DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 05/11/2026. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-6 and 8-10 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekar (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0237249) in view of Afansewicz (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0023748).
Regarding claim 1, Gunasekar teaches An electrode for biosignal measurement, which comes into contact with a skin of a subject to acquire a biosignal (Figs 29-30), the electrode comprising: a protruding portion that protrudes from a base portion (Fig 29-30 electrode legs 1006 protruding from base 1000); an electrode portion that is provided with a conductive member at least in a distal end portion of the protruding portion ([0179] electrode legs 1006 are formed from a conductive material); and a gel-like member that is provided on the protruding portion to cover the electrode portion and has an inside containing moisture (Fig 29-30, conductive cushioning material 2700; [0296-0300] disclosing material 2700 as hydrogel that is absorbent). Gunasekar further teaches wherein the gel-like member is provided by coating or adhesives ([0261] [0322]) and wherein the gel-like member is exchangeably provided (Fig 29 and [0311] electrode tips 144 can be replaced with another electrode tip 144; thus the gel-like member 2700 of the electrode tip 144 is exchangeably provided).
Gunasekar fails to teach wherein the gel-like member is provided by being pierced by the distal end portion of the protruding portion, and is exchangeably and detachably provided with respect to the protruding portion.
In related prior art, Afanasewicz teaches a similar device wherein the gel-like member is provided by being pierced by the distal end portion of the protruding portion (Figs 6a-b, hydrogel capsule 68 is actuated (i.e., provided) by piercing with distal end portion of protruding portions 61), and is exchangeably and detachably provided with respect to the protruding portion (hydrogel capsule 68 is exchangeably and detachably provided with respect to tines 61). 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 the gel-like member and protruding portion of Gunasekar in view of Afansewicz to incorporate the gel-like member being pierced by the protruding member and being detachable and interchangeable with respect to the protruding member to arrive at claim 1. Doing so would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known hydrogel attachment mechanism (Gunasekar [0261, 0322] dip coating or adhesion) for another well-known hydrogel attachment mechanism (Afanasewicz piercing in Fig 6a-b) to yield the predictable result of providing a gel-like member at a distal end of a protruding portion to increase conductivity in the skin-electrode interface.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the combination of claim 1 above, Gunasekar teaches the device of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the protruding portion can be cylindrical shaped, conic shaped, or frustoconic shaped ([0202]). 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 the protruding portion of the embodiment of Fig 29 of Gunasekar to incorporate a conical shape as claimed to arrive at the device of claim 4. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as Gunasekar contemplates the use of various shapes of the protruding portion (i.e., electrode leg 1006) and it has been held that the shape of a claimed subject matter was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the combination of claim 1 above, Gunasekar/Afanasewicz teaches wherein the gel-like member has a spherical shape ([0277] conductive cushioning material 2700 can be spherical in shape; Afanasewicz [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Gunasekar teaches wherein the biosignal is a brain wave ([0006] device is for measuring EEG of a patient).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the combination of claim 1 above, Gunasekar teaches a biosignal measurement device (electrode tips 144 of Figs 29-30 are part of EEG headset 100 shown in Figs 1-4) comprising: the electrode for biosignal measurement according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the combination of claim 9 above, Gunasekar teaches a biosignal detection method of measuring a biosignal by mounting the biosignal measurement device according to Claim 9 on a subject (see Fig 1; disclosure teaches a method of mounting the headset on a user’s head for EEG measurement).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekar in view of Afansewicz and Kitazoe (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0393185).
Regarding claim 2, Gunasekar/Afansewicz teach the device of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the protruding portion is formed of a polymer material having an electrode portion formed of conductive ions or particles embedded, imbued, intermingled, or impregnated within ([0179]).
Gunasekar fails to explicitly teach wherein the electrode portion is provided to cover the distal end portion of the protruding portion with the conductive member.
In related prior art, Kitazoe teaches wherein a similar protruding portion (Figs 1A-2B, elastic pillar 20) comprises an electrode portion having a conductive member that is provided to cover the distal end portion of the protruding portion with the conductive member (Figs 1A-2B, conductive resin 30 covers distal end of pillar 20). 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 the protruding portion and electrode portion of Gunasekar in view of Kitazoe to incorporate the electrode portion as a coating covering the distal end of the protruding portion to arrive at claim 2. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one well-known conductive polymer configuration (Gunasekar, [0179] polymer embedded or impregnated with conductive particles) for another well-known conductive polymer configuration (Kitazoe Figs 1A-2B, conductive resin coated over non-conductive pillar 20) to yield the predictable results of providing a flexible and conductive protruding portion of an electrode.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekar in view of Afansewicz and LeBoeuf (U.S. PGPub No. 2010/0217100).
Regarding claim 3, Gunasekar/Afansewicz teaches the device of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the protruding portion is provided with a conductive polymer including the conductive member and functions as the electrode portion ([0179]).
Gunasekar fails to explicitly teach wherein the conductive polymer is a conductive rubber.
In related prior art, LeBoeuf teaches wherein electrodes may be formed of conductive polymers or conductive rubbers ([0055]). 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 the material of the protruding portion of Gunasekar in view of LeBoeuf to incorporate the conductive rubber to arrive at claim 3. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one well-known conductive material (Gunasekar, [0179] conductive polymer) for another well-known conductive material (LeBoeuf [0055] disclosing conductive rubber and polymer as interchangeable) to yield the predictable results of providing a flexible and conductive protruding portion of an electrode.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekar in view of Afansewicz and Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 3,998,215).
Regarding claim 6, Gunasekar/Afansewicz teaches the device of claim 1.
Gunasekar fails to teach wherein the gel-like member is accommodated in a watertight member before use.
In related prior art, Anderson teaches wherein gel-like members are accommodated in a watertight member before use (Col 2 lines 54-68 and Fig 3). 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 the gel-like member of Gunasekar in view of Anderson to incorporate the watertight packaging containing the gel-like member before use to arrive at claim 6. Doing so would advantageously prevent the gel-like member from drying out before use and enable storing of the device (Col 2 lines 54-68).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Afanasewicz reference.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights