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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 2, line 6-12, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Cramer and specifically, that Cramer fails to teach each flexible pin protrudes outwardly from the flexible base is persuasive. Examiner considers Cramer to sufficiently teach the concept of a flexible electrode/user interface but is silent to each of the actual electrode pins being flexible.
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, 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.
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) 1-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisend (US 2016/0206871) in view of Cramer et al. (US 2017/0055903) and Wingeier et al. (US 20200215326).
With regard to claim 1 and 11, Weisend discloses a brain stimulation device, comprising a head mounted device (see Fig. 5) having a sensing electrode system configured for monitoring brain function (see paragraphs 43 and 55), and a stimulation electrode system configured for stimulating a brain (see paragraph 15 and 44).
Weisend fails to teach the specific structure of the electrode system.
Cramer teaches a similar head mounted device for sensing and stimulation (see paragraph 14) having a flexible base (see flexible material 20, paragraph 35) and an array of pins (see electrodes 60), with each pin extending outwardly from the flexible base (see Fig. 3), wherein said sensing electrode system and said stimulation electrode system do not require any kind of external conductive wet materials for their performance (see dry electrodes paragraph 7). Examiner notes the electrode system is configured to be flexible however; as discussed above, Cramer fails to teach the actual pins of the electrode are individually flexible.
Wingeier teaches that it is known to have a head mounted device with flexible electrode pins (see paragraph 27 and 53; see Fig. 4 which shows electrode pins).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Weisend with the individual electrode pins being flexible and the sensing electrode system do not require any kind of external conductive wet materials for their performance as taught by Cramer and/or Wingeier since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring conformation to the user (e.g. proper contact of the electrode to the sensing/stimulation surface) and also being comfortable to the user which is explicitly taught by Wingeier in paragraph 27.
Additionally, the selection between dry and wet electrodes would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art since wet versus dry electrodes generally define a subset of two possible known electrode configuration, either dry or wet, and it would at least be obvious to try to select between these finite identified options of electrode configurations.
With regard to claim 2 and 12, Weisend discloses a communication system configured to transfer signals to an external device (see paragraph 46).
With regard to claims 3-4, 10, and 13-14, Weisend discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach a cellphone, tablet, or smartwatch as the external device or the communication system is configured to transmit signals to a cloud facility. Wingeier teaches that is known to use and external device such as a cellphone, tablet, or smartwatch; or alternatively or additionally transmitting the signal to a remote server (i.e. cloud) for executing client applications and/or storing data as set forth in paragraphs 34-35. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Weisend with a cellphone, tablet, or smartwatch as the external device or alternatively or additionally transmitting the signal to a remote server (i.e. cloud) since such a modification would be using well known devices for executing client applications or storing data from the device.
With regard to claim 5 and 15, Weisend discloses said stimulation electrode system is configured for transmitting electrical stimulation (see paragraph 15).
With regard to claim 6 and 16, Weisend discloses said stimulation electrode system is configured for transmitting magnetic stimulation (see paragraph 11 and 31).
With regard to claim 7, Weisend discloses a driver circuit (see software means; paragraph 49) mounted on said head mounted device and being configured to generate brain stimulation waves to be transmitted by said stimulation electrode system (see paragraph 48).
With regard to claim 8, Weisend discloses said driver circuit is configured for generation brain stimulation waves according to a sleep improving protocol (see paragraph 15 and 34).
With regard to claim 9, Weisend discloses wherein said driver circuit is configured for generating brain stimulation waves to induce a state of deep sleep (see slow wave sleep; paragraph 34).
With regard to claims 17-18, Weisend discloses sensing EEG and EMG signals (see paragraph 13).
With regard to claim 20, Weisend discloses using said signals for correcting positioning of said systems on a head of a subject (see paragraph 20).
With regard to claim 21, the modified Weisend discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach the flexible base of the electrode is conductive. Wingeier teaches that it is known to use a conductive flexible base as set forth in paragraph 27 (e.g. electrode units can include a pad, sponge, fabric, polymer (e.g. conductive rubber, carbon rubber etc.)) for providing the predictable providing a known electrode structure for reliable sensing/stimulation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Weisend with to use of a conductive flexible base since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a known electrode structure for reliable sensing/stimulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A STOKLOSA whose telephone number is (571)272-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930AM-530PM.
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, Jonathan Teixeira-Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights