DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending and hereby under examination.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"wearable portion" first recited in claim 1;
"fixing members" first recited in claim 1;
“bioelectrode unit” first recited in claim 1; and
"interconnect members” first recited in claim 1.
The identified structure for the corresponding claim limitations are as follows:
"wearable portion" is identified as "wearable portion 10 has elasticity. The wearable portion 10 is worn on a living body. The wearable portion 10 is deformable to conform to the deformation of the living body. The wearable portion 10 is, for example, a supporter made of urethane” (Paragraph 0020).
“bioelectrode unit” is identified as “the bioelectrode unit 40 includes a substrate 41, a pair of myoelectric electrodes 42, electronic components 43, and connectors 44” (Paragraph 0023).
“interconnect member” is identified as “for example, a flexible printed circuit board" (paragraph 0024) and “each of the interconnect members 50 may alternatively be a cable, instead of a flexible printed circuit board” (paragraph 0063).
“fixing members” is identified as "The fixing members 30 are made of, for example, urethane … may be a hook fastener" (Paragraph 0025).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20250072806), Barbre (US 20200022606), and Yamaguchi (US 20250057457).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Zhou discloses a myoelectric sensor comprising:
a wearable portion configured to be worn on a living body and deformable in response to deformation of the living body (Fig. 1, substrate 130; Paragraph 0023, “substrate 130 is made of a flexible insulating material … substrate 130 is a portion of a wearing portion (e.g., top, pants, belt, strap, etc.) of the wearable device that is to be worn by the user”);
an electrode sheet disposed on a surface of the wearable portion (Fig. 1, electrodes 110; Paragraph 0024, “the electrodes 110 are sheet-like structures”); and
wherein the electrode sheet includes:
a plurality of bioelectrode units (Fig. 1, electrodes 110); and
interconnect members each electrically connecting two bioelectrode units among the plurality of bioelectrode units (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0021, “Each of the plurality of electrodes 110 is flexibly connected to at least another of the plurality of electrodes 110 through a connector 120”),
Regarding the limitations of claims 2-3 and 8, Zhou discloses wherein the bioelectrode units are arranged in rows and columns (Figs. 1-6) with interconnect members connecting each bioelectrode unit are arranged in first and second directions (Fig. 1, connect 120 between electrodes 110).
Zhou fails to disclose the specific structure of the bioelectrode units and interconnect members as interpreted above. Zhou also fails to disclose fixing members to press the interconnect members to the surface, wherein the interconnect members are located between the wearable portion and the fixing members, and the fixing members press the interconnect members to the surface.
However, Barbre teaches an arrangement for improving neuromuscular recording wherein the EMG sensor includes a substrate (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0073, “In some embodiments, a rigid PCB is fixed to each of the electrodes”), a pair of myoelectric electrodes (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0045, “neuromuscular recording sensors 504 include two neuromuscular recording electrodes 600 and 602), electronic components (Fig. 1, electrodes 110 connected to amplifiers 112, ADC 114, and microprocessor 116), and connectors (Fig. 6A and Paragraph 0073, “In embodiments with the sensor having a plurality of electrodes, the flexible circuit connects the electrodes together”). Barbre discusses this arrangement provides improved contact between electrodes for biosignal recording (Paragraph 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Zhou with the arrangement of Barbre to improve contact between electrodes for biosignal recording.
Yamaguchi teaches an electrode sheet wherein wiring members between the electrodes have an insulating film bonded over the wiring members to the sheet member (Fig. 2, wiring member 102 under insulating film 108 and bonded to sheet member 104) and is used to not cause degradation of strength, distortion, melting, alteration, and the like during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Zhou and Barbre to incorporate the insulating film of Yamaguchi to bond and protect the wiring member.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Barbre, and Yamaguchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20160069623).
Regarding claims 4-6, Zhou as modified discloses the first and second interconnect members and fixing members securing said interconnect members to the surface, as described above. Zhou as modified fails to disclose third and fourth interconnect members extending outward from the outermost bioelectrode units and fifth and sixth interconnect members connected to the fourth and third interconnect members, respectively and extending out perpendicular therefrom.
However, Lee teaches a bio-signal sensing device wherein a plurality of wiring patterns 124 extend outside of the outermost electrodes 112 and angle toward connector 126 (Fig. 1) and discusses this pattern is useful to electrically connect the electrodes to a signal processing module (Page 3, paragraph 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Zhou, Barbre, and Yamaguchi to extend the interconnect members outwards of Lee to connect to a signal processing module.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Barbre, and Yamaguchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bresler (US 20220031245).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou as modified fails to disclose wherein the electrodes are inclined relative to the longitudinal and transverse direction of the wearable portion.
However, Bresler teaches an electromyography sleeve wherein the electrodes 12 are inclined at an angle relative to the longitudinal and transverse direction of the sleeve 10 (Fig. 10). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and there are only a finite number of identified, predictable configurations to orient a grid of electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Zhou, Barbre, and Yamaguchi to have an inclined angle relative to the direction of the sleeve of Bresler and the results of taking EMG measurements would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791