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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 05, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-6 remain pending in the application.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbre et al. (US 2020/0022606 A1) (“Barbre”) in view of Saini et al. (US 2014/0275934 A1) (“Saini”) in further view of Vice (US 2015/0327808 A1) (“Vice”).
Regarding claim 1, Barbre discloses A myoelectric sensor array, comprising (Abstract and entire document see at least [0042 – 0043], “EMG”):
a plurality of myoelectric sensors (FIG. 2 and [0058], “One illustrative implementation of the neuromuscular (e.g., sEMG) electrode (also referred to herein as a sensor) 504 shown in FIGS. 2, 3, and 9A-B is provided in FIG. 4, according to some embodiments. The neuromuscular recording sensor 504 includes dry electrodes 600, 602 and a housing 510,”); and
a plurality of wiring members each electrically connecting corresponding two adjacent myoelectric sensors among the plurality of myoelectric sensors (FIG. 2 and [0073], “In some embodiments, a rigid PCB is fixed to each of the electrodes, and the flexible PCBs connect the rigid PCBs to one another. In some embodiments, the flexible PCB is also connected to each of the electrodes. The inventors recognize that the use of one or more flexible PCBs in the mechanical assemblies for a wearable neuromuscular recording device as described herein enable movement of electrodes relative to rigid elements and the housing, so that the electrode is able to maintain contact with the skin as the wearable device moves relative to the user's body surface (e.g., skin).” PCB electrically connect each sensor to each other);
wherein each of the plurality of the myoelectric sensors includes: a substrate (FIG. 2 and [0073], “In some embodiments, a rigid PCB is fixed to each of the electrodes,”);
a pair of myoelectric electrodes provided on the substrate (FIG. 2 and [0045], “For example, as shown in FIG. 2, some of the neuromuscular recording sensors 504 include two neuromuscular recording electrodes 600 and 602, whereas others of the neuromuscular recording sensors 504 include three neuromuscular recording electrodes 600, 602, and 604, with the middle of the three electrodes being a ground or reference electrode.”); and
a signal processing circuit electrically connected to the pair of myoelectric electrodes and at least one of the wiring members ([0048], “In some embodiments, the output of one or more of the sensing components can be optionally processed using hardware signal processing circuitry (e.g., to perform amplification, filtering, and/or rectification).” And FIG. 1 showing the sensors connected to a microprocessor.),
Barbre fails to disclose wherein the plurality of myoelectric sensors is arranged in a staggered pattern in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and
wherein the wiring members extend diagonally with respect to the first direction and the second direction, and electrically connect myoelectric sensors diagonally adjacent to each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Saini teaches wherein the plurality of myoelectric sensors is arranged in a staggered pattern in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (FIG. 24, [0027], myoelectric and [0067], “FIG. 24 is a top view of a multi-electrode array 100 according to various aspects of the present disclosure. The array 100 may be substantially similar to that disclosed with reference to FIGS. 1-23. In that regard, the array 100 includes a plurality of electrodes 102 arranged on a substrate 500. In the illustrated embodiment, the array 100 includes a hexagonal array of electrodes 102. The rows and columns of electrodes 102 are offset to increase electrode 102 density.”), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the array as taught by Barbre to include wherein the plurality of myoelectric sensors is arranged in a staggered pattern in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Saini to increase electrode density ([0067]).
Barbre as modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wiring members extend diagonally with respect to the first direction and the second direction, and electrically connect myoelectric sensors diagonally adjacent to each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vice teaches wherein the wiring members extend diagonally with respect to the first direction and the second direction, and electrically connect myoelectric sensors diagonally adjacent to each other (FIG. 3 and [0037], “…and bi-directional communication between electrode.sub.3 (330) and electrode.sub.2 (320) is shown at (366). Furthermore, the electrodes shown herein (310), (320), (330), and (340) may be wired, or in one embodiment wireless, while maintaining the switching and communication functions shown herein. Accordingly, bi-directional communication is supported between each pair of electrodes in the array.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the array as taught by Barbre as modified to include wherein the wiring members extend diagonally with respect to the first direction and the second direction, and electrically connect myoelectric sensors diagonally adjacent to each other as taught by Vice to support connection between electrodes in the array ([0037]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Barbre as modified discloses The myoelectric sensor array as claimed in claim 1, Barbre as modified further discloses wherein an angle at which the wiring members extend diagonally with respect to the first direction is between 30 degrees and 60 degrees, inclusive; 40 and 50 degrees, inclusive (Saini As shown in FIG. 24).
Regarding claim 6, Barbre as modified discloses The myoelectric sensor array as claimed in claim 1, Barbre as modified further discloses wherein the wiring members are each a flexible printed circuit board or a cable (Barbre FIG. 2 and [0073], “In some embodiments, a rigid PCB is fixed to each of the electrodes, and the flexible PCBs connect the rigid PCBs to one another. In some embodiments, the flexible PCB is also connected to each of the electrodes. The inventors recognize that the use of one or more flexible PCBs in the mechanical assemblies for a wearable neuromuscular recording device as described herein enable movement of electrodes relative to rigid elements and the housing, so that the electrode is able to maintain contact with the skin as the wearable device moves relative to the user's body surface (e.g., skin).” PCB electrically connect each sensor to each other).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendments have changed the scope of the claims and required the new rejections above in view of Saini and Vice.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791