DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 06/11/2026. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-18 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-18 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly. As a result, the 35 USC 112 rejections of the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0098593) in view of Christian (U.S. PGPub No. 2002/0152539).
Regarding claim 1, Low teaches A size-adjustable headset for monitoring bioelectrical signals, the headset comprising: a headband comprising a first connector element (Fig 2, head harness 10 with headband with Velcro 42 [0021]); at least one side band comprising a second connector element distant from a first end of the at least one side band (Fig 2 side band 20 with velcro 28 distant from first end of sideband 20); and at least one electrode contact configured to be electrically connected to a measurement electrode (Figs 1-2, electrode snap connector assemblies 68/69 each define contact and measurement electrodes), wherein the first connector element and the second connector element are configured to be connected to one another such that a length of the at least one side band between the first end and the first connector element can be adjusted (Figs 1-2 and [0021] Velcro connection allows for adjustable length).
Low fails to teach the headset further comprising a protection unit configured to, when the first connector element and the second connector element are connected to one another and when the protection unit is in a first state, block a disconnection of the first connector element and the second connector element, wherein the protection unit is configured to, when the first connector element and the second connector element are connected to one another and when the protection unit is in a second state, allow the disconnection of the first connector element and the second connector element, wherein the protection unit comprises a lock configured to, when actuated by a key, shift the protection unit from the first state to the second state or from the second state to the first state.
In related prior art, Christian teaches a similar headgear device comprising a protection unit (Fig 1 cover device 10 protecting adjustable fastening of headgear) configured to, when the first connector element and the second connector element are connected to one another and when the protection unit is in a first state, block a disconnection of the first connector element and the second connector element (see Fig 1, cover device 10 blocks disconnection of connector elements), wherein the protection unit is configured to, when the first connector element and the second connector element are connected to one another and when the protection unit is in a second state, allow the disconnection of the first connector element and the second connector element (Fig 1, when panel 48 is removed or open, the disconnection of connector portions is enabled), wherein the protection unit comprises a lock configured to, when actuated by a key, shift the protection unit from the first state to the second state or from the second state to the first state (Fig 3 lock of device 10 via hook and loop 42 shifts cover device 10 from first and second state and is capable of being actuated by a key). 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 connector elements of Low in view of Christian to incorporate the protection unit to block a disconnection of the connector elements to arrive at the device of claim 1. Doing so would advantageously prevent the inadvertent disconnection of the connector elements during use to maintain connection and contact of electrodes with the user for physiological recording.
Regarding claims 2-3, Low teaches wherein the first connector element and the second connector element are configured to be connected to one another such that the length of the at least one side band between the first end and the first connector element can be adjusted between a plurality of predefined lengths (Figs 1-2, hook and loop fastener can be connected at different locations to adjust length at predefined lengths [0021]); wherein the first connector element and the second connector element are configured to be connected to one another in a plurality of predefined positions (Figs 1-2, hook and loop fastener can be connected at different locations to adjust length at predefined lengths [0021])).
Regarding claim 4, Low teaches wherein one of the first connector element and the second connector element comprises a plurality of fixture elements spaced apart from one another in a direction of the at least one side band, and wherein the respective other of the first connector element and the second connector element comprises at least one fixture counterpart configured to couple to one or more of the plurality of fixture elements (Figs 1-2, hook and loop fixture is defined by a plurality of ‘hooks’ (i.e., fixture elements spaced from one another) that mate with counterpart ‘loops’).
Regarding claim 13, Low teaches wherein the first connector element is arranged on an element of the headband configured to be placed in a temporal region of a user's head (Fig 2, first connector element 42 is in temporal region of head).
Regarding claim 14, Low teaches wherein the first end of the at least one side band is attached relative to the headband (Fig 2, first end of side band 20 is attached relative to headband).
Regarding claim 15, Low teaches a middle band attached to the headband, wherein the middle band is configured to extend between a front side and a rear side of the user's head, wherein the at least one side band is attached to the middle band (Fig 2, device has middle band between a front and rear side of head that is attached to side band 20).
Regarding claims 16-17, Low teaches a first circuit board (Fig 1 data acquisition module 50); and one or more wires electrically connecting the first circuit board with the at least one electrode contact (lead wire 56, 58, 60); a second circuit board comprising circuitry for collecting an electroencephalography measurement signal from the first circuit board (Fig 3 and [0031] step 104 circuit board of peripheral device receives EEG signals from module 50); wherein the second circuit board is removably coupled to the first circuit board ([0030-0031] peripheral device is removably wirelessly coupled to module 50).
Regarding claim 18, Low/Christian teaches An electroencephalography (EEG) measurement system comprising: the headset according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and at least one EEG measurement electrode, wherein the at least one electrode contact is electrically connected to the at least one EEG measurement electrode (Figs 1-2, electrode snap connector assemblies 68/69 each define an EEG contact and EEG measurement electrodes).
Claim(s) 5-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low in view of Christian, and in further view of Cho (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0053319).
Regarding claim 5, Low/Christain teach the device of claim 4. Low teaches that “the allows for custom fit, adjustment and comfort” ([0021]).
Low fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of fixture elements comprises a hole and the at least one fixture counterpart comprises a plurality of pins, each of the plurality of pins configured to at least partially extend into the hole of a corresponding fixture element of the plurality of fixture elements.
In related prior art, Cho teaches a similar headgear device comprising a plurality of fixture elements comprises a hole and the at least one fixture counterpart comprises a plurality of pins (Figs 2a-b, protrusions 111a), each of the plurality of pins configured to at least partially extend into the hole of a corresponding fixture element of the plurality of fixture elements (Fig 2a-b holes 113a). 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 fastener of Low in view of Christian and Cho to incorporate the pins and hole fastener of Cho to arrive at the device of claim 5. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one well-known fastener (Low [0021]) for another well-known fastener (Cho Figs 2a-b) to yield the predictable result of a fastening mechanism that allows for custom fit, adjustment, and comfort (Low [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Low/Christain/Cho teach the device of claim 5, Cho further teaches wherein the hole of the corresponding fixture element is a through-hole, and wherein for each of the plurality of pins (Figs 21 showing corresponding holes 113a and fixture elements 111a): the pin is configured to extend into the hole of the corresponding fixture element from a first side of the hole, the pin is configured to protrude from the hole of the corresponding fixture element from a second side of the hole (see Fig 3a), and one or more of: wherein the second side is opposite to the first side (Fig 2-3a protrusions 111a extend from first side of hole to opposite second side), wherein the hole of the corresponding fixture element extends in a lateral direction of the at least one sideband and the pin extends in a lateral direction of the headband (Figs 2-3a pin 11a and hole 113a extend in lateral direction), or wherein the pin extends in a lateral direction of the at least one sideband and the hole of the corresponding fixture element extends in a lateral direction of the headband (Figs 2-3a pin 11a and hole 113a extend in lateral direction). 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 fastener of Low in view of Christian and Cho to incorporate the pins and hole fastener of Cho to arrive at the device of claim 6. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one well-known fastener (Low [0021]) for another well-known fastener (Cho Figs 2a-b) to yield the predictable result of a fastening mechanism that allows for custom fit, adjustment, and comfort (Low [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Low/Christian/Cho teach the device of claim 4, Cho further teaches wherein the pin comprises a first axial end and a second axial end (Figs 2a-3, pins 111a have first and second axial ends), the first axial end being closer to the headband than the second axial end (Figs 2a-3, first axial end is directly connected to band), wherein the pin comprises an end element at the second axial end, the end element being radially wider than a part of the pin adjacent to the end element (Fig 2-3a, protrusion 111a has wider end element at second axial end).
Christian further teaches wherein the protection unit is configured to, in the first state, couple to the end element of the pin to restrict movement of the hole relative to the pin in an axial direction of the pin (Figs 3, 6, pin has similar radially wider end element with a through hole connection; the cover device 10 restricts movement of the hole relative to the pin). 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 device of Low in view of Christian and Cho to incorporate the pin and hole fastener and protection unit of Christian and Cho to arrive at the device of claim 8. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one well-known fastener (Low [0021]) for another well-known fastener (Cho Figs 2a-b) to yield the predictable result of a fastening mechanism that allows for custom fit, adjustment, and comfort (Low [0021]) and advantageously prevent the inadvertent disconnection of the connector elements during use to maintain connection and contact of electrodes with the user for physiological recording.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low in view of Christian, and in further view of Stoler (U.S. PGPub No. 2005/0197556).
Regarding claim 10, Low/Christain teach the device of claim 1.
Low fails to teach wherein the headset comprises a plurality of side bands, wherein the second connector element of each side band is configured to be connected to the first connector element such that the length of each of the plurality of side bands can be adjusted separately from the length of the others of the plurality of side bands, wherein the first connector element comprises the at least one fixture counterpart, wherein the at least one fixture counterpart is configured to couple to the one or more of the plurality of fixture elements of each of the plurality of side bands.
In related prior art, Stoler teaches a similar device wherein the headset comprises a plurality of side bands (Fig 1 side bands 11), wherein the second connector element of each side band is configured to be connected to the first connector element such that the length of each of the plurality of side bands can be adjusted separately from the length of the others of the plurality of side bands (Fig 1 each band 11 is connected to connector element of headband 10), wherein the first connector element comprises the at least one fixture counterpart (Fig 1 [0029] headband 10 has hook and loop material), wherein the at least one fixture counterpart is configured to couple to the one or more of the plurality of fixture elements of each of the plurality of side bands (Fig 1 each band 11 has corresponding hook and loop material to make length adjustable). 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 Low in view of Stoler to incorporate the plurality of sidebands each connected to the first connector element to arrive at the device of claim 10. Doing so would advantageously allow for more electrodes to be utilized to gather more EEG leads in accordance with the 10/20 system ([0006]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low in view of Christian, in view of Stoler and Cho.
Regarding claim 12, in view of the combination of claim 10 above, Stoler, as stated above, teaches a plurality of side bands (Fig 1 side bands 11), wherein the second connector element of each side band is configured to be connected to the first connector element such that the length of each of the plurality of side bands can be adjusted separately from the length of the others of the plurality of side bands (Fig 1 each band 11 is connected to connector element of headband 10), wherein the first connector element comprises the at least one fixture counterpart (Fig 1 [0029] headband 10 has hook and loop material), wherein the at least one fixture counterpart is configured to couple to the one or more of the plurality of fixture elements of each of the plurality of side bands (Fig 1 each band 11 has corresponding hook and loop material to make length adjustable).
Low/Christian/Stoler fails to teach wherein the pin is configured to extend through the through-hole of each of the plurality of side bands.
Cho teaches wherein the pin is configured to extend through the through-hole of each of the plurality of side bands (Figs 2a-b, protrusions 111a). 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 sideband of Low in view of Stoler, Christian, and Cho to incorporate the pin and through hole connection mechanism such that each side band has a through hole capable of mating with the pins of the first connector element to arrive at claim 12. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one well-known fastener (Low [0021]) for another well-known fastener (Cho Figs 2a-b) to yield the predictable result of a fastening mechanism that allows for custom fit, adjustment, and comfort (Low [0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 7 of the remarks the applicant argues that the hook and loop fastening system of Low cannot be modified to incorporate the mechanism of Christian as “such a securing system of hooks and loops can only be detached by pulling the hooks and loops into opposite directions, said directions being at best orthogonal to the surfaces on which the hooks and loops are provided on. There is no way of changing the length of the headset without detachment of the hooks and loops. Providing another protection mechanism such as the solution taught by Christian … would make it even more bothersome to detach the hooks and loops.”
These arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In the instant case, the applicant merely alleges that the combination is unsatisfactory based on an arbitrary standard that the combination would make it more difficult to detach the hooks and loops. This argument is unpersuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks the applicant further argues that the Examiner “ignores” various limitations. The Examiner disagrees as these limitations were explicitly addressed in the rejection of record as follows: “a headband comprising a first connector element (Fig 2, head harness 10 with headband with Velcro 42 [0021])”, “at least one side band comprising a second connector element distant from a first end of the at least one side band (Fig 2 side band 20 with velcro 28 distant from first end of sideband 20) … wherein the first connector element and the second connector element are configured to be connected to one another such that a length of the at least one side band between the first end and the first connector element can be adjusted (Figs 1-2 and [0021] Velcro connection allows for adjustable length).” As such, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The applicant is welcome to point out specifically which of the above limitations are not taught by the Low reference and why.
Applicant further states “The technical problem underlying the claimed invention is that different bands must be connected to each other and said connection must be secured. It is a completely different technical problem than connecting two end sections of the same band as taught by the cited references, since the two different bands connect to each other in different angles thus making the solution of Christian impractical.” As stated above, the Low reference explicitly discloses the connecting of different bands together that must be secured.
In response to applicant's argument that the solution of Christian is impractical, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the Christian reference clearly and explicitly teaches the use of a protection unit to secure a connection between band members as shown in Figs 1-3. Such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Low in view of Christian to incorporate said protection unit to secure the attachment between two bands of Low as claimed.
The remaining arguments on page 8 of the remarks are directed to the teachings of the Christian reference. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, the applicant is arguing that Christian fails to teach certain limitations when the rejection of record relies upon the Low reference for disclosing said limitations.
As such applicant’s arguments to claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-18 are all equally unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights