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 .
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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 5 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 2 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 2 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 1 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the wireless sensors” in lines 1-2 should be written “the plurality of wireless sensors”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 1 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 5 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 2 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 2 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor” in line 1 should be written “the wireless sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “sensors” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether this limitations refers to the plurality of sensors recited in line 1 of claim 1, or different sensors.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “sensors” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether this limitations refers to the plurality of sensors recited in line 1 of claim 20, or different sensors.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus et al., (US 20160262619; hereinafter Marcus) in view of Lee et al., (US 20160338646; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Marcus (Figures 1-5) discloses a device comprising: a flexible wireless sensor (110) configured to be adhesively attached at a measurement point of a user’s body ([0037]), and configured to be remotely powered ([0038]) and to transmit, via a first radio frequency link (140), data corresponding to samples of a measured signal ([0039], [0047]); a base station (250) located near the sensor (110), configured to remotely power the sensor (110), ([0049]-[0050]); and a terminal (400) configured to receive transmitted data ([0038]-[0052]).
Marcus fails to disclose that the device is for capturing electroencephalograms (EEG) signals, wherein the sensor is configured to be attached to an EEG measurement point of a user’s head. However, Lee (Figure 1) teaches a device comprising a sensing system (300) which may be configured for ECG or electroencephalograms (EEG) signals, wherein the sensor (300) would be configured to be attached to an EEG measurement point of a user’s head ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus to include the device configured for capturing EEG signals, wherein the sensor is configured to be attached to an EEG measurement point of a user’s head, as taught by Lee, because it is known to use the same sensing device for either ECG or EEG signal measurement, interchangeably, dependent on the location of the sensing device (Lee; [0039]). Accordingly, the data and signal(s) in the modified device would be EEG data and signal(s).
Regarding claim 2, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the base station (250) is configured to receive data transmitted by the sensor (110) and retransmit the data via a second radio frequency link (220) to the terminal (400), ([0049]-[0052]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the data may be EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the terminal (400) is configured to receive EEG data directly from the sensor (110), since both elements are configured for wireless communication ([0042], [0052]). Therefore, the terminal (400) may be configured to directly receive the data from wirelessly from the sensor (110). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the data may be EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the sensor (110) comprises: a flexible substrate (120); on a first face of the substrate (shown in Figure 2), two conductive zones (132, 134) configured to electrically contact the skin and form two electrodes of a signal detector (132+134), ([0048]); a conductive track (142) on one (right) side of the substrate (120), forming a remote power supply antenna ([0042]-[0043]); a control circuit (148) arranged on a second (left) side of the substrate (120), connected by conductive tracks of the substrate (120) to the signal detector (132+134) and to the remote power supply antenna (142), ([0042]-[0045]), the control circuit (148) being configured to: extract its power supply from the signal received by the remote power supply antenna (142); and digitize the signal from the signal detector (132+134) and transmit the corresponding data via the first radio-frequency link (140), ([0045]-[0047]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal detector may be an EEG signal detector and that the data may be EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein one (134) of the electrode conductor zones (132, 134) is connected to a ground of the control circuit (138) and the other electrode conductor zone (132) forms a segment of the antenna track (142) through control circuit (148), the control circuit (148) being configured to extract the power supply and the signal from the antenna signal ([0039]-[0047]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal may be an EEG signal (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the base station (250) is configured to synchronize the sampling of signals of the wireless sensor (110), ([0052]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal may be an EEG signal (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses comprising a plurality of wireless sensors (110), the wireless sensors (110) cooperating so that a master wireless sensor (110) synchronizes the sampling of signals of all the wireless sensors (110), ([0061]-[0062]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal may be an EEG signal (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the synchronization uses synchronization pulses transmitted by radio frequency in a frequency band distinct from that used for data transmission and remote powering ([0061]-[0062]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the data may be an EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the base station (250) is configured to suspend the remote power supply at periodic intervals (when the frequency is not tuned to the right frequency to activate the signal measurement) and the wireless sensor (110) is configured to acquire at least one sample of the signal as soon as the power supply to the wireless sensor (110) becomes sufficient after a suspension ([0052], [0061]-[0062]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal may be an EEG signal (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the base station (250) is configured to interrupt the remote power supply at periodic intervals (when the frequency is not tuned to the right frequency to activate the signal measurement) brief enough to not interrupt power to the wireless sensor (110), and the wireless sensor (110) is configured to synchronize signal sampling with the remote power supply interruption intervals ([0052], [0061]-[0062]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal may be an EEG signal (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the data is transmitted by the sensor (110) or base station (250) via a WiFi or Bluetooth link ([0052]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the data may be an EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Marcus (Figures 1-5) discloses a device for capturing electroencephalograms (EEG) signals, the device comprising: a flexible wireless sensor (110) configured to be adhesively attached at a measurement point of a user's body ([0037]), and configured to be remotely powered ([0038]) and to transmit, via a first radio frequency link (140), data corresponding to samples of a measured signal ([0039], [0047]); a base station (250) located near the sensor (110), configured to remotely power the sensor (110) and to synchronize the sampling of signals of the wireless sensor (110) according to the following mode: (i) suspending the remote power supply (142) at periodic intervals ([0043], [0056]: when the frequency is not tuned to the right frequency to activate the signal measurement), wherein the wireless sensor (110) is configured to acquire at least one sample of the signal as soon as the power supply to the wireless sensor (110) becomes sufficient after a suspension ([0039], [0043], [0050]-[0054], [0056]).
Marcus fails to disclose that the device is for capturing electroencephalograms (EEG) signals, wherein the sensor is configured to be attached to an EEG measurement point of a user’s head. However, Lee (Figure 1) teaches a device comprising a sensing system (300) which may be configured for ECG or electroencephalograms (EEG) signals, wherein the sensor (300) would be configured to be attached to an EEG measurement point of a user’s head ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus to include the device configured for capturing EEG signals, wherein the sensor is configured to be attached to an EEG measurement point of a user’s head, as taught by Lee, because it is known to use the same sensing device for either ECG or EEG signal measurement, interchangeably, dependent on the location of the sensing device (Lee; [0039]). Accordingly, the data and signal(s) in the modified device would be EEG data and signal(s).
Regarding claim 15, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the base station (250) is configured to receive data transmitted by the sensor (110) and retransmit the data via a second radio frequency link (220) to the terminal (400), ([0049]-[0052]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the data may be EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the terminal (400) is configured to receive EEG data directly from the sensor (110), since both elements are configured for wireless communication ([0042], [0052]). Therefore, the terminal (400) may be configured to directly receive the data from wirelessly from the sensor (110). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the data may be EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein the sensor (110) comprises: a flexible substrate (120); on a first face of the substrate (shown in Figure 2), two conductive zones (132, 134) configured to electrically contact the skin and form two electrodes of a signal detector (132+134), ([0048]); a conductive track (142) on one (right) side of the substrate (120), forming a remote power supply antenna ([0042]-[0043]); a control circuit (148) arranged on a second (left) side of the substrate (120), connected by conductive tracks of the substrate (120) to the signal detector (132+134) and to the remote power supply antenna (142), ([0042]-[0045]), the control circuit (148) being configured to: extract its power supply from the signal received by the remote power supply antenna (142); and digitize the signal from the signal detector (132+134) and transmit the corresponding data via the first radio-frequency link (140), ([0045]-[0047]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal detector may be an EEG signal detector and that the data may be EEG data (Marcus; [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Marcus (Figures 1-5) further discloses wherein one (134) of the electrode conductor zones (132, 134) is connected to a ground of the control circuit (138) and the other electrode conductor zone (132) forms a segment of the antenna track (142) through control circuit (148), the control circuit (148) being configured to extract the power supply and the signal from the antenna signal ([0039]-[0047]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the signal may be an EEG signal (Marcus; [0039]).
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus/Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lee et al., (US 20190175902; hereinafter L2).
Regarding claim 6, Marcus/Lee teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the base station is attached to a device worn on the user's head. However, L2 (Figure 13) teaches an EEG sensing device in which the base station (external device) is attached to a device (helmet or hat) worn on the user's head ([0142]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus/Lee to include the base station attached to a device worn on the user's head, as taught by L2, because the modification would enable the user to comfortably wear/use the device while going about their daily life.
Regarding claim 12, Marcus/Lee fails to teach a plurality of wireless sensors distributed over a plurality of users, and a plurality of base stations, each base station being configured to relay to the remote terminal: EEG data received from sensors in its remote power supply range, EEG data received from sensors outside its remote power-supply range, or EEG data received from another base station. distributed over the skulls of a plurality of users. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus/Lee to include a plurality of wireless sensors distributed over a plurality of users, and a plurality of base stations, each base station being configured to relay to the remote terminal: EEG data received from sensors in its remote power supply range, EEG data received from sensors outside its remote power-supply range, or EEG data received from another base station. distributed over the skulls of a plurality of users since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Marcus/Lee fails to teach that the plurality of base stations are arranged in respective devices carried on the heads of the users. However, L2 (Figure 13) teaches an EEG sensing device in which the base station (external device) is arranged in a device (helmet or hat) carried on the head of the user ([0142]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus/Lee to include the plurality of base stations being arranged in respective devices carried on the heads of the users, as taught by L2, because the modification would enable the user to comfortably wear/use the device while going about their daily life.
Regarding claim 19, Marcus/Lee teaches the device as claimed in claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the base station is attached to a device worn on the user's head. However, L2 (Figure 13) teaches an EEG sensing device in which the base station (external device) is attached to a device (helmet or hat) worn on the user's head ([0142]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus/Lee to include the base station attached to a device worn on the user's head, as taught by L2, because the modification would enable the user to comfortably wear/use the device while going about their daily life.
Regarding claim 20, Marcus/Lee fails to teach a plurality of wireless sensors distributed over a plurality of users, and a plurality of base stations, each base station being configured to relay to the remote terminal: EEG data received from sensors in its remote power supply range, EEG data received from sensors outside its remote power-supply range, or EEG data received from another base station. distributed over the skulls of a plurality of users. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus/Lee to include a plurality of wireless sensors distributed over a plurality of users, and a plurality of base stations, each base station being configured to relay to the remote terminal: EEG data received from sensors in its remote power supply range, EEG data received from sensors outside its remote power-supply range, or EEG data received from another base station. distributed over the skulls of a plurality of users since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Marcus/Lee fails to teach that the plurality of base stations are arranged in respective devices carried on the heads of the users. However, L2 (Figure 13) teaches an EEG sensing device in which the base station (external device) is arranged in a device (helmet or hat) carried on the head of the user ([0142]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marcus/Lee to include the plurality of base stations being arranged in respective devices carried on the heads of the users, as taught by L2, because the modification would enable the user to comfortably wear/use the device while going about their daily life.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794