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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the shared technical feature between the groups is not special because the amendments to the claims now recite that the electrode and cable comprise a dry electrode, asserting that the use of a dry electrode is a special technical feature not taught by the reference which was evidenced against the previous version of the claims. This is not found persuasive because, in light of the amendments to the claims, it should be noted that merely reciting use of a dry electrode with a cable and support also is not a special technical feature, as evidenced by at least Connor (US 2015/0313496), cited below, and Sadeghian-Motahar (US 2017/0079543), which also disclose the technical feature of dry electrodes with a cable and support.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10, 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 May 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is now directed to a “laminate type” multi-layered cable comprising 7 layers. As disclosed, a “laminate type” cable is in contrast to a “coaxial” type cable (p. 7 of the disclosure as filed, see also figures 1 and 6. As described and illustrated, there is no indication of the cable as a whole being encapsulated or enclosed in any manner, which would result in the conductive layer used to transmit signals being left exposed on all sides and open to interference if not complete inoperability. This is in contrast to a coaxial cable which inherently results in each layer fully surrounding its next most innermost layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Still further, it cannot be assumed from the written description of the device or the illustrations that one or more of the layers is extended and encloses the cable along at least its length to prevent interference, as it appears this would result in there not being two distinct layers of whichever material is selected to enclose the cable.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is no written disclosure or illustration of any other layers beyond those recited in the claim as making up a “laminate type” cable, such that the disclosure as filed does not appear to support possession of an operable cable at the time the invention was filed.
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 1, 2, 5-7, 13-16 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.
Claim 1 defines that the “shielded cable (3) is made of a combination of conductive and insulating threads and/or textiles” but then defines that “two inner insulating layers” are “made of insulating threads and/or textiles, or non-conductive polymers”. As defined earlier in the claim, it does not appear possible for these layers to be made of any material other than threads and/or textiles. It is unclear if the intent is for the cable to be made of a plurality of materials comprising at least threads and/or textiles, but as presented “made of” does not allow for the element to then be made of something other than what has previously been defined. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites that the electrode and/or the shielded cable “comprise a base of polyamide or polyester, plated or coated with conductive materials”; particularly in the case of the shielded cable, it is entirely unclear how this “base” relates to any of the already defined layers in the cable, or if the plating/coating might also be considered another layer of the plurality of layers of the cable. If not part of the layers of the cable, it is entirely unclear how this base and its coatings would then be part of the cable. Clarification is required.
Claim 14 depends from cancelled claim 9; further, claim 14 refers to “the garment”, which has no antecedent basis in any other claim. It is entirely unclear what claim this should depend from. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 2015/0313496) in view of Dames (US 2022/0052472) and Berg (US 2015/0359485).
Regarding claim 1, Connor discloses a dry electroencephalogram measurement device (paragraph [0235]), comprising a head support (element 702) on which the following components are attached and/or integrated:
- at least one electrode (elements 703) for measuring EEG signals from a user ; and
- at least one cable (paragraph [0345]), electrically connected to the at least one electrode, for transporting said EEG signals to an electrical signal amplifier (paragraph [0881]);
wherein the support (paragraphs [0403], [0834]) and the electrode (paragraph [0878]) are integrally made with threads and/or textiles.
Connor does not disclose specifics of the cable, particularly wherein the at least one cable is shielded and integrally made with threads and/or textiles,
wherein the at least one shielded cable is made of a combination of conductive and insulating threads and/or textiles, forming a multi-layered shielded cable of laminate type, comprising:
one conductive layer electrically connected to the at least one electrode, made of conductive threads and/or textiles, for transporting the signals;
two inner insulating layers between which the conductive layer is disposed, made of insulating threads and/or textiles, or non-conductive polymers;
two shielding layers between which the inner insulating layers are disposed, made of conductive threads and/or textiles, for protecting the signals from electrical and electromechanical interferences; and
two outer insulating layers between which the shielding layers are disposed, made of insulating threads and/or textiles.
Dames teaches a shielded cable configured for transporting biophysical signals (paragraph [0069]), wherein the at least one shielded cable is formed as a multi-layered shielded cable of laminate type, comprising:
one conductive layer electrically connected to a signal source for transporting the signals (element 3);
two inner insulating layers between which the conductive layer is disposed (element 4, figure 5);
two shielding layers between which the inner insulating layers are disposed for protecting the signals from electrical and electromechanical interferences (element 47; figure 5); and
two outer insulating layers between which the shielding layers are disposed (element 4, see figure 5 where layers of element 4 are found on either side of element 47).
Dames does not teach that the shielded cable is integrally made with threads and/or textiles, wherein the at least one shielded cable is made of a combination of conductive and insulating layers of threads and/or textiles, forming a multi-layered shielded cable of laminate type.
Berg teaches shielded communications on a support (element 400) between an electrode (elements 500) and receiver (element 300), where the shielded communications are provided by a multi-layered structure of laminate type integrally made with a combination of conductive and insulating layers of threads and/or textiles (paragraphs [0039], [0066], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Connor with the cable being a multi-layered shielded laminate type cable with a conductive layer, insulating layers, shielding layers, and outer insulating layers, as taught by Dames, in order to minimize interference during use, and made those layers of a combination of conductive and insulating layers of threads and/or textiles, as taught by Berg, in order to provide additional flexibility to the system.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Berg further teaches that the electrode is attached to the support by heat sealing with thermoplastics polymers of polyurethane (paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Connor, as modified by Dames and Berg, and further used polyurethane to heat seal the electrode to the support, as further taught by Berg, in order to ensure a secure connection.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Berg further teaches that the shielded cable is attached to the support by heat sealing with thermoplastics polymers of polyurethane (paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Connor, as modified by Dames and Berg, and further used polyurethane to heat seal the shielded cable to the support, as further taught by Berg, in order to ensure a secure connection.
Regarding claim 6, as non-woven and woven cover all possible types of fabric, the fabric must inherently be within one of these categories.
Regarding claim 7, Connor further discloses that the at least one electrode comprises a base of polyamide or polyester (paragraph [0118]), plated or coated with conductive materials (paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claim 16, Connor further discloses that the conductive materials are nickel, copper, or silver, tin, carbon, conductive polymers or combinations thereof (paragraph [0117], [0118]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights