DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 11/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-20 is as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2026, 04/14/2026, 07/16/2025, 12/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0340857).
Regarding claims 15-16, Hsu teaches A wearable device, comprising: a wearable wearing portion, including a substrate fitting a user’s body (Fig 14 substrate 1408); at least two first electrodes spaced apart on the substrate and configured to fit a skin to collect physiological signals, respectively (Fig 14 device islands 1400 disclosed as physiological sensors in at least [0134-0135] and [0150]); and at least two second electrodes spaced apart on the substrate and electrically connected to each other through a connector (Fig 14 any other two device islands 1400), the at least two second electrodes being configured to fit the skin to provide a reference voltage for the physiological signals ([0134-0135] system architecture includes electrophysiological sensor device such that the electrodes are capable of fitting to the skin and providing a reference voltage for physiological signals); wherein the at least two second electrodes are symmetrical with respect to a mid-sagittal plane of the user when the user wears the wearing portion (Fig 14 a plurality of pairs of any two electrodes are capable of being oriented symmetrically with respect to a mid-sagittal plane of a user).
Regarding claim 17, Hsu teaches A wearable device, comprising: a wearable wearing portion, including a substrate fitting a user’s body (Fig 14 substrate 1408); at least two electrode structures spaced apart on the substrate and configured to fit a skin to collect physiological signals (Fig 14 device islands 1400 disclosed as physiological sensors in at least [0134-0135] and [0150]), wherein each of the at least two electrode structures includes a plurality of electrodes, each of the plurality of electrodes is electrically connected to at least another of the plurality of electrodes through a connector (Fig 14 plurality of device islands as claimed with interconnects 1404 therebetween), and the electrode structure is configured to collect electrical signals from a same target muscle of the user’s body ([0135] application of architecture as heart sensor or electrophysiological sensor would enable electrode structure to collect signals from a same target muscle).
Regarding claim 19, Hsu teaches wherein each of the plurality of electrodes is flexibly connected to at least another of the plurality of electrodes through the connector (Fig 14 connectors 1404 enable device to be conformal, stretchable, and flexible [0085]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0340857) in view of Popovic (U.S. PGPub No. 2008/0147143).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches An electrode structure, comprising: a plurality of electrodes (Fig 14 device islands 1400 disclosed as physiological sensors in at least [0134-0135] and [0150]), wherein each of the plurality of electrodes is flexibly connected to at least another of the plurality of electrodes through a connector, the connector allows electrical conduction between the connected electrodes (Fig 14 stretchable interconnects 14040 defube connectors as claimed).
Hsu fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of electrodes has an area of 1 mm2 to 20 mm2.
In related prior art, Popovic teaches a similar device wherein similar electrodes have an area of 1 mm2 to 20 mm2 (claim 21, isolated electrode elements have surface area of 1 mm2 or greater). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu in view of Popovic to use an electrode surface area of 1 mm2 to 20 mm2 as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the combination of claim 1 above, Hsu teaches wherein the connector includes a conductive structure, and the each of the plurality of electrodes is flexibly connected to the at least another of the plurality of electrodes through the conductive structure (Fig 14 interconnects 14 define conductive structures that enable flexible connection between each electrode).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Hsu teaches wherein a natural length of the conductive structure is greater than an initial distance between the connected electrodes (Fig 14 interconnects 1404 are serpentine such that their real length is larger than the distance between the connected device islands 1400).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the combination of claim 4 above, Hsu teaches wherein a ratio of the natural length of the conductive structure to the initial distance between the connected electrodes is 1.5 to 10 (see Fig 14 the ratio of natural length of an interconnect to the distance between two adjacent device islands 1400 is clearly above 1.5 and below 10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu to use a ratio of 1.5 to 10 of the natural length of the conductive structure to the initial distance between connected electrodes as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Hsu teaches wherein the conductive structure includes one or more wires, the each of the plurality of electrodes is flexibly connected to the at least another of the plurality of electrodes through at least one of the one or more wires, and the at least one wire allows electrical conduction between the connected electrodes (Fig 14 plurality of interconnects 1404 flexibly connected to plurality of electrodes for electrical conduction therebetween).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the combination of claim 8 above, Hsu teaches wherein a material of the one or more wires includes at least one of fibers coated with conductive metal, fibers deposited with conductive substances, and polymer composites of mixed conductive material ([0102] interconnects are formed from a conductive polymer (i.e., a composite of a polymer and conductive material)).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Hsu teaches wherein the conductive structure includes one or more connecting electrodes (Fig 14 electrodes 1400 interposed between two adjacent electrodes 1400 are interpreted as “connecting electrodes”), the each of the plurality of electrodes is flexibly connected to the at least another of the plurality of electrodes through at least one of the one or more connecting electrodes (see Fig 14), and the at least one connecting electrode allows electrical conduction between the connected electrodes (Fig 14 connecting electrodes allow electrical conduction between adjacent electrodes connected via the connecting electrode).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the combination of claim 10 above, Hsu teaches wherein the one or more connecting electrodes and the plurality of electrodes are an integrated structure (Fig 14 device as a whole and electrodes define an integrated structure).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Hsu teaches wherein for each of the plurality of electrodes, a ratio of a maximum size of the electrode along a first direction to a maximum size of the electrode in a second direction is 0.1 to 10, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (Fig 14 electrodes 1400 define rectangles of the same size such that the ratio as claimed is between 0.1 to 10).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Hsu further teaches a substrate, the plurality of electrodes being arranged on the substrate along a first direction and a second direction, respectively (Fig 14 encapsulant 1408 with device islands 1400 thereon arranged in two directions), and the electrode structure has different elasticity coefficients along the first and the second direction respectively (Fig 14 device has fewer stretchable, elastic interconnects 1404 in the ‘y-axis’ direction than compared to the ‘x-axis’ direction, such that the elasticity coefficients would be necessarily different in the two directions).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Hsu teaches wherein a ratio of the area of the electrode structure to a sum of the areas of the plurality of electrodes is 1 to 1000 (Fig 1 ratio of area of total device compared to the sum of areas of each electrode 2 is clearly 1 to 1000). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio as claimed of the prior art to be between 1 to 1000, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Koichiro would not operate differently with the claimed ratio since the device of Koichiro necessarily has a ratio within or near the claimed range. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ratio range of 1 to 1000 as claimed, indicating simply “In some embodiments, the ratio of the area of the electrode structure 100 to the sum of the areas of all the electrodes 110 is in a range of 1-1000” ([0029] of applicant’s pgpub).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Popovic, and in further view of Koichiro (JP 2018114093, translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Hsu discloses the conductive structure as deformable, but is silent to an exact elongation %.
In related prior art, Koichiro teaches a similar device wherein the conductive structure has a deformable amount of 5% to 200% along an axial direction of the conductive structure ([0049-0050] “the conductive stretchable wire 31 having an elongation rate of 50% or more”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elongation rate of Hsu in view of Popovic and Koichiro to use a deformable amount of 5% to 200% along the axial direction as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Popovic, and in further view of Acquista (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0258402).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the combination of claim 2 above.
Hsu fails to teach wherein the conductive structure is detachably connected to the connected electrodes.
In related prior art, Acquista teaches a similar device wherein a similar conductive structure is detachably connected to the connected electrodes (Fig 23 and [0131-0132] traces 730 are removable from respective sensors 720 via a snap connection). 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 conductive structure and electrode interface of Hsu in view of Popovic and Acquista to incorporate a detachable connection between the two structures to arrive at claim 6. Doing so would advantageously enable the electrodes to be disconnected from the interconnects as needed, for example, to remove an electrode from recording signals and/or to replace a faulty electrode ([0131]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Popovic, and in further view of Acquista and Callahan (U.S. PGPub No. 2008/0177168).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the combination of claim 2 above.
Hsu fails to teach wherein the conductive structure is connected to each of the connected electrodes through a plug-in connection.
In related prior art, Acquista teaches a similar device wherein a similar conductive structure is detachably connected to the connected electrodes (Fig 23 and [0131-0132] traces 730 are removable from respective sensors 720 via a snap connection).
In related prior art, Callahan teaches a similar device (see Figs 1-4) wherein a similar detachable connection interface is described as a plug-in connection (see Figs 2A-C, plug assembly 222 with receptacle 150). 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 conductive structure and electrode interface of Hsu in view of Acquista and Callahan to incorporate a detachable plug-in connection between the two structures to arrive at claim 7. Doing so would advantageously enable the electrodes to be disconnected from the interconnects as needed, for example, to remove an electrode from recording signals and/or to replace a faulty electrode ([0131]). Furthermore, specifically providing the detachable connection as a “plug-in connection” would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of detachable plug-in connections is well-known in the art to yield the same predictable results of any other detachable connection as evidenced by Callahan ([0044] disclosing a plug-in connection being one of many suitable means for a detachable connection).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Acquista.
Regarding claim 18, Hsu teaches the device of claim 17 as stated above.
Hsu fails to teach wherein at least a portion of the plurality of electrodes are detachably connected to the wearing portion.
In related prior art, Acquista teaches a similar device wherein at least a portion of the plurality of electrodes are detachably connected to the wearing portion (Fig 23 and [0131-0132] traces 730 are removable from respective sensors 720 and sensors 720 are removable from internal surface of garment 710). 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 interface between the electrodes and the wearable structure of Hsu in view of Acquista to incorporate a detachable connection between the two structures to arrive at claim 18. Doing so would advantageously enable the electrodes to be disconnected from the device as needed, for example, to remove an electrode from recording signals and/or to replace a faulty electrode ([0131-0132] disclosing the preference of removable coupling).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Popovic.
Regarding claim 20, Hsu teaches the device of claim 17 as stated above.
Hsu fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of electrodes has an area of 1 mm2 to 20 mm2.
In related prior art, Popovic teaches a similar device wherein similar electrodes have an area of 1 mm2 to 20 mm2 (claim 21, isolated electrode elements have surface area of 1 mm2 or greater). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu in view of Popovic to use an electrode surface area of 1 mm2 to 20 mm2 as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
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
