DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sensing bar and the locator bar joined” in line 3 should read --sensing bar and the locator bar are joined--, “configured rest” of line 9 should read --configured to rest--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “M2 or M1 the third electrical sensor” in line 2 should read --M2 or M1, the third electrical sensor--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: "processor equipped with an electronics" should read --processor equipped with electronics--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: "are and" should read --and--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-9, 28, and 33 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites a protrusion comprising a “third electrode”. While claim 1 recites a first electrical sensor comprising “one or more electrodes”, and a second electrical sensor comprising “one or more electrodes”, it is unclear which of these electrodes is considered to be the first and second electrodes, such that this claim can recite a third electrode.
Claim 3 recites detecting a difference in voltage between “AF4 and M2 or AF3 and M1”. However, claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, requires only that at least one side portion comprises a protrusion carrying an electrode at “about position M2 or M1”. The claim therefore requires a measurement at a position at which the device of claim 2 need not have any electrode, and it is unclear whether claim 3 is intended to further limit claim 2 to require the corresponding electrode.
As to claim 6, it is unclear what a maximum distance of “about 18mm” and “about 42 mm” comprises, what the acceptable range around those two values are. For purposes of interpretation, any distance will be considered “about” those two distances.
Claim 8 recites that the space is “a void having an approximately oval or geometric shape.” Every shape is a geometric shape – accordingly, this limitation is being treated as reading on a void of any shape.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the projection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 26, from which claim 28 depends, recites “the protrusion” and will be interpreted as such.
Claim 33 recites “an algorithm for analyzing the EEG signals to determine the attention level of the subject”. Neither “the EEG signals” nor “the subject” has antecedent basis.
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 8 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. As noted above, every shape is geometric, and thus fails to limit the space of claim 1.02 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.
Claims 1-9 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Causevic et al. (US 2010/0041962) in view of Shahaf et al. (US 2012/0296569).
As to claim 1, Causevic teaches a headset (Fig. 2A-C) comprising: a front portion (band portion 30 of the headset 14 generally on the forehead of the user, Fig. 2B; para [0032]) comprising a first end (first end of band portion near the first side portion 31, para [0032]; Fig. 2B, 4), a second end (second end of band portion near the second side portion 31, para [0032]; Fig. 2B, 4), a sensing bar (sensing bar defined as the part of the headset which includes the upper forehead bar containing the material around sensor 68, the right temple sensor 64 and left temple sensor 74, Fig.4; para [0044]), and a locator bar (locator bar defined as the part of the headset which includes the material around lower forehead bar containing sensors 66, 70 and 72 and extending towards the first and second ends of the headset, Fig. 4), wherein the sensing bar and the locator bar are joined at the first end and the second end of the front portion (the material bands that makes up the sensing bar and locator joins at the first and second ends of the headset, Fig. 4) and comprising a space below the sensing bar and above the locator bar between the first end and the second end (visible space between the sensing bar and locator bar, Fig.. 2B; Fig. 4), wherein the sensing bar is shaped and configured to contact the forehead of a user wearing the headset (shape of sensing bar is shown contacting forehead of user, Fig.. 2B; para [0032]) and comprises a first electrical sensor positioned to contact the forehead of the user (first electrical sensor 64, Fig. 4), the first electrical sensor comprising one or more electrodes (one electrode sensor 64 is an electrode sensor 50, para [0043]-[0044]; Fig.. 4), and a second electrical sensor positioned to contact the forehead of the user (second electrical sensor 74, Fig.. 4), the second electrical sensor comprising one or more electrodes (second electrode sensor 74 is an electrode sensor 50, para [0043]-[0044]; Fig.. 4), and the locator bar is shaped and configured to rest upon the brow of the user (the lower section of the band 30 that makes up the locator bar is capable of resting on the brow of the user, Fig.. 2B); and a first side portion (the first side portion 31, Fig.. 2A-B) and a second side portion (second side portion 31, Fig.. 2B-c), the first side portion joined to the first end of the front portion (first end of front portion band 30 is joined to the first side portion, Fig.. 2A-B; para [0032]) and the second side portion joined to the second end of the front portion (second end of front portion band 30 is joined to the second side portion, Fig.. 2B-c; para [0032]), wherein the first side portion, the second side portion, and the front portion, together, are shaped and configured to grip the head of the user (the front portion and side portions are shaped to and capable of gripping the head of the user, Fig.. 2B), but Causevic does not specifically teach a first electrical sensor positioned to contact the forehead of the user at about position AF3; and second electrical sensor positioned to contact the forehead of the user at about position AF4.
However, Shahaf teaches a first electrical sensor positioned to contact the forehead of the user at about position AF3; and second electrical sensor positioned to contact the forehead of the user at about position AF4 ([0399], [0403]) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Causevic would have modified by the teachings of Shahaf as claimed because a measurement of certain synapse biopotentials captured by electrodes is beneficial to understanding and assessing the brains activity at certain locations.
As to claim 2, Causevic and Shahaf teach the headset of claim 1, and Causevic further teaches and wherein at least one of the first side portion and the second side portion further comprise a protrusion (protrusions 62 and 76, Fig. 4), the protrusion comprising a third electrode positioned to contact the user at about position M2 or Ml (third electrode on the protrusions 62 and 76 that have electrodes 50, para [0044]; third electrodes placed on the mastoids which are the positions of Ml and M2, para [0044]); the third electrical sensor comprising one or more electrodes that contact the skin over the mastoid process of the user (third electrodes placed on the mastoids, para [0044]).
As to Claim 3, Causevic and Shahaf teach the headset of claim 2, and Causevic teaches further comprising a processor equipped with an electronics for selecting and detecting a difference in voltage between (i) AF3 and AF4, and (ii) AF4 and M2 or AF3 and Ml (processor and electronics base unit 12 are capable of selecting and detecting a difference in voltage between AF3 and AF4, para [0027]-[0028], [0059]).
As to Claim 4, Causevic and Shahaf teach the headset of claim 1, and Causevic further teaches wherein the first side portion and the second side portion are shaped and positioned to contact the skin over the temporal bone of the user (first and second side portions are located over the temporal bone with sensors placed on the skin of the user, para [0032], [0044]; Fig. 2A-C).
As to Claim 5, Causevic and Shahaf teach the headset of claim 4, but do not specifically teach wherein the headset is shaped to permit the user to wear the headset and eyeglasses simultaneously. However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the headset could be shaped to permit the user to wear the headset with glasses to allow the device to be used by those who require the use of corrective glasses.
As to claims 6 and 7, Causevic teaches the maximum distance between the inside edge of the locator bar and the inside edge of the sensing bar is “about 18 or 42 mm” (Fig.. 4).
As to claim 8, Causevic teaches the space is a void having a geometric shape (Fig.. 4 - it is noted that a geometric shape can be any shape).
As to claim 9, Causevic teaches the first side portion and the second side portion further comprise padding positioned to contact the head of the user ([0010] - headset may include a flexible band).
As to claim 21, Causevic teaches a battery ([0027] – power source) and electronics for receiving, processing, and transmitting EEG signals collected from the user ([0027] – processor and signal amplification circuitry, signal filtering circuitry, A/D conversion circuitry, and/or any other appropriate circuitry).
As to claim 22, Causevic teaches integrating the base unit and its onboard memory into the headset ([0052]) but does not expressly teach that the first side portion comprises a first housing and the second side portion comprises a second housing, wherein the first housing and the second housing comprise the battery and/or the electronics. However, placing the integrated electronics and battery in housing at the two side portions is an obvious rearrangement of parts that does not change the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), and would be obvious to modify to arrive at the recited limitations.
As to claim 23, Causevic teaches the headset is configured to wirelessly transmit the EEG signals to a host computer ([0046] – wireless connector; [0012] – headset communicates with a base unit).
Claims 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Causevic et al. (US 2010/0041962) and Shahaf et al. (US 2012/0296569), and further in view of Nahum (US 2015/0112153).
As to claim 24, while Causevic does teach the accommodation of varying head geometry by expansible regions 47 or corrugations 48 ([0041]), it does not expressly teach that the first side portion is slidably coupled to the first end of the front portion and the second side portion is slidably coupled to the second end of the front portion to permit extension of the front portion and the side portions. Nahum teaches an EEG headset (100) having an assembly formed of right and left headband arms and right and left lateral support assemblies, and explicitly allows for headband length adjustment ([0049]) by being slidably coupled ([0105]). It would’ve been obvious to modify the above combination with Nahum to allow for a slidable, length-adjusting coupling as taught by Nahum as a means of enhancing compatibility with head size and shape.
As to claim 25, the above combination fails to expressly teach that the first side portion is rotatably coupled to the first end of the front portion and the second side portion is rotatably coupled to the second end of the front portion to permit the side portions to fold inward and reduce the size of the headset when not in use. Nahum teaches an EEG headset (100) with hinge assemblies (140), wherein the hinges allow for multiple rotation axes lateral support ([0049]) by using a dual-rotation-axis hinge ([0050]), thus allowing for the side portions to fold inwards (Fig. 4A – 440). It would have been obvious to modify the above combination with Nahun to allow the side portions to fold inward to accommodate varying head shapes during wear, and reduces the size when not in use.
As to claim 26, the above combination fails to expressly teach the protrusion is coupled to the first side portion or the second side portion by a hinge. Nahum teaches at least one hinge assembly connecting at least one of the right or left lateral support assemblies to at least one of the right or left curved arms (Abstract; [0103]). It would have been obvious to modify the above combination with Nahun to utilize a hinge to allow for better accommodation of varying head shapes and sizes.
As to claim 27, Nahun teaches the hinge is configured to permit the protrusion to fold toward the head of the user (440).
As to claim 28, Nahun teaches the hinge is a spring-loaded hinge ([0094] – spring hinge assemblies), said spring- loaded hinge configured to press the projection against the head of the user ([0049] – spring hinge for secondary lateral pressure to accommodate the head).
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Causevic et al. (US 2010/0041962) and Shahaf et al. (US 2012/0296569), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0331727).
As to claim 33, the above combination teaches a system comprising a headset of claim 1 (see above rejection). Causevic teaches a processor equipped with an algorithm for analyzing the EEG signals ([0027-28] – base unit including a processor and executing one or more algorithms to identify and classify brain electrical signals), wherein the headset and the processor are in wireless communication ([0029]). While Causevic teaches that the device may identify various dysfunctions such as seizures, strokes, hematomas, dementia, and depression, as well as aid in diagnosis of brain states or conditions, it does not expressly recite determining of an attention level.
Zhang teaches a system for detecting attention of a subject from EEG signals by generating respective classification scores for each feature set and combining the classification scores to obtain a combined attention score for a subject (Abstract). It would have been obvious to modify the above combination with Zhang to utilize the device for the determination of attention levels, to aid in the diagnosis of conditions such as ADHD ([0002]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-3:30 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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
CHRISTIAN JANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTIAN JANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 8/26/26
Prosecution Insights