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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) been submitted on 12/01/24 has been considered by the examiner
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
“disassemble” in line 7. Examiner notes this should read “disassembled”
“shell internal thread” in line 13. Examiner notes this should read “shell internal threads”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 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 recites the limitations:
“the inside” in line 2. There is no antecedent basis to this limitation, and is not mentioned previously.
“the knob bases” in line 6. There is no antecedent basis to this term. Does this refer to the “plurality of knob bases mentioned previously in claim 1?
“inner surface” in lines 13-14. There is no antecedent basis to this term. Does this refer to an inner surface of “in the knob shell? Is this also the same is the “internal accommodation space?
“in the inner space” in line 15. There is no antecedent basis to this term. Does this refer to the “internal accommodation space” mentioned previously in claim 1
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the cartridge”. There is no antecedent basis to this term.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation “the brainwave signal”. There is no antecedent basis to this term
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the wireless unit”. There is no antecedent basis to this term. Does this refer to “a wireless transmission unit” mentioned previously in the claim?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 219070336) and in further view of Li (US 2021/0361235), Itil (US 5273037) and Fleury (US 2023/0031613)
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a neurofeedback device with elastic electroencephalography cap [fig. 1, element 1; par. 6], comprising: a cap body [fig. 1, element 1; par. 6], made of elastic material [par. 12]; a plurality of knob bases, penetrating inside and outside of the cap body [fig. 1, 2, element 2; par. 19], each knob base having an internal thread hole [fig. 1, 2, element 2; par. 19]; a plurality of electrode devices [par. 6], disposed inside the knob bases and able to be disassemble from outside of the cap body [fig. 2, element 3; par. 19], each electrode device further comprising: a knob shell [fig. 2, element 3; par. 19], and forming an internal accommodation space [fig. 2, Examiner notes the space for element 401 is an internal space], having shell external threads on outer surface for screwing together with the internal thread holes of the knob bases [fig. 3, element 301; par. 19] to adjust contact tightness between the electrode device and a subject’s scalp [par. 21, 32]; an electrode, and arranged in the inner space of the knob shell to sense potential changes contacting the subject's scalp [fig. 2, element 4; par. 21, 32],
However, Xu does not teach a cap body comprising a circuit layer in the inside; a plurality of knob bases electrically connected to the circuit layer; an electrode, made of conductive material; an amplifier, for receiving signals sensed by the electrodes, processing and transmitting the signals
Li teaches a cap body comprising a circuit layer in the inside [fig. 16, element 2; par. 48]; a plurality of knob bases electrically connected to the circuit layer [fig. 16, element 3; par. 48]; an electrode, made of conductive material [fig. 16, element 21; par. 71]; an amplifier, for receiving signals sensed by the electrodes, processing and transmitting the signals [par. 73]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate a cap body comprising a circuit layer in the inside; a plurality of knob bases electrically connected to the circuit layer; an electrode, made of conductive material; an amplifier, for receiving signals sensed by the electrodes, processing and transmitting the signals, as is particularly suitable for EEG application in moving scenes such as sport, as evidence by Li [par. 73]
However, Xu does not teach a knob shell having shell internal thread on inner surface; and having electrode external threads to screw into the shell internal threads; and a buckle cover, fastened to the knob shell from outside of the knob shell to fix the electrode;
Itil teaches a knob shell having shell internal thread on inner surface [fig. 3, element 42; col. 3: lines 49-67]; and having electrode external threads to screw into the shell internal threads [fig. 3, element 50E; col. 3: lines 49-67]; and a buckle cover, fastened to the knob shell from outside of the knob shell to fix the electrode [fig. 3, elements 32, 34; col. 3: lines 11-23]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate having shell internal thread on inner surface; and having electrode external threads to screw into the shell internal threads; and a buckle cover, fastened to the knob shell from outside of the knob shell to fix the electrode, to allow convenient replacement, as evidence by Itil [col. 3: lines 49-67]
However, Xu does not teach a knob shell made of conductive material
Fleury teaches a knob shell made of conductive material [par. 319]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate a knob shell made of conductive material, for receiving the electrical bio-signal from the electrode, as evidence by Fleury [par. 319]
Regarding claim 3, Fleury further teaches the electrode comprises a second-type electrode, having a brush head made of electrically conductive material for contacting the subject's scalp [fig. 20, element 3536; par. 308-310]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate a knob shell made of conductive material, for receiving the electrical bio-signal from the electrode, as evidence by Fleury [par. 319]
Regarding claim 4, Fleury further teaches wherein a free end of the brush head is of the oblique, zigzag, and cylindrical shapes [fig. 20, element 3536]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate a free end of the brush head is of the oblique, zigzag, and cylindrical shapes, to extend through a user's hair to contact skin, as evidence by Fleury [par. 305]
Regarding claim 5, Fleury further teaches the cap body further comprises a buffer material covering the circuit layer and having properties of elasticity, ductility and insulation [par. 307]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate the cap body further comprises a buffer material covering the circuit layer and having properties of elasticity, ductility and insulation, for providing support, as evidence by Fleury [par. 307]
Regarding claim 6, Li further teaches the amplifier is provided on the cap body, and the electrode device transmits and processes the brainwave signal through the amplifier and the circuit layer [par. 73].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate the amplifier is provided on the cap body, and the electrode device transmits and processes the brainwave signal through the amplifier and the circuit layer, as is particularly suitable for EEG application in moving scenes such as sport, as evidence by Li [par. 73]
Regarding claim 7, Fleury further teaches the amplifier and the cap body are provided separately from each other, and the electrode device also has a wireless transmission unit, and the electrode device transmits and processes the brainwave signal through the wireless unit, the amplifier and the circuit layer [par. 346, Examiner notes the electronics module is removably mounted, par. 406, 513].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate the amplifier and the cap body are provided separately from each other, and the electrode device also has a wireless transmission unit, and the electrode device transmits and processes the brainwave signal through the wireless unit, the amplifier and the circuit layer, to amplify and filter the bio-signal data, as evidence by Fleury [par. 346]
Regarding claim 8, Fleury further teaches the wireless transmission unit is a Bluetooth wireless transmission unit [par. 406].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Li, Itil and Fleury and in further view of Sackellares (US 2018/0338697)
Regarding claim 2, Xu, Li, Itil and Fleury teach a neurofeedback device with elastic electroencephalography cap, as disclosed above
Li further teaches wherein the electrode comprises a first-type electrode and a replaceable cartridge disposed inside the first-type electrode, the cartridge contains a conductive solution able to penetrate the first-type electrode [fig. 12, element 5a; par. 65],
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, to incorporate he electrode comprises a first-type electrode and a replaceable cartridge disposed inside the first-type electrode, the cartridge contains a conductive solution able to penetrate the first-type electrode, as the preparation time has been shortened, and electrode setup is more convenient and quick, as evidence by Li [par. 65]
However, Xu, Li, Itil and Fleury do not teach the first-type electrode is made of a material able to absorb the conductive solution and is used to contact the subject's scalp
Sackellares teaches the first-type electrode is made of a material able to absorb the conductive solution and is used to contact the subject's scalp [par. 7, 20, 138]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Xu, Li, Itil and Fleury, to incorporate the first-type electrode is made of a material able to absorb the conductive solution and is used to contact the subject's scalp, so the legs 1325 stay wetted and allow for a continuous electrical connection to the electrode, as evidence by Sackellares [par. 138]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights