DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on April 3, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-20 is as follows.
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 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 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, ln. 3: “a sensor of in set of sensors” should be changed to –a set of the set of sensors--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Do et al. (hereinafter ‘Do’, U.S. PGPub. No. 2009/0105576).
In regards to independent claim 1 and claim 5, Do teaches a system (abstract: “apparatus… sensing biopotential signals”; system 300 in Fig. 3), comprising:
a set of sensors (one or more electrodes mounted onto a headset 302 in exemplary schematic diagram of Fig. 3 for 10-20 electrode placement on a subject’s head, [0048], [0052], [0059]-[0060]), wherein each sensor (each of the one or more electrodes are an electrode assembly 700 as shown in Fig. 7A-7B, [0061]-[0062]) in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including layers 702, 710, 712, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B), wherein the sensor pad comprises a polymer substrate (a printed circuit board (PCB) 702 in Fig. 7B, [0061]) coated with a thin film (conductive glue 710 is coated onto the PCB 702 to attach the PCB to the electrode plate 702, [0062]);
a housing (headset 500 in Fig. 5 of the headset 302 represented in the schematic diagram of Fig. 3) configured to retain the set of sensors (Figs. 6A-6B illustrates the implementation of the headset 500 for electrically connecting each of the electrode assembly to the headset, [0059]-[0060]), wherein the housing comprises a first arm configured to bias a first sensor in the set of sensors against skin proximal to a first region of the head of the user (although not shown in Fig. 6, the headset 500 shows the arm 552 in Fig. 5 pressing against the right temporal area of the patient’s head, [0056]), wherein the housing comprises a second arm configured to bias a second sensor in the set of sensors against skin proximal to a second region of the head of the user (although not shown in Fig. 6, the headset 500 shows arm 554 in Fig. 5 pressing against the left temporal area of the patient’s head, [0056]), thus meeting claim 5); and
an electronic subsystem coupled to the set of sensors (processing system 390 coupled to the headset 302 shown in Fig. 3, [0049]), the electronic subsystem configured to receive a set of bioelectrical signals from the set of sensors ([0048]: “signals detected by the electrodes in the headset 302 are fed through a sensor interface 304 and digitized by an analog to digital converter 306 [of the processing system 390]”).
In regards to claim 6, Do further discloses wherein the electronics subsystem is further configured to receive an ambient signal from at least one of the first sensor or second sensor ([0081]-[0083]: electrode assembly such as shown in Fig. 7A-7B picks up noise caused by environmental interference; [0054]: specifically, one of the electrodes operate as a reference electrode which is used to compare with other signals from the electrodes); and process the set of bioelectric based on the ambient signal ([0054]: Driven Right Leg (DRL) circuitry can compensate for external effects and keep the subject’s body potential stable relative to the detection electronics. The EEG signals can be referenced to the body potential supplied by the reference electrode).
In regards to claim 8, Do further discloses wherein the electronics subsystem is further configured to generate a calibration signal by adjusting the ambient signal ([0054]: since the headset comprises a reference electrode which receives a signal to compare with signals from other electrodes, the reference electrode biases the subject’s body to a known reference potential, e.g., one half of the analog supply voltage; this bias reads on the calibration signal); and apply the calibration signal to the user through a sensor in the set of sensors ([0054]: Driven Right Leg (DRL) circuitry compensates for external effects and keep the subject’s body potential stable relative to the detection electronics. The EEG signals can be referenced to the body potential supplied by the reference electrode).
In regards to claim 9, Do further discloses wherein each sensor in the set of sensors is reversibly coupled to the housing ([0060]: The electrode mount 600 in Fig. 6A-6B is configured to provide a snap fit connection to an electrode assembly 606).
In regard to claim 10, Do further discloses wherein the set of sensors is configured to form a volume of fluid between skin of the head region of the user and the set of sensors and stimulate perspiration by the user (the examiner notes that this is an intended use limitation in which providing electrodes, which are generally warm in use, will stimulate perspiration of the skin and accumulate sweat or moisture between the skin and the electrode).
In regards to independent claim 12 and claims 17-18, Do teaches a system (abstract: “apparatus… sensing biopotential signals”; system 300 in Fig. 3), comprising:
a set of sensors (one or more electrodes mounted onto a headset 302 in exemplary schematic diagram of Fig. 3 for 10-20 electrode placement on a subject’s head, [0048], [0052], [0059]-[0060]), wherein each sensor (each of the one or more electrodes are an electrode assembly 700 as shown in Fig. 7A-7B, [0061]-[0062]) in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including layers 702, 710, 712, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B); and
an electronic subsystem coupled to the set of sensors (processing system 390 coupled to the headset 302 shown in Fig. 3, [0049]):
the electronics subsystem is further configured to receive an ambient signal from at least one of the first sensor or second sensor ([0081]-[0083] a reference electrode such as shown in Fig. 7A-7B picks up noise caused by environmental interference);
generate a calibration signal based on the ambient signal ([0054]: the reference electrode which receives a signal to compare with signals from other electrodes, the reference electrode biases the subject’s body to a known reference potential, e.g., one half of the analog supply voltage; this bias reads on the calibration signal, thus meeting claim 17); and
apply the calibration signal to the user through a second sensor in the set of sensors ([0054]: Driven Right Leg (DRL) circuitry compensates for external effects and keep the subject’s body potential stable relative to the detection electronics. The EEG signals can be referenced to the body potential supplied by the reference electrode, thus meeting claim 18);
receive a bioelectrical signal from a third sensor in the set of sensors (the 10-20 EEG signal is acquired from the rest of the electrodes in the headset).
In regards to claims 13-14, Do further discloses wherein each sensor (electrode assembly 700 in Fig. 7A-7B, [0061]-[0062]) in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including 712, 702, 710, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B), wherein the sensor pad comprises a polymer substrate (a printed circuit board (PCB) 702 in Fig. 7B, [0061]) coated with a thin film (conductive glue 710 is coated onto the PCB 702 to attach the PCB to the electrode plate 702, [0062]).
In regards to claim 15, Do further discloses wherein generating the calibration signal based on the ambient signal comprises superimposing a predetermined signal onto the ambient signal ([0082]: note that the driven right leg signal which reads on the ‘calibration signal’ is a combination or superposition/superimposition of 1) the bioelectric potential signal which reads on the ‘predetermined signal’ and 2) the hum caused by environmental interference which reads on the ‘ambient signal’, ).
In regards to claim 19, Do further discloses wherein the sensor pad comprises an elastomeric material (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including 712, 702, 710, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B; the conductive glue 710 is coated onto the PCB 702 to attach the PCB to the electrode plate 702, [0062]; note that the conductive glue layer is an elastomeric material).
In regards to claim 20, Do further discloses wherein the electronic subsystem is further configured to determine a cognitive state of the user based on the bioelectric signal ([0054]: electrode headset 500 gatherer information about the subject’s cognitive information).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pradeep et al. (hereinafter ‘Pradeep’, U.S. PGPub. No. 2011/0282232).
In regard to claims 2-4, Do discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 and discussed above.
However, Do does not disclose wherein the set of sensors comprises dry sensor.
Pradeep teaches an EEG headset similar to Do (the entire headset which the plurality of electrodes is disposed on as shown in annotated Fig. 2B) comprising a set of sensors ([0019], [0054]: a headset comprising a plurality of electrodes right side electrodes 261 and 263, left side electrodes 221 and 223, front electrodes 231 and 233, and rear electrode 251). Specifically, Pradeep discloses that the set of sensors are dry sensors ([0054]: FIG. 2A shows a perspective view of a neuro-response data collection mechanism including multiple dry electrode). Note that a dry electrode is inherently formed from a non-polarizable material ([0054]: FIG. 2A shows a perspective view of a neuro-response data collection mechanism including multiple dry electrode; note that dry electrodes are considered non-polarized because they do not undergo significant chemical reaction during measurement). Furthermore, the examiner notes that a dry electrode inherently has large impedance in the range as claimed in claim 4. Given that Do discloses a wet electrode (Do, conductive electrode layer 702 and hydrogel 712 in Fig. 7A-7B), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the wet electrodes of Do with dry electrodes as taught by Pradeep, since the equivalence of wet electrode and dry electrode for their use in the EEG sensing system and the selection of any one of these known equivalents to record EEG signals would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a predictable result of no gel application step which saves time and is easier to clean-up would ensue.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sunderland (U.S. PGPub. No. 2014/0088394).
In regards to claim 7, Do discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 6/1 and discussed above.
However, Do does not disclose wherein processing the set of bioelectrical signals comprises determining a contact impedance.
Sunderland generally teaches an EEG device ([0083]: “an EEG instrument”) connected to an EEG acquisition electronics ([0083]: “an EEG instrument includes EEG acquisition electronics”) determining the quality of the contact between individual electrodes and a patient based upon a contact impedance and indicating the quality of electrode contact as good, fair and poor based upon the contact impedance ([0099], [0140]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic subsystem of Do and incorporate the processing steps of obtaining a contact impedance of each of the sensors/electrodes as taught by Sunderland, as doing so indicates wither the quality of electrode contact is good, fair or poor ([0099], [0140]).
In regards to claim 16, Do discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 6/1 and discussed above.
However, Do does not disclose wherein processing the set of bioelectrical signals comprises determining a contact impedance for the third sensor in the set of sensors based on the bioelectric signal and the calibration signal.
Sunderland generally teaches an EEG device ([0083]: “an EEG instrument”) connected to an EEG acquisition electronics ([0083]: “an EEG instrument includes EEG acquisition electronics”) determining the quality of the contact between individual electrodes and the reference electrode and a contact impedance and indicating the quality of electrode contact as good, fair and poor based upon the contact impedance ([0099], [0140]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic subsystem of Do and incorporate the processing steps of obtaining a contact impedance of each of the sensors/electrodes as taught by Sunderland, as doing so indicates wither the quality of electrode contact is good, fair or poor ([0099], [0140]). Note that signal from any electrode other than the reference electrode in essence would be based on the bioelectric signal and the calibration/driven right leg (DRL) signal.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,194,865. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
In regards to independent claim 1, Patent ‘865 claims a system (claim 1) comprising:
a set of sensors (claim 1: a set of sensors configured to detect bioelectrical signals from the user);
a housing configured to retain the set of sensors (a housing surrounding the set of sensors), wherein the housing comprising a first arm configured to bias a first sensor in the set of sensors against skin proximal to a first region of the head of the user, and the second arm configured to bias a second sensor in the set of sensors against skin proximal to a second region of the head of the user (claim 1: a housing…comprising a set of arms configured to position each sensor in the set of sensors proximal to the region of the scalp of the user upon coupling of the system to the user); and
an electronic subsystem coupled to the set of sensors, the electronics subsystem configured to receive a set of bioelectrical signals from the set of sensors (claim 1: a set of sensor interfaces configured to couple the set of sensors to the electronics subsystem through the set of arms of the housing and to amplify and shift bioelectrical signal voltages transmitted to the electronics subsystem).
However, Patent ‘865 does not claim each sensor in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user, wherein the sensor pad comprises a polymer substrate coated with a thin film.
Do teaches a system (abstract: “apparatus… sensing biopotential signals”; system 300 in Fig. 3), comprising: a set of sensors (headset 302 in the schematic diagram of Fig. 3 comprises one or more electrodes mounted onto the headset for 10-20 electrode placement on a subject’s head, [0048], [0052], [0059]-[0060]), wherein each sensor (electrode assembly 700 in Fig. 7A-7B, [0061]-[0062]) in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including 712, 702, 710, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each sensor of Patent ‘865 and provide the specific structures of the sensor as taught by Do, as doing so provides a wet electrodes configured to provide low contact impedance with high quality EEG signals.
In regards to claim 12, Patent ‘865 claims a system comprising:
a set of sensors (claim 1: a set of sensors); and
an electronics subsystem (claim 1: the electronics subsystem) coupled to the set of sensors, the electronics subsystem configured to:
receive an ambient signal from a first sensor in the set of sensor (claim 1:the analog electronics subsystem comprising a hum remover that reduces noise based upon the ambient signal of the common mode sensor, wherein the hum remover is configured to sample the ambient signal of the common mode sensor);
generate a calibration signal based on the ambient signal (claim 1: superimpose the ambient signal with a square wave signal having a frequency higher than the frequency range of the bioelectrical signals to be detected to produce a calibration signal);
apply the calibration signal to the user through a second sensor of the set of sensors (claim 1:to apply the calibration signal to the user through at least one sensor of the set of sensors); and
receive a bioelectrical signal from a third sensor in the set of sensors (claim 1: a set of sensor interfaces configured to couple the set of sensors to the electronics subsystem and to amplify and shift bioelectrical signal voltages transmitted to the electronics subsystem).
However, Patent ‘865 does not each sensor in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head region of a user.
Do teaches a system (abstract: “apparatus… sensing biopotential signals”; system 300 in Fig. 3), comprising: a set of sensors (headset 302 in the schematic diagram of Fig. 3 comprises one or more electrodes mounted onto the headset for 10-20 electrode placement on a subject’s head, [0048], [0052], [0059]-[0060]), wherein each sensor (electrode assembly 700 in Fig. 7A-7B, [0061]-[0062]) in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including 712, 702, 710, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each sensor of Patent ‘865 and provide the specific structures of the sensor as taught by Do, as doing so provides a wet electrodes configured to provide low contact impedance with high quality EEG signals.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,400. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
In regards to independent claim 1, Patent ‘400 claims a system (claim 12: system) comprising:
a set of sensors (claim 13: a set of sensors);
a housing (claim 13: a housing comprising a set of arms configured to position the set of sensors proximal to the scalp of the user upon coupling of the system to the user); and
an electronics subsystem coupled to the set of sensors (claim 13: an electronics subsystem; the electronics subsystem coupled to the set of sensor interfaces).
However, Patent ‘400 does not claim wherein each sensor in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user, wherein the sensor pad comprises a polymer substrate coated with a thin film.
Do teaches a system (abstract: “apparatus… sensing biopotential signals”; system 300 in Fig. 3), comprising: a set of sensors (headset 302 in the schematic diagram of Fig. 3 comprises one or more electrodes mounted onto the headset for 10-20 electrode placement on a subject’s head, [0048], [0052], [0059]-[0060]), wherein each sensor (electrode assembly 700 in Fig. 7A-7B, [0061]-[0062]) in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including 712, 702, 710, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each sensor of Patent ‘400 and provide the specific structures of the sensor as taught by Do, as doing so provides a wet electrodes configured to provide low contact impedance with high quality EEG signals.
In regards to claim 12, Patent ‘865 claims a system comprising:
A set of sensors (claim 13: a set of sensors); and
An electronics subsystem (claim 13: the electronics subsystem) coupled to the set of sensors, the electronics subsystem configured to:
Receive an ambient signal from a first sensor in the set of sensor (claim 13: the electronics subsystem comprising: an analog electronics subsystem configured to receive the preprocessed bioelectrical signals from the set of sensor interfaces);
Generate a calibration signal based on the ambient signal (claim 13: the analog electronics subsystem comprising a hum remover configured to: superimpose an ambient signal, received from the set of sensor interfaces, with a predetermined signal to produce a calibration signal);
Apply the calibration signal to the user through a second sensor of the set of sensors (claim 13: apply the calibration signal to the user through at least one sensor of the set of sensors); and
Receive a bioelectrical signal from a third sensor in the set of sensors (claim 13: a set of sensor interfaces configured to couple the set of sensors to the electronics subsystem and to amplify and shift bioelectrical signal voltages transmitted to the electronics subsystem).
However, Patent ‘865 does not each sensor in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head region of a user.
Do teaches a system (abstract: “apparatus… sensing biopotential signals”; system 300 in Fig. 3), comprising: a set of sensors (headset 302 in the schematic diagram of Fig. 3 comprises one or more electrodes mounted onto the headset for 10-20 electrode placement on a subject’s head, [0048], [0052], [0059]-[0060]), wherein each sensor (electrode assembly 700 in Fig. 7A-7B, [0061]-[0062]) in the set of sensors comprises a sensor pad configured to provide contact between the sensor and skin of a head of a user (each of the electrode assembly 700 comprises a plurality of layers including 712, 702, 710, and 704 as shown in Fig. 7B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each sensor of Patent ‘400 and provide the specific structures of the sensor as taught by Do, as doing so provides a wet electrodes configured to provide low contact impedance with high quality EEG signals.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,703. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
In regards to independent claim 1, Patent ‘703 claims a system (claim 1: system) comprising:
a set of sensors (claim 1: a set of sensors), each sensor comprising a sensor pad comprising a polymer substrate coated with a thin film (claim 4: each sensor of the set of sensor includes a sensor pad composed of a hypoallergenic polyhydroxyethylmethacrylate hydrogel saturated with non-volatile electrolyte configured to provide non-polarizable contact upon coupling of the system to the user);
a housing (claim 1: a housing comprising a set of arms configured to be worn at a head region of the user), the housing comprising first and second arms (claim 1: the housing comprising a set of arms); and
an electronics subsystem coupled to the set of sensors (claim 1: an electronics subsystem; the electronics subsystem coupled to the set of sensor interfaces since it claims processing EEG signals from the set of sensors).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,703, and further in view of Do. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
In regards to independent claim 12, Patent ‘703 claims a system comprising: a set of sensors (claim 1: a set of sensors) comprising a sensor pad (claim 1: a semi-dry hydrogel); and an electronic subsystem (claim 1: an electronics subsystem; the electronics subsystem coupled to the set of sensor interfaces since it claims processing EEG signals from the set of sensors).
However, Patent ‘703 does not disclose the processing steps of the electronic subsystem.
Do discloses a system (abstract: “apparatus… sensing biopotential signals”; system 300 in Fig. 3) similar to the claimed invention of Patent ‘703 comprising a set of sensors (one or more electrodes mounted onto a headset 302 in exemplary schematic diagram of Fig. 3 for 10-20 electrode placement on a subject’s head, [0048], [0052], [0059]-[0060]) and an electronic subsystem coupled to the set of sensors (processing system 390 coupled to the headset 302 shown in Fig. 3, [0049]). Specifically, Do discloses the electronics subsystem is further configured to receive an ambient signal from at least one of the first sensor or second sensor ([0081]-[0083] a reference electrode such as shown in Fig. 7A-7B picks up noise caused by environmental interference); generate a calibration signal based on the ambient signal ([0054]: the reference electrode which receives a signal to compare with signals from other electrodes, the reference electrode biases the subject’s body to a known reference potential, e.g., one half of the analog supply voltage; this bias reads on the calibration signal); apply the calibration signal to the user through a second sensor in the set of sensors ([0054]: Driven Right Leg (DRL) circuitry compensates for external effects and keep the subject’s body potential stable relative to the detection electronics. The EEG signals can be referenced to the body potential supplied by the reference electrode); and receive a bioelectrical signal from a third sensor in the set of sensors (the 10-20 EEG signal is acquired from the rest of the electrodes in the headset). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the electronic subsystem of Patent ‘703 so that it is configured to provide driven right leg arrangement to reduce noise from the EEG signals acquired by the set of sensors as doing so involves routine skill in the art to remove common noise in a set of biopotential signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHWA KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 2/5/2026