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 .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s Amendment filed June 17, 2026 (hereinafter “06/17/26 Amendment") has been entered, and fully considered. In the 06/17/26 Amendment, claims 1, 8, 10, 14, 16, & 18-20 were amended. No claims were cancelled, or newly added. Therefore, claims 1-21 remain pending in the application (and claims 1-13 remain withdrawn from consideration).
3. The 06/17/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections and the rejections under § 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/18/26 (“03/18/26 Action”).
4. New grounds of rejection under § 103 are set forth herein, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 14, 15, & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0233124 to Connor (“Connor”) in view of U.S. 2018/0110466 to Ralston (“Ralston”), and further in view of a publication to Kim et al., entitled “Simple and cost-effective method of highly conductive and elastic carbon nanotube/polydimethylsiloxane composite for wearable electronics,” Sci Rep 8, 1375 (2018), published online: 22 January 2018 (“Kim”).
8. Regarding claims 14 & 15, Connor teaches a sensor for measuring and/or monitoring one or more bioelectrical signals [e.g., EEG - Abstract, ¶[0314] from skin of a subject and/or applying one or more electrical signals to the skin of the subject, comprising:
a substrate [distal portion (301) - ¶’s [0315]-[0316]; FIG. 3];
a plurality of microstructures [electroconductive protrusions - ¶[0315] (“a plurality of electroconductive proximal protrusions (e.g. pins, prongs, teeth, spikes, fingers, and/or protrusions), including protrusions 302, 303, and 304, which extend out from the distal portion toward the person's head in order to penetrate between hairs and come into contact with the surface of the person's head”); see also, e.g., ¶’s [0322], [0331]] disposed on the substrate [¶[0315]]; [and]
wherein each microstructure [protrusion] comprises a stem [broadly, the body of each protrusion] extending distally from the substrate [(301)] [FIG. 3].
A. CUP-SHAPED HEAD
While Connor teaches that the electroconductive protrusions may have a variety of shapes [e.g., ¶[0322]], Connor does not explicitly teach that electroconductive protrusions include a “cup-shaped head” at the distal end of the stem, and therefore fails to teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
wherein each microstructure comprises a stem extending distally from the substrate and a cup-shaped head at a distal end of the stem, a concave face of the cup-shaped head facing away from the substrate;
Ralston, in a similar field of endeavor, relates generally to electronic sensors [e.g., ¶[0002], and teaches that it was known in the art to provide a micro-structured pillar with a suction-cup shaped mushroom cap to provide good adhesion to the skin [see ¶[0097] (“In one embodiment of the invention, the reusable adhesive consists of an array of micro-structured polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) pillars. As shown in FIG. 18, a high modulus PDMS material is used to provide a stable base for each of the pillars attached to the IMB. Suction-cup shaped mushroom caps are structured on top of the pillars from a low modulus PDMS material to provide good adhesion to the skin”); FIG. 18]. Examiner notes that a suction-cup shaped cap includes a concave surface that faces away from the substrate and toward the skin (for adhesion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Connor such that each microstructure [electroconductive protrusion] include a cup-shaped head at a distal end of the stem, a concave face of the cup-shaped head facing away from the substrate, since incorporation of such a head shape at the distal end of the protrusion would provide the known benefit/advantage of providing good adhesion to the skin, as explicitly taught by Ralston.
NOTE: For clarity, Ralston is being relied upon only for the teaching of the shape at the distal end of the micro-structured pillar [i.e., the suction-cup shaped cap], and not the material (PDMS) of the pillar, as Connor already teaches that the material of the protrusions may comprise, e.g., an inherently-nonconductive polymer (e.g. PDMS) which has been made conductive by doping, impregnation, and/or coating with metal [Connor, e.g., ¶[0323]].
B. YOUNG’S MODULUS
Connor further teaches that the Young’s modulus of the stemmed conical head microstructures [protrusions] may vary [e.g., ¶[0318]].
The combination of Connor and Ralston (as set forth above) does not, however, explicitly teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
[claim 14] wherein the plurality of microstructures comprises a polymer composite having a Young's modulus of about 200 kPa to about 1.8 MPa; and
[claim 15] wherein the Young's modulus is about 1.7 MPa.
Kim, in a similar field of endeavor, relates to the development of a nanocomposite of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) elastomer [Abstract, pg. 1], including for use as an electrode for biopotential acquisition (for EEG measurements) [pg. 8].
Kim further teaches that it was known to adjust or tune CNT weight concentrations to obtain desired mechanical and electrical properties of the CNT/PDMS polymer composite (e.g., the Young’s modulus (MPa) increases as the CNT (%) in PDMS increases) [see pg. 5 (“Mechanical and Electrical Properties”); and FIG. 3a (pg. 5)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Connor and Ralston such that the plurality of microstructures comprises a polymer composite having a Young’s modulus based on desired mechanical and/or electrical properties for the polymer composite, as explicitly taught by Kim, including, e.g., a Young's modulus of about 200 kPa to about 1.8 MPa, or wherein the Young's modulus is about 1.7 MPa, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
9. Regarding claim 19, the combination of Connor, Ralston, & Kim teaches:
a method for measuring and/or monitoring one or more bioelectrical signals from the skin [Connor, e.g., EEG - Abstract, ¶[0314]] and/or applying one or more electrical signals to the skin of the subject, comprising[:]
adhering the sensor of claim 14 [see the rejection of claim 14 above which is incorporated herein] to the skin of the subject [Connor, e.g., ¶’s [0112], [0281], [0291], [0294], [0302]]; and
measuring and/or monitoring the one or more bioelectrical signals [Connor, e.g., EEG - Abstract, ¶[0314] and/or applying the one or more electrical signals.
10. Regarding claim 20, the combination of Connor, Ralston, & Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Connor further teaches wherein the one or more bioelectrical signals is selected from electromyogram (EMG), electrocardiogram (ECG), electroencephalogram (EEG) [EEG - e.g., Abstract; ¶’s [0099], [0315]], electrooculogram (EOG), electroneurogram (ENG), electrochemical skin conductance (ESC), and electrical impedance myography (EIM).
11. Regarding claim 21, the combination of Connor, Ralston, & Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Connor further teaches adhering the sensor to the skin regardless of an amount or density of hair coverage on the skin [e.g., ¶[0112]].
12. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of the combination of Connor, Kim, & Ralston, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. 2023/0080867 to Lynch-Branzoi et al. ("Lynch-Branzoi").
13. Regarding claim 16, the combination of Connor, Ralston, & Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
While Connor and Kim each teach a CNT-PDMS polymer composite, the combination of Connor, Ralston, & Kim does not explicitly teach:
wherein the polymer composite comprises carbon nanotube-polydimethylsiloxane-silicone oil (CNT-PDMS-SO).
Lynch-Branzoi, in a similar field of endeavor, relates to sensors useful in medical devices, fitness monitors, and related wearable devices and items, including those that can be directly applied to the skin [e.g., ¶’s [0002], [0003]], and teaches that it was known to utilize polydimethylsiloxane-silicone oil (PDMS-SO) with conductive nanoparticles [e.g., ¶’s [0002], [0039]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Connor, Ralston, & Kim such that the polymer composite comprises carbon nanotube-polydimethylsiloxane-silicone oil (CNT-PDMS-SO), since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known polymer composite for another, yielding predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
14. Regarding claims 17 & 18, the combination of Connor, Ralston, Kim, and Lynch-Branzoi teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of Connor, Ralston, Kim, and Lynch-Branzoi does not teach:
[claim 17] wherein the polymer composite comprises about 2.3 to about 2.5 wt % of CNT and about 18 to about 22 wt % of SO; &
[claim 18] wherein the polymer composite comprises CNT-PDMS-SO with a CNT:SO weight ratio of 1:8.
Kim does, however, teach that it was known to adjust or tune CNT weight concentrations to obtain desired mechanical and electrical properties of the CNT/PDMS polymer composite [see pg. 5 (“Mechanical and Electrical Properties”); and FIG. 3a (pg. 5)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Connor, Ralston, Kim, and Lynch-Branzoi such that weight concentrations be adjusted/tuned based on desired mechanical and/or electrical properties, as explicitly taught by Kim, including, e.g., wherein the polymer composite comprises about 2.3 to about 2.5 wt % of CNT and about 18 to about 22 wt % of SO; and wherein the polymer composite comprises CNT-PDMS-SO with CNT:SO weight ratio of 1:8, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
15. As noted above, the 06/17/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections and the rejections under § 103 previously set forth in the 03/18/26 Action.
16. New grounds of rejection under § 103 are set forth herein, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
Conclusion
17. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571) 272-5617. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM MST.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Joanne M. Rodden, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADFORD C. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
