DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are not seen as persuasive, see reasonings below.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that it would have not been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to have modified Morita such that it would’ve render Morita’s invention unsatisfactory, inoperable and no reasonable expectation for success. With regards to the unsatisfactory argument, while examiner acknowledges applicants’ descriptions of each piece of art, examiner also wants to point towards paragraph [0795] of Hatakeyama, wherein it is disclosed that the thermally conductive sheets were applied to electrodes for testing. Such that, Hatakeyama thermally conductive sheets are made for electrodes. While Morita discloses a first conductive layer wherein the material is disclosed as a carbon paste including graphite and/or carbon powder dispersed a resin in paragraph [0023]. The only difference between the two layers taught by Morita and Hatayama is what the resin is mixed with, with that being said boron nitride is an electrically insulating material which would allow for lower electrical impedance to be passed through its material. Examiner also wants to acknowledge claim 1 refers to the layer as “conductive” it is not specified whether it is electrically or thermally conductive. Therefore, while the filler differs between both conductive layers, it still allows for satisfactory results if combined. In regards to inoperable argument, Examiner wants to first point towards MPEP 2145 III in which it is stated “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”. Such that it would have been suggested to one in the ordinary skill to use a material for the first conductive layer that allows for an elongation at break of 50-600% in an electrode pad. Examiner also wants to point out the use of elastic conductive layers and substrates are extremely common in the art such that there are many different materials that could allow for an elongation break at different percentages, therefore, it would have been obvious of one in the ordinary skill of the art to use a material such as Hatakeyama’s or a similar material that would allow for an elongation breakage within the range taught in claim 1. In regards to no reasonable expectation for success argument, examiner wants to reiterate from above that paragraph [0795] of Hatakeyama, wherein it is disclosed that the thermally conductive sheets were applied to electrodes for testing. Such that, Hatakeyama thermally conductive sheets are made for electrodes. While Morita discloses a first conductive layer wherein the material is disclosed as a carbon paste including graphite and/or carbon powder dispersed a resin in paragraph [0023]. The only difference between the two layers taught by Morita and Hatayama is what the resin is mixed with, with that being said boron nitride is an electrically insulating material which would allow for lower electrical impedance to be passed through its material. Therefore, examiner stands by the rejection as taught in the Non-final.
Regarding claims 2-11, Examiner sees claim 1 dependents as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Hatakeyama as taught by the Non-Final action and the reasonings above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 20230108635) herein referred to as Morita in view of Hatakeyama et al. (20150090922) herein referred to as Hatakeyama.
Regarding Claim 1, Morita discloses An electrode pad (Figure 1, 20) comprising: a first conductive layer (Figure 1, 22); and a second conductive layer provided on one surface of the first conductive layer (Figure 1, 24), and wherein the second conductive layer contains 0.1% by mass to 40% by mass of a metal chloride (Paragraph [0011]; wherein the layer consist of resin, silver and silver chloride such that the mass % of silver chloride is 5.26% based on the ratio 95:5 to silver). However, Morita does not explicitly disclose wherein the first conductive layer has an elongation at break of 50% to 600%.
Hatakeyama discloses a conductive layer for an electrode (Figure 1) wherein conductive layer has an elongation at break of 50% to 600% (Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0250]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive sheet taught by Morita to allow for elongation at break at the percentage taught by Hatakeyama. The motivation being to allow flexibility, protect elements from damage such as cracking and allowing for heat dissipation (Hatakeyama, Paragraph [0316]).
Regarding claim 2, Morita in view of Hatakeyama disclose the electrode pad according to claim 1. Morita also discloses wherein an impedance with skin is 1 MQ or less (Paragraph [0018]; wherein the impedance of the biological electrode is preferably 2000Ω or less, more preferably 1000Ω or less, further preferably 750Ω or less).
Regarding claim 3, Morita in view of Hatakeyama disclose the electrode pad according to claim 1. Morita also discloses wherein a polarization voltage is in a range from 0.1 mV to 100 mV (Paragraph [0018]; wherein the polarization of the biological electrode after defibrillation load is preferably 100 mV or less, more preferably 20 mV or less.)
Regarding claim 4, Morita in view of Hatekeyama disclose the electrode pad according to claim 1. Morita also discloses wherein the second conductive layer contains a pseudoplastic fluid or a Bingham fluid (Paragraph [0025]; wherein the second conductive layer contains a resin which is a pseudoplastic fluid).
Regarding claim 6, Morita in view of Hatakeyama disclose the electrode pad according to claim 1. Morita also discloses wherein a metal of the metal chloride contains one or more components selected from the group consisting of Cu, Na, Sn, Al, Si, K, Ag, and Ca (Paragraph [0011]; wherein the metal is Ag, Silver)
Regarding claim 7, Morita in view of Hatakeyama disclose the electrode pad according to claim 1. Morita also discloses wherein the first conductive layer is a bioelectrode (Paragraph [0022]; wherein layer 22 is a polarizable electrode; Paragraph [0003]; wherein the all the electrodes are bioelectrodes)
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Morita and Hatakeyama in further view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 20200060614) herein referred to as Hatekeyama2.
Regarding Claim 5, Morita in view of Hatakeyama disclose the electrode pad according to claim 1. However, Morita in view of Hatakeyama does not explicitly disclose herein the second conductive layer has a viscosity of 1 mPas to 100,000 mPas.
Hatekeyama2 discloses an electrode pad (Figure 1) wherein the second conductive layer has a viscosity of 1 mPas to 100,000 mPas (Paragraph [0178]; wherein the conductive layer compound has a viscosity of 27,000 mPas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive layer as taught by Morita in view of Hatekeyama to have a viscosity as the the conductive layer taught by Hatekeyama2. The motivation being using a material that allows for high viscosity which will allow for better flexibility (Hatekeyama, Paragraph [0099]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Morita and Hatakeyama in further view of Ylostalo et al. (US 20120053439) herein referred to as Ylostalo.
Regarding Claim 8, Morita in view of Hatakeyama discloses a living body sensor used by being attached to a surface of a living body (Morita, Paragraph [0019]), comprising: a base adhesive layer provided on a surface on the living body side (Morita, Figure 1, 26) and an electrode pad provided on a surface on the living body side of the base adhesive layer (Morita, Figure 1, 20), wherein the electrode pad is the electrode pad of claim 1 (See claim 1). . However, Morita in view of Hatakeyama does not explicitly disclose a form porous structure.
Ylostalo discloses a living body sensor (Figure 3) comprising a base adhesive layer provided on the living body side of a foam substrate having a porous structure (Figure 3, 13 & 19; wherein 13 is the foam and 19 is the adhesive). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer taught by Morita in view of Hatakeyama to include a foam substrate as taught by Ylostalo. The motivation being a simple substitution of one known substrate, the substrate taught by Morita, for another, the foam substrate taught by Ylostalo to obtain predictable results of attaching a sensor to a living body (MPEP 2143 (B)).
Regarding claim 9, Morita and Hatakeyama in further view of Ylostalo disclose the living body sensor of claim 8. Ylostalo also discloses wherein the second conductive layer of the electrode pad is provided up to the base adhesive layer around the electrode pad (Figure 3, 15; wherein 15 is the second conductive layer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer taught by Morita in view of Hatakeyama to include the structure as taught by Ylostalo. The motivation being to directly attach the electrode to living tissue (Ylostalo, Paragraph [0026])
Regarding claim 10, Morita and Hatakeyama in further view of Ylostalo disclose the living body sensor of claim 8. Ylostalo also discloses a base on which a sensor unit is provided (Figure 3, 10), the sensor unit being connected to the electrode pad and configured to acquire biometric information (Figure 2; Abstract); and an attachment adhesive layer provided on a surface of the base close to the living body (Paragraph [0026]; wherein an adhesive attachment layer is provided to attach the sensor to the users skin), wherein the base adhesive layer, the electrode pad, and the attachment adhesive layer form an attachment surface to the living body (Figure 3; when assembled form an attachment surface for the user skin which is also taught in Paragraph [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer taught by Morita in view of Hatakeyama to include the structure as taught by Ylostalo. The motivation being to directly attach the electrode to living tissue (Ylostalo, Paragraph [0026])
Regarding claim 11, Morita and Hatakeyama in further view of Ylostalo disclose the living body sensor of claim 8. Ylostalo also discloses wherein the first conductive layer has a through hole (Figure 3, 11), and wherein the base adhesive layer is exposed from the through hole (Figure 3, 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer taught by Morita in view of Hatakeyama to include the structure as taught by Ylostalo. The motivation being to directly attach the electrode to living tissue (Ylostalo, Paragraph [0026])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA M PAPE whose telephone number is (703)756-5947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 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 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.
ALYSSA M. PAPE
Examiner
Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights