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.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. Claims 3, 12, and 14 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness. Claim 3 is presently cancelled, and Claims 12 and 14 have been amended to overcome the previous rejection. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mercier U.S. 2018/0353096 (herein referred to as “Mercier”).
7. Regarding Claim 1, Mercier teaches an electrode assembly (Fig. 1), comprising:
a. an electrode body (Fig. 1, ref num 2);
b. at least one arc rail attached to and extending from the electrode body (Fig. 1, ref num 3); and
c. a polymer structure overmolded onto the electrode body (para 0074, “Generally, the high consistency silicone rubber (or “HCR”) is able to deform and recover it original shape, which renders the legs 3 unbreakable. The high consistency silicone rubber contains polymers with a high molecular weight and long polymer chains”; para 0118, “the rails 6 and the plug 5 form a whole and one piece, around which base 2 and legs 3 are overmolded”), the at least one arc rail, or both, the polymer structure being configured to increase conformability of the at least one arc rail to a selected subject area when the electrode assembly is applied to the selected subject area (para 0074, “the high consistency silicone rubber (or “HCR”) is able to deform and recover is original shape, which renders the legs 3 unbreakable… It has a high degree of elasticity”; para 0089, “ such that when the electrode is applied against the user's head, the legs 3 elastically flex and their second extremities 3b are able to slide against the user's head, through the hair, to be in contact with the scalp of the user”);
d. wherein the at least one arc rail includes at least one sensing element for sensing a state of a particular property of the selected subject area when the sensing element is applied by the at least one arc rail to the selected subject area (para 0069, “The legs 3 may be formed with a flexible material, such that when they are pressed against the user's head, to acquire EEG signals”); and
e. 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 (para 0071, “To enhance the sliding of the second extremities 3b, the legs 3 may be attached to base 2 such that they form an angle between 20° and 80° with the first longitudinal face 2a of base 2”).
8. Regarding Claim 4, Mercier teaches the polymer structure is more compliant than the electrode body such that the at least one arc rail deflects toward the selected subject area under an applied contact force (para 0100, “because of the particular geometry of the electrode, the legs 3 can be made with a highly flexible material. This particularly allows the legs 3 to be very flexible, such that, when the electrode is applied against the user's head, the legs 3 elastically flex and their second extremities 3b are able to slide even more against the user's head”; para 0070, “When a pressure is applied, generally to base 2, the legs 3 elastically flex and the second extremity 3b of the legs 3 slide against the user's head, through the hair. The base 2 may be able to absorb the pressure applied against the scalp of the user”).
9. Regarding Claim 5, Mercier teaches the polymer structure is overmolded onto both the electrode body and the at least one arc rail (para 0118, “the rails 6 and the plug 5 form a whole and one piece, around which base 2 and legs 3 are overmolded”).
10. Regarding Claim 6, Mercier teaches the at least one arc rail is a non-conductive structure that is at least partially encapsulated with a conductive material (para 0076, “To improve the quality of the measured bio-signals, the second extremity 3b of the legs 3 is for example covered with a highly electrically conductive material, for example a mixture of silver and silver chloride (or “Ag/AgCl”) that can adhere to silicone rubber surfaces”).
11. Regarding Claim 7, Mercier teaches the electrode assembly is a dry electrode (para 0002).
12. Regarding Claim 8, Mercier teaches the electrode assembly is an active electrode (para 0003).
13. Regarding Claim 10, Mercier teaches the at least one arc rail is adapted to flex when the electrode assembly is applied under pressure to the selected subject area to thereby cause the electrode assembly to conform to the selected subject area (para 0070, “When a pressure is applied, generally to base 2, the legs 3 elastically flex and the second extremity 3b of the legs 3 slide against the user's head, through the hair. The base 2 may be able to absorb the pressure applied against the scalp of the user”).
14. Regarding Claim 12, Mercier teaches at least one arc rail brace that modifies deformation characteristics of the electrode assembly (para 0097, “The cross-section of the legs 3 at their first extremities 3a is larger than the cross-section of the legs 3 at their second extremities 3b Making the first extremities 3a of the legs thicker than the second extremities 3b increases the rigidity of the legs 3 for penetration in long or thick hair”).
15. Regarding Claim 14, Mercier teaches the at least one arc rail comprises mechanical features that modify at least one of the deformation characteristics and sensing characteristics of the electrode assembly (para 0097, “The cross-section of the legs 3 at their first extremities 3a is larger than the cross-section of the legs 3 at their second extremities 3b Making the first extremities 3a of the legs thicker than the second extremities 3b increases the rigidity of the legs 3 for penetration in long or thick hair”).
16. Regarding Claim 15, Mercier teaches the mechanical features include at least one of 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 0090, “The second extremities 3b of the legs 3 may also be covered with a high electrically conductive material”).
17. Regarding Claim 16, Mercier teaches the mechanical features include at least one of a at least a partial encapsulating substrate and an arc rail brace to facilitate asymmetrical deformation of the electrode assembly (para 0069, “The legs 3 may be formed with a flexible material, such that when they are pressed against the user's head, to acquire EEG signals, the legs 3 elastically flex and their second extremity 3b slides on the user's head. The flexibility and the shape of the legs assure the penetration of the legs 3 through the hair of the user, such that the second extremity 3b is able to be directly in contact with the scalp of the user”; it is understood that a user’s head is not perfectly symmetrical, therefore, the elastic flexibility of the electrode assembly would conform to the non-symmetrical structure).
18. Regarding Claim 17, Mercier teaches a system (Fig. 19) comprising:
a. an analog front end (AFE) configured to receive output signals from at least one electrode assembly and transmit the output signals to a digital module for processing (para 0121, “The plug 5 may also connect the electrode 1 to electronics comprised in the wearable assembly, which monitor the bio signals measured by the electrode 1. The connection is for example made by the means of the insert connected to a wire comprised in the wearable assembly 10, the insert making the connection between the wire and the plug 5”);
b. an accessory strap (Fig. 19, ref num 10) including sockets to receive the at least one electrode assembly (para 0031, “the electrode further comprises a plug able to solidarize said electrode to a wearable assembly able to be worn on the user's head”) and configured to deliver the output signal from the at least one electrode assembly to the AFE (para 0032, “the plug is able to transmit measured signals”);
c. wherein the at least one electrode assembly (Fig. 19, ref num 1) includes:
c.1 an electrode body (Fig. 1, ref num 2);
c.2 at least one arc rail attached to and extending from the electrode body (Fig. 1, ref num 3); and
c.3 a polymer structure overmolded onto the electrode body (para 0074, “Generally, the high consistency silicone rubber (or “HCR”) is able to deform and recover it original shape, which renders the legs 3 unbreakable. The high consistency silicone rubber contains polymers with a high molecular weight and long polymer chains”; para 0118, “the rails 6 and the plug 5 form a whole and one piece, around which base 2 and legs 3 are overmolded”), the at least one arc rail, or both, the polymer structure being configured to increase conformability of the at least one arc rail to a selected subject area when the electrode assembly is applied to the selected subject area (para 0074, “the high consistency silicone rubber (or “HCR”) is able to deform and recover is original shape, which renders the legs 3 unbreakable… It has a high degree of elasticity”; para 0089, “ such that when the electrode is applied against the user's head, the legs 3 elastically flex and their second extremities 3b are able to slide against the user's head, through the hair, to be in contact with the scalp of the user”);
c.4 wherein the at least one arc rail includes at least one sensing element for sensing a state of a particular property of the selected subject area when the sensing element is applied by the at least one arc rail to the selected subject area (para 0069, “The legs 3 may be formed with a flexible material, such that when they are pressed against the user's head, to acquire EEG signals”); and
c.5 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 (para 0071, “To enhance the sliding of the second extremities 3b, the legs 3 may be attached to base 2 such that they form an angle between 20° and 80° with the first longitudinal face 2a of base 2”).
19. Regarding Claim 18, Mercier teaches the polymer structure is more compliant than the electrode body such that the at least one arc rail deflects toward the selected subject area under an applied contact force (para 0100, “because of the particular geometry of the electrode, the legs 3 can be made with a highly flexible material. This particularly allows the legs 3 to be very flexible, such that, when the electrode is applied against the user's head, the legs 3 elastically flex and their second extremities 3b are able to slide even more against the user's head”; para 0070, “When a pressure is applied, generally to base 2, the legs 3 elastically flex and the second extremity 3b of the legs 3 slide against the user's head, through the hair. The base 2 may be able to absorb the pressure applied against the scalp of the user”).
20. Regarding Claim 19, Mercier teaches the polymer structure is overmolded onto both the electrode body and the at least one arc rail (para 0118, “the rails 6 and the plug 5 form a whole and one piece, around which base 2 and legs 3 are overmolded”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
22. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier and in view of Chi U.S. 2015/0141788 (herein referred to as “Chi”).
23. Regarding Claim 2, Mercier fails to teach the sensing element is additionally configured to be driven as a stimulation element.
Chi teaches an electrode assembly of analogous art (Fig. 1, ref num 10 and Fig. 7, ref num 40), wherein the electrode assembly includes at least one arc rail (Fig. 7, ref nums 44a-f) that includes at least one sensing element (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”), such that 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”; para 0041, “the transducer assembly is used to deliver electrical current, rather than or in addition to sensing bioelectric potential, for transcranial stimulation”). This provides another feature to the assembly in order to treat the subject area (para 0012, 0041). 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 Mercier to have the sensing element additional be configured to stimulate the subject area.
24. Regarding Claim 11, Mercier fails to explicitly teach the at least one arc rail further comprises at least one sensing pad.
Chi teaches the one arc rail further comprises at least one sensing pad (Fig. 8, ref num 57 is a sensing pad). Since Mercier teaches sensing capabilities of the one arc rail (Mercier, para 0069, “The legs 3 may be formed with a flexible material, such that when they are pressed against the user's head, to acquire EEG signals”), then it would have been obvious to modify Mercier to have the one arc rail comprise of a sensing pad, as this produces the same expected result of acquiring the desired characteristics from the subject area.
25. Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier.
26. Regarding Claim 9, while Mercier fails to explicitly the at least one arc rail is a partial loop, Mercier does discuss that the arc rail having a curved shape (para 0103, Fig. 14), which is similar to a partial loop. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the arc rail of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
27. Regarding Claim 13, Mercier fails to explicitly teach the at least one arc rail further comprises at least one additional sensing device. However, Mercier does teach of the sensing capabilities (para 0069, “The legs 3 may be formed with a flexible material, such that when they are pressed against the user's head, to acquire EEG signals”). 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 Mercier to include an additional sensing device, as this produces the same expected result.
28. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier and in view of Gunasekar U.S. 2020/0237249 (herein referred to as “Gunasekar”).
29. Regarding Claim 20, Mercier fails to teach the accessory strap is configured to connect electrically and mechanically to an Augmented Reality display or a Virtual Reality display.
Gunasekar teaches a system of analogous art (Figs. 1-3, ref num 100), wherein an accessory strap (Fig. 1, para 0112, 0149) 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, 1069). This allows the user to read the information that is collected by the electrode assembly (para 0112, 0149, 0155, 0169). 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 Mercier to have the accessory strap be connected to an AR or VR display so that the user may read the data that is collected by the electrode assembly.
Conclusion
30. 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.
31. 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
Prosecution Insights