head-worn sensor-positioning member (e.g. frame) 102 which is configured to position a plurality of electrodes"); and
a computing device, wherein the computing device has a communications interface coupled to the data acquisition and processing unit; wherein the BCI system removably retains the computing device;
wherein the plurality of wired electrodes is configured to detect one or more electroencephalograph (EEG) signals from a plurality of brain areas of the subject wearing the cap (Connor, [0256], "This wearable EEG monitor comprises a plurality of electrodes or other brain activity sensors");
wherein the data acquisition and processing unit is configured to characterize brain activities of the subject based on the one or more EEG signals transmitted from the plurality of wired electrodes; and wherein each EEG signal of the one or more EEG signals corresponds to the brain activities of the subject (Connor, [0119], "In an example, brainwaves can be measured and analyzed using a subset and/or combination of five clinical frequency bands: Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.").
However, Connor does not necessarily teach a reduced graphene oxide (rGO)-coated electrode, although Connor suggests it (Connor, [0118], "In an example, an electrode can be made with...graphene"). Murphy teaches relevant art of electrodes (Murphy, abstract). Murphy teaches a reduced graphene oxide (rGO)-coated electrode (Murphy, [0126], "The electrode formed of the rGO-MXene stacked film"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Connor in view of Murphy to include rGO coated electrode because Connor already contemplates using graphene for EEG electrode, and Murphy teaches a detail that is a type of graphene for EEG electrodes.
Additionally, Connor also does not necessarily teach a computing device, wherein the computing device has a communications interface coupled to the data acquisition and processing unit and wherein the BCI system removably retains the computing device, although Connor suggests the use of a computing device (Connor, [0107], “a data transmitting (and receiving) component”). Kaplan teaches a relevant art of wearable EEG (Kaplan, [0002]). Kaplan teaches a computing device, wherein the computing device has a communications interface coupled to the data acquisition and processing unit and wherein the system removably retains the computing device (Kaplan, [0064], "Computer system 900… Exemplary output devices 916 include display devices”; Fig. 1, Fig. 9). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Connor in view of Kaplan to include a computing device, wherein the computing device has a communications interface coupled to the data acquisition and processing unit and wherein the BCI system removably retains the computing device because doing so would allow various use of the EEG signals, as recognized by Kaplan (Kaplan, [0059], “FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary computer system 900 with which headsets and other client devices 110, and method 700 and 800 can be implemented, according to some embodiments.”).
As to claim 5, the data acquisition and processing unit comprises a biosensing board (Connor, [0105], "This monitor further comprises control unit 104"), and wherein the biosensing board comprises a processor and a neural interface having a plurality of channels (Connor, [0113], various examples of electrode sites). However, Connor does not teach a dongle. Kaplan teaches a dongle (Kaplan, [0064], “In certain aspects, input/output module 910 is configured to connect to a plurality of devices, such as an input device 914”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Connor in view of Kaplan to include a dongle because doing so can allow other input devices to be connected.
As to claim 6, the plurality of channels of the neural interface comprise Pz, P4, Cz, C4 and Fz (Connor, [0113]).
As to claim 7, each electrode of the plurality of the wired electrodes is operatively connected to each channel of the plurality of channels of the neural interface (Connor, [0118], "In an example, an electrode can be made with a low-conductivity material selected from...graphene").
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, Murphy, and Kaplan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20240090814A1 (Vitale, III et. al), hereto referred to as Vitale.
Claim 1 is taught as above.
As to claim 2, Connor-Murphy-Kaplan does not necessarily teach the details of the electrode. Vitale teaches a relevant art of ECG electrodes (Vitale, abstract). Vitale teaches each electrode of the plurality of wired electrodes is in the shape of a flat racket (Vitale, Fig. 3), and is etched with a pattern of etchings, trenches or concaves in a repeating pattern (Vitale, claim 26, "patterning comprises laser cutting, mechanical cutting, mechanical etching"), and wherein the flat racket has a circular head portion and a rectangular tail portion and an average thickness in a range of 0.1 mm to 2 mm (Vitale, [0120], "slice thickness=0.7 mm"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Connor-Murphy-Kaplan in view of Vitale to include wired electrodes is in the shape of a flat racket, and is etched with a pattern of etchings, trenches or concaves in a repeating pattern, and wherein the flat racket has a circular head portion and a rectangular tail portion and an average thickness in a range of 0.1 mm to 2 mm because Connor-Murphy-Kaplan already teaches an EEG electrode for the head, and Vitale supplies the detailed structures of the electrode, which are improved flexible electrodes (Vitale, [0005]).
As to claim 3, Connor-Murphy-Kaplan-Vitale teaches the circular head portion of each electrode has an average diameter in a range of 4 to 20 mm, and a repeating pattern of etched lines that are radially oriented and evenly spaced inside the circular head portion of the electrode (Vitale, Fig. 3, the round head portion; [0113], “planar MXtrodes with center-to-center spacing of 8.5 mm horizontal”).
As to claim 4, the rectangular tail portion of each electrode has an average length in a range of 3 to 15 mm, an average width of 1 to 3 mm, and a series of repeating lines that extend from one edge of the rectangular tail portion to the other edge of the rectangular tail portion perpendicular to the axis of the rectangular tail portion (Vitale, Fig. 3, the rectangular tail portion). Vitale does not necessarily explicitly teach that rectangular tail portion of the electrode has an average length in a range of 3 to 15 mm, an average width of 1 to 3 mm; however, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rectangular tail portion of each electrode has an average length in a range of 3 to 15 mm, an average width of 1 to 3 mm because the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELINA S JANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ELINA SOHYUN JANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791