DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 3, 12, and 14 are 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.
5. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mechanical deformation properties" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which Claim 3 depends from, fails to recite any “mechanical deformation properties”, rendering Claim 3 indefinite. Proper correction is required.
6. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the deformation characteristics" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 10, which Claim 12 depend from, fail to recite any “deformation characteristics”, rendering Claim 12 indefinite. Proper correction is required.
7. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the deformation characteristics" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 10, which Claim 14 depend from, fail to recite any “deformation characteristics”, rendering Claim 14 indefinite. Proper correction is required.
8. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sensing characteristics" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 10, which Claim 14 depend from, fail to recite any “sensing characteristics”, rendering Claim 14 indefinite. Proper correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chi U.S. 2015/0141788 (herein referred to as “Chi”).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Chi teaches an electrode assembly (Fig. 1, ref num 10 and Fig. 7, ref num 40), comprising:
a. an electrode body (Fig. 7, ref num 42); and
b. at least one arc rail attached to and extending from the electrode body (Fig. 7, ref num 44a-f);
c. wherein the at least one arc rail includes at least one sensing element for sensing the state of a particular property of a selected subject area when the sensing element is applied by the at least one arc rail to the selected subject area (Fig. 8, ref num 57; para 0007, “at least one leg structure supporting a transducer disposed at the distal end of the leg structure for sensing or stimulating the state of a particular property of a selected subject area when the transducer is applied by the leg structure to the selected subject area”); and
d. wherein the at least one arc rail is so disposed in relation to the electrode body as to be disposed at a non-perpendicular angle to the selected subject area when the electrode assembly is applied to the selected subject area (see Figs. 7 and 9, ref num 44a-f are disposed at a non-perpendicular angle; para 0007, “the at least one leg structure is so disposed in relation to the support terminal as to be disposed at a non-perpendicular angle to the subject area when the transducer assembly is applied to the selected subject area”).
12. Regarding Claim 2, Chi teaches the sensing element is additionally configured to be driven as a stimulation element (para 0007, “at least one leg structure supporting a transducer disposed at the distal end of the leg structure for sensing or stimulating the state of a particular property of a selected subject area when the transducer is applied by the leg structure to the selected subject area”).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Chi teaches the structure of at least one of the electrode assembly, the electrode body, and the at least one arc rail, is flexible (para 0008, “the at least one leg structure is adapted to flex when the transducer is applied under pressure to the selected subject area to thereby cause the transducer to slide on the subject area”).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Chi teaches the at least one arc rail is made from a conductive material (para 0039, “the entire transducer assembly can be made from a conductive material such as carbon filled plastic, conductive silver-silicone compounds or solid metal. As a further alternative, since only the contact area of the transducer at the distal end of the probe needs to be conductive, only the contact area of the transducer is painted/coated or made from a conductive material”).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Chi teaches the electrode assembly is an active electrode (para 0007).
16. Regarding Claim 10, Chi teaches the at least one arc rail is adapted to flex when the electrode assembly is applied under pressure under pressure to the selected subject area to thereby cause the electrode assembly to conform to the selected subject area (para 0008, “ the at least one leg structure is adapted to flex when the transducer is applied under pressure to the selected subject area to thereby cause the transducer to slide on the subject area”).
17. Regarding Claim 11, Chi teaches the at least one arc rail further comprises at least one sensing pad (Fig. 8, ref num 57 is a sensing pad).
18. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunasekar (herein referred to as “Gunasekar”).
19. Regarding Claim 1, Gunasekar U.S. 2020/0237249 teaches an electrode assembly (Figs. 1, 4, and 10A-10D), wherein the electrode assembly comprises:
a. an electrode body (Fig. 4, ref num 142); and
b. at least one arc rail attached to and extending from the electrode body (Figs. 4 and 10A-10B, ref num 144, 1004);
c. wherein the at least one arc rail includes at least one sensing element for sensing the state of a particular property of a selected subject area when the sensing element is applied by the at least one arc rail to the selected subject area (Fig. 10A, ref num 1004, 1008; para 0124, “Each sense electrode is configured to contact a user's skin and to pass neural oscillation data in the form of a sense signal from the user's skin to the controller 184”; para 0123, 0178-0179); and
d. wherein the at least one arc rail is so disposed in relation to the electrode body as to be disposed at a non-perpendicular angle to the selected subject area when the electrode assembly is applied to the selected subject area (see Figs. 10A-10D, ref num 1004 is disposed in a non-perpendicular angle compared to ref num 1000; para 0188).
20. Regarding Claim 3, Gunasekar teaches a polymer structure (para 0039), Chi fails to specifically teach a polymer structure is overmolded onto at least one of the electrode body (para 0179, “The electrode tip body 1000, the lateral struts 1002, the electrode arms 1004, the electrode legs 1006, the electrode feet 1008, or a combination thereof can comprise or be made of a polymeric material”; para 0298-0299) and the at least one arc rail to alter the mechanical deformation properties of the electrode assembly (para 0179 describes the materials in which the arc rail is made of, which is understood to alter the deformation properties of the electrode assembly).
21. Regarding Claim 6, Gunasekar teaches that the at least one arc rail is a non-conductive structure that is at least partially encapsulated with a conductive material (para 0179, ““The electrode tip body 1000, the lateral struts 1002, the electrode arms 1004, the electrode legs 1006, the electrode feet 1008, or a combination thereof can comprise or be made of a polymeric material having conductive ions…. Embedded, imbued, intermingled, or impregnated within the polymeric material…can be injection molded…”)
22. Regarding Claim 7, Gunasekar teaches the electrode assembly is a dry electrode (para 0124, “each sense electrode in the set of sense electrodes can define a dry EEG electrode”)
23. Regarding Claim 9, Gunasekar teaches the at least one arc rail is a partial loop (Fig. 10C, ref num 1004 defines a partial loop).
24. Regarding Claim 10, Gunasekar teaches the at least one arc rail is adapted to flex when the electrode assembly is applied under pressure under pressure to the selected subject area to thereby cause the electrode assembly to conform to the selected subject area (see Fig. 27C; para 0274, “one or more of the electrode arms 1004 can bend or flex when compressive forces are applied to the electrode tip 144”).
25. Regarding Claim 12, Gunasekar teaches comprising at least one arc rail brace that modifies the deformation characteristics of the electrode assembly (Fig. 10A, ref num 1006; para 0178, “one or more deflectable electrode legs 1006 coupled to each of the one or more electrode arms 1004”; par 0203, “Deflection and displacement of the electrode legs 1006”; see Fig. 16).
26. Regarding Claim 13, Gunasekar teaches the at least one arc rail further comprises at least one additional sensing device (para 0179 describes that multiple components, ref nums 1002, 1004, 1006, and 1008 may all be made up of conductive material, which indicates that there are multiple sensing components of the device).
27. Regarding Claim 14, Gunasekar teaches the at least one arc rail comprises mechanical features that modify at least one of the deformation characteristics and the sensing characteristics of the electrode assembly (see Fig. 27C; para 0274, “one or more of the electrode arms 1004 can bend or flex when compressive forces are applied to the electrode tip 144”; para 0261, “conductive cushioning material 2700”).
Regarding Claim 15, Gunasekar teaches the mechanical features include at least one of a slit, a ridge, a bump, a groove, a divot, a hole, a dimple, an overmolded substrate, at least a partial encapsulating substrate a conductive coating, and an arc rail brace (para 0261, “electrode tip 144 can comprise…a conductive cushioning material 2700”).
28. Regarding Claim 17, Gunasekar teaches a system (Figs. 1-3, ref num 100) comprising:
a. an analog front end (AFE) (para 0167; Fig. 3, ref num 184) configured to receive output signals from at least one electrode assembly (Fig. 4; para 0125) and transmit the output signals to a digital module for processing (para 0166-1067);
b. an accessory strap including sockets to receive the at least one electrode assembly and configured to deliver the output signal from the at least one electrode assembly to the AFE (Fig. 1, ref nums 121-124 having sockets, see Figs. 3 and 4; para 0112, 1067);
c. wherein the at least one electrode assembly (Figs. 1, 4, and 10A-10D) includes:
c.1 an electrode body (Fig. 4, ref num 142); and
c.2 at least one arc rail attached to and extending from the electrode body (Figs. 4 and 10A-10B, ref num 144, 1004);
c.3 wherein the at least one arc rail includes at least one sensing element for sensing the state of a particular property of a selected subject area when the sensing element is applied by the at least one arc rail to the selected subject area (Fig. 10A, ref num 1004, 1008; para 0124, “Each sense electrode is configured to contact a user's skin and to pass neural oscillation data in the form of a sense signal from the user's skin to the controller 184”; para 0123, 0178-0179); and
c.4 wherein the at least one arc rail is so disposed in relation to the electrode body as to be disposed at a non-perpendicular angle to the selected subject area when the electrode assembly is applied to the selected subject area (see Figs. 10A-10D, ref num 1004 is disposed in a non-perpendicular angle compared to ref num 1000; para 0188).
29. Regarding Claim 18, Gunasekar teaches the at least one arc rail is adapted to flex when the electrode assembly is applied under pressure to the selected area to thereby cause the electrode assembly to slide on the selected subject area (para 0274; Fig. 27C).
30. Regarding Claim 19, Gunasekar teaches the at least one arc rail is made from a conductive material (ref num 1004; para 0179).
31. Regarding Claim 20, Gunasekar teaches the accessory strap is configured to connect electrically and mechanically to an Augmented Reality display or a Virtual Reality display (para 0149, “upon receipt of such a notification from the EEG headset 100, the native EEG test application can render this notification on a display of the computing device. The native EEG test application can additionally or alternatively update a virtual representation of the EEG headset 100 rendered on the computing device to indicate that the F4F7 electrode requires adjustment, such as by highlighting the F4F7 electrode in a virtual representation of the EEG headset 100 and inserting a directional arrow and target offset distance to shift the F4F7 electrode into alignment with the 10-20 system”; para 0112, “EEG headset 100 or connected computing device”; para 0155, 0169).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. 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.
33. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekar.
34. Regarding Claim 16, Gunasekar teaches the mechanical features include at least one of a at least a partial encapsulating substrate and an arc rail brace (para 0261, “electrode tip 144 can comprise…a conductive cushioning material 2700”).
However, while Gunasekar fails to specifically teach that this facilitates asymmetrical deformation of the electrode assembly, Gunasekar does discuss that the deformation of the electrode assembly may be asymmetrical (para 0247). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the partial encapsulating substrate or arc rail brace to facilitate the asymmetrical deformation of the electrode assembly since the assembly does deform asymmetrically.
Conclusion
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNIE L SHOULDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (alternate Fridays) 8AM-5PM 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.
/ANNIE L SHOULDERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3794