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 April 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the drawings objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 14th, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claim amendments changed the scope of the claimed invention. See new grounds for rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 repeats the subject matter at the end of claim 1 and fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) 1-9, 12-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 20220000407 A1) herein referred to as “Ludwig” in view of Ruotsalainen et al. (US 20220361794 A1) herein referred to as “Ruotsalainen”.
Regarding claim 1, Ludwig discloses a dry electrode device (dry electrodes, Paragraph [0036], dry electrode 200, Figure 2) with at least one electrically conductive connection unit (electrically conductive connection unit comprising electrical connector 250, and conductive substrate 240, Figure 2, Paragraph [0110]) and with an electrically conductive, adhesive layer unit, which has a contact surface for contacting skin and which is configured to provide an electrical energy transmission between the connection unit and the skin in an application state (adhesive layer 231 for contacting skin, and is configured to provide electrical energy transmission between conductive substrate 240 and skin through conductive particles 201, Figure 2, Paragraph [0110]), characterized in that, in a plan view, a contour area of the connection unit overlaps a contour area of the contact surface (contour of the connection unit 240, 250 overlaps the contact surface, Figure 2).
However Ludwig does not explicitly disclose wherein the contour area of the connection unit overlaps a contour area of the contact surface by at least 80%.
It would have been an obvious matter of change in proportion to make the different portions of the contour area of the connection unit to overlap the contour area of the contact surface of whatever relative sizes were desired to create an overlap of at least 80%, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Further Ludwig does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection unit is a snap fastener, a clip fastener, a thread fastener, a hook fastener, or a dovetail joint fastener.
Ruotsalainen discloses a dry electrode device (Abstract) wherein the connection unit is a snap fastener, a clip fastener, a thread fastener, a hook fastener, or a dovetail joint fastener (the dry electrode 100 further comprises a connector element 40 for connecting the dry electrode 100 to a measurement instrument, the connector element comprises a snap fastener, conductive Velcro or magnetic connectors, Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ludwig to incorporate
the teachings of Ruotsalainen by including wherein the connection unit is a snap fastener, a clip fastener, a thread fastener, a hook fastener, or a dovetail joint fastener. The motivation to do so being to ensure a secure connection between the dry electrode and the measurement device (Ruotsalainen, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 1.
Ludwig further discloses wherein the adhesive layer unit is arranged directly on the connection unit (adhesive layer unit 230 is directly on the connection unit 240, 250, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 1.
Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plan view, a contour area of the adhesive layer unit is at most 100 % larger than the contour area of the connection unit. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the contour area of the adhesive layer to be at most 100 % larger than the contour area of the connection unit, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 1.
Ludwig further discloses wherein the adhesive layer unit is configured to provide a complete fixation of the dry electrode device relative to the skin in the application state (considerable effort has been expended to the development of “dry” electrodes that do not utilize hydrogels. To make dry electrodes, many attempts have focused on an alternative to using a hydrogel to hydrate the dry stratum corneum, which is to use small structures to penetrate the stratum corneum and access the more moisture-rich layers of skin that lie beneath. Generally, the structures are coated with materials that will form a reduction/oxidation couple (typically silver and silver chloride) when in the presence of moisture. Examples of such small structures that have been used include microneedles or similar small, pointed structures to penetrate the stratum corneum to deeper layers of the skin with more moisture where ions are more mobile, enabling conduction, Paragraph [0024], pressure sensitive adhesives are very suitable supporting layers, as they can function to hold the electrically conductive particles in place and also to adhere the formed dry electrode article to the skin of a user, Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 1.
Ludwig further discloses wherein the adhesive layer unit comprises at least one adhesive layer which comprises a polymer network with at least one acrylate copolymer (Particularly useful pressure sensitive adhesives are based on at least one poly(meth)acrylate (i.e., a (meth)acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive). Particularly desirable poly(meth)acrylates are derived from: (A) at least one monoethylenically unsaturated alkyl (meth) acrylate monomer (i.e., alkyl acrylate and alkyl methacrylate monomer); and (B) at least one monoethylenically unsaturated free-radically copolymerizable reinforcing monomer. The reinforcing monomer has a homopolymer glass transition temperature (Tg) higher than that of the alkyl (meth)acrylate monomer and is one that increases the glass transition temperature and cohesive strength of the resultant copolymer. Monomers A and B are chosen such that a copolymer formed from them is extrudable and capable of forming fibers. Herein, “copolymer” refers to polymers containing two or more different monomers, including terpolymers, tetrapolymers, etc, Paragraphs [0072-0075], Generally, the acrylate copolymer is formulated to have a resultant Tg of less than about 25° C. and more typically, less than about 0° C. Such acrylate copolymers typically include about 60 parts to about 98 parts per hundred of at least one monomer A and about 2 parts to about 40 parts per hundred of at least one monomer B. In some embodiments, the acrylate copolymers have about 85 parts to about 98 parts per hundred or at least one monomer A and about 2 parts to about 15 parts of at least one monomer B, Paragraph [0076]) and at least one type of electrically conductive particles and which is free of ionic liquids (Pressure sensitive adhesives are very suitable supporting layers, as they can function to hold the electrically conductive particles in place and also to adhere the formed dry electrode article to the skin of a user, Paragraph [0059], [0079]).
Regarding claim 6, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
Ludwig further discloses wherein the acrylate copolymer comprises 70 to 98.5 % by weight of non-polar acrylate monomers (Acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives generally have a glass transition temperature of about −20° C. or less and may comprise from 100 to 80 weight percent of a C3-C12 alkyl ester component such as, for example, isooctyl acrylate (non-polar acrylate monomer), Paragraph [068]) and 1.5 to 30 % by weight of polar acrylate monomers (and from 0 to 20 weight percent of a polar component such as, for example, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, ethylene-vinyl acetate units, N-vinylpyrrolidone, and styrene macromer, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
Ludwig further discloses wherein the acrylate copolymer comprises 0.1 to 10 % by weight of acrylic acid (the acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives comprise from 0 to 20 weight percent of acrylic acid, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
Ludwig further discloses wherein the acrylate copolymer comprises at least 50 % by weight of acrylic acid esters whose molar masses are at least 100 g/mol (Acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives generally have a glass transition temperature of about −20° C. or less and may comprise from 100 to 80 weight percent of a C3-C12 alkyl ester component such as, for example, isooctyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and n-butyl acrylate, wherein n-butyl acrylate molar mass is at least 100 g/mol, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the adhesive layer comprises 5 to 30 % by weight of electrically conductive particles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the adhesive layer comprises 5 to 30 % by weight of electrically conductive particles, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
Ludwig further discloses wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer is 10 to 100 µm (the supporting material is a multilayer construction, comprising the pressure sensitive adhesive layers, wherein the supporting layer typically has a thickness of 10-500 micrometers, Paragraphs [0101-0102], Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
Ludwig further discloses wherein a glass transition temperature of the adhesive layer is -50 to - 20°C (acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives generally have a glass transition temperature of about -20° C or less, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 14, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
Ludwig does disclose wherein the adhesive layer comprises crosslinkers (A crosslinking agent can be used to produce chemical crosslinks, Paragraph [0077]).
However Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive layer comprises 0.01-10 % by weight of crosslinkers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the adhesive layer comprises 0.01-10 % by weight of crosslinkers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 1.
Ludwig further discloses wherein the adhesive layer unit comprises a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer (supporting layer 230 comprises adhesive layers 231 and 233, Paragraph [0110], Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 15.
Ludwig embodiment 1 discloses wherein a film layer 232 is disposed between the adhesive layers 231 and 233. However Ludwig embodiment 1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive layer unit comprises an electrically conductive carrier which is arranged between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer.
Ludwig embodiment 2 discloses wherein the adhesive layer unit comprises an electrically conductive carrier which is arranged between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer (dry electrode 400 has conductive particles 401, and supporting layer 430 where 431 and 433 are adhesive layers and 432 is a conductive layer, Paragraph [0112], Figure 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ludwig embodiment 1 to incorporate the teachings of Ludwig embodiment 2 by including wherein the adhesive layer unit comprises an electrically conductive carrier which is arranged between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer. The motivation to do so being to facilitate an electrical connection between the electrical connector and the supporting layer (Ludwig, Paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 18, Ludwig embodiment 1 in view of Ludwig embodiment 2 discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 17.
However Ludwig embodiment 1 in view of Ludwig embodiment 2 does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the plan view, a contour area of the second adhesive layer is at least 25 % larger than a contour area of the first adhesive layer.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a contour area of the second adhesive layer is at least 25 % larger than a contour area of the first adhesive layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 1.
However Ludwig does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection unit consists of the snap fastener, the clip fastener, the thread fastener, the hook fastener, or the dovetail joint fastener.
Ruotsalainen discloses a dry electrode device (Abstract) wherein the connection unit consists of the snap fastener, the clip fastener, the thread fastener, the hook fastener, or the dovetail joint fastener (the dry electrode 100 further comprises a connector element 40 for connecting the dry electrode 100 to a measurement instrument, the connector element comprises a snap fastener, conductive Velcro or magnetic connectors, Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ludwig to incorporate
the teachings of Ruotsalainen by including wherein the connection unit consists of the snap fastener, the clip fastener, the thread fastener, the hook fastener, or the dovetail joint fastener. The motivation to do so being to ensure a secure connection between the dry electrode and the measurement device (Ruotsalainen, Paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen in view of Negele et al. (US 20210386379 A1) herein referred to as “Negele”.
Regarding claim 10, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
However Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrically conductive particles embodied as carbon particles.
Negele discloses an electrode comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive (Abstract) wherein the adhesive layer comprises electrically conductive particles embodied as carbon particles (in the adhesive layer the electrically conductive particles are selected from the group consisting of carbon (nano)particles, carbon nanowires, carbon particles, Paragraph [0078]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen to incorporate the teachings of Negele by including wherein the adhesive layer comprises electrically conductive particles embodied as carbon particles. The motivation to do so being to incorporate particles that do not cause skin irritation, but provide adequate conductivity (Negele, Paragraph [0079]). US 20210386379
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen in view of Fang et al. (US 20200095479 A1) herein referred to as “Fang”.
Regarding claim 11, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 5.
However Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrically conductive particles are embodied as micro-platelets.
Fang discloses an electrically conductive adhesive layer comprising a plurality of particles (Abstract) wherein the particles are embodied as micro-platelets (a majority of the particles 110, each of the particles are flake like particles or plate like particles or substantially planar particles, flake like particles include shards, wedges, and trapezoids, for example, Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen to incorporate the teachings of Fang by including wherein the adhesive layer comprises electrically conductive particles wherein the particles are embodied as micro-platelets. The motivation to do so being to incorporate particles that are substantially flat in order to incorporate them into the thin adhesive layer (Fang, Paragraph [0026]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen in view of Lodde et al. (US 10301510 B2) herein referred to as “Lodde” further in view of Polifilm (DE 202012102188 U1) herein referred to as “Polifilm”.
Regarding claim 16, Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen discloses the dry electrode device according to claim 15.
However Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first adhesive layer has an adhesive force on metal according to DIN EN 1939 (Dec 2003) of at least 10 N/25mm and the second adhesive layer has an adhesive force on skin according to DIN EN 1939 (Dec 2003) of at least 1 N/25mm.
Lodde discloses an adhesive tape (Abstract) wherein the first adhesive layer has an adhesive force on metal according to DIN EN 1939 (Dec 2003) of at least 10 N/25mm (“moderate adhesive force” is understood according to DIN EN 1939 an adhesive force within the range of 0.5 N/cm to 4.0 N/cm, Col. 2, lines 3-10, wherein the adhesive force on a nonpolar surface is in the range of 2.0 N/cm to up to 10 N/cm, Col. 7, lines 15-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen to incorporate the teachings of Lodde by including wherein the first adhesive layer has an adhesive force on metal according to DIN EN 1939 (Dec 2003) of at least 10 N/25mm. The motivation to do so being to ensure the adhesive has a moderate adhesive force (Lodde, Col. 2, lines 3-10).
However Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen further in view of Lodde does not explicitly disclose and the second adhesive layer has an adhesive force on skin according to DIN EN 1939 (Dec 2003) of at least 1 N/25mm.
Polifilm discloses a particle containing adhesive film (Abstract) wherein the adhesive film has an adhesive force according to DIN EN 1939 (Dec 2003) of at least 1 N/25mm (adhesive film of invention, measured according to DIN EN 1939, on steel has a bond strength in the range of 0.2 to 10.0 N/cm, Page 3, Paragraph 13, see attached).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ludwig in view of Ruotsalainen and Lodde to incorporate the teachings of Polifilm by including wherein the second adhesive layer has an adhesive force on skin according to DIN EN 1939 (Dec 2003) of at least 1 N/25mm. The motivation to do so being to ensure that the adhesive sticks sufficiently firmly during use (Polifilm, Page 3, Paragraph 13, see attached).
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stemme et al. (US 20040054393 A1) discloses a dry electrode device comprising a clip fastener, Rubin (US 20130060097 A1) discloses dry electrode comprising snap fasteners, and Young et al. (US 20200022431 A1) discloses dry electrodes with threaded fasteners or snap fasteners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dana Stumpfoll whose telephone number is (703)756-4669. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm (CT), M-F.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights