DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 3 and 5, as well as 4 and 6 based on their dependencies to the previous claims, 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.
5. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the metal member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of a metal member in independent claim 3, rendering the claim indefinite. Proper correction is required.
6. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the metal member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of a metal member in independent claim 5, rendering the claim indefinite. Proper correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ascher U.S. 5,355,883 (herein referred to as “Ascher”) and in view of Hovey U.S. 4,490,005 (herein referred to as “Hovey”).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Ascher teaches an electrode member for a bioelectric signal measuring electrode (Fig. 2), the electrode member being made of an electroconductive material (Col. 3, lines 23-28, “FIG. 2 comprises an electrocardiogram electrode and a connector, the electrode comprising a foam material pad 1 impregnated with a gel which is a good conductor of electricity adapted to be applied to the skin of a patient and a peg 2 which is also made from a material which is a good conductor of electricity,”), electrically connected to a wire (Fig. 2, ref num 44), and coupled to a metal member (Fig. 2, ref num 4) including a hole (Fig. 2, ref num 41), the electrode member comprising:
a. a plate portion to be set in contact with a living body (Fig. 2, ref num 1; Col. 1, lines 38-42, “The figure shows the foam pad 1 impregnated with an electrically conductive gel adapted to be applied to the skin of a patient. The side of it that is in contact with the skin of the patient is in contact with a base portion of the peg 2”);
b. a head portion (Fig. 2, ref num 22) to be fitted into the hole of the metal member (Fig. 2, ref num 22 fits into ref num 41; Col. 1, lines 47-52, “At the end opposite its base portion 21 in contact with the pad 1 the peg 2 comprises an enlarged head 22 to which a connector 4 may be attached snap-fastener fashion”), the head portion including
b.1 a base end portion (Fig. 2, ref num 22, bottom portion),
b.2 a distal end portion opposite to the base end portion (Fig. 2, ref num 22 top portion),
b.3 a peripheral surface portion between the base end portion and the distal end portion (Fig. 2, ref num 22, space between top and bottom portion), and
c. a neck portion to which the base end portion is fixed (Fig. 2, ref num 2, “peg”), the neck portion connecting the plate portion to the head portion (see Fig. 2, ref num 2, connects ref num 1 and 22).
Ascher fails to teach the head portion includes (b.4) a slit formed on the distal end portion and the peripheral surface portion, wherein the head portion has a shape tapered toward the distal end portion.
Hovey teaches an electrode member of analogous art (Fig. 1), wherein the head portion of the electrode member comprises a slit formed on the distal end portion and the peripheral surface portion (Fig. 2, ref num 42 and Fig. 3, ref num 50; Col. 4, lines 18-22, “In FIG. 3 the stud 48 has been divided into a plurality of separate sectors with wall segments (i.e., second wall segments 50) between and separating the various sectors, in order to provide the continued electrical contact”). The head portion also comprises a tapered shape (see Fig. 2). This produces the same expected result of maintaining electrical contact with the connector (Col. 4, lines 18-22). 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 Ascher to have a slit as this produces the same expected result of maintaining electrical contact, as well as It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the head portion whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
10. Regarding Claim 3, Ascher teaches a bioelectric signal measuring electrode (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 23-28, “FIG. 2 comprises an electrocardiogram electrode and a connector, the electrode comprising a foam material pad 1 impregnated with a gel which is a good conductor of electricity adapted to be applied to the skin of a patient and a peg 2 which is also made from a material which is a good conductor of electricity”) comprising: the metal member Fig. 2, ref num 4) including a hole (Fig. 2, ref num 41); and the electrode member according to claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection above).
11. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ascher and Hovey, and further in view of Cartmell U.S. 4,685,467 (herein referred to as “Cartmell”).
12. Regarding Claim 2, Ascher teaches the base end portion includes a surface that faces toward a side of the neck portion (Fig. 2, ref num 2 bottom portion has a surface that faces ref num 2 “peg”).
Ascher fails to teach that on the surface a pair of grooves are formed in parallel to each other.
Cartmell teaches an electrode member of analogous art (Figs. 1-6), wherein the electrode member has a pair of grooves formed parallel to one another (Fig. 6, ref num 68). This promotes engagement between the connector and electrode (Col. 6, lines 13-23, “the connector 48 may be provided with tapered flanges 70 adjacent the key-slot side walls 68 shaped, as shown in FIG. 6, to snugly engage the outer wall of the stud base portion 36. The flanges 70 extend both upwardly and downwardly from the key-slot side walls 68 so that the connector 48 may be attached to the stud 30 without concern with which side of the connector 48 is facing upwardly. Also, in FIG. 6, it may be observed that the key-slot side walls 68 are formed to conform to the shape of the stud neck 32 to provide good contact therebetween”). 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 Ascher to have a pair of grooves parallel to one another on the surface of the base end portion, as this promotes good contact between the connector and electrode member.
13. Regarding Claim 5, Ascher teaches a bioelectric signal measuring electrode (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 23-28, “FIG. 2 comprises an electrocardiogram electrode and a connector, the electrode comprising a foam material pad 1 impregnated with a gel which is a good conductor of electricity adapted to be applied to the skin of a patient and a peg 2 which is also made from a material which is a good conductor of electricity”) comprising: the metal member Fig. 2, ref num 4) including a hole (Fig. 2, ref num 41); and the electrode member according to claim 2 (see Claim 2 rejection above).
14. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ascher and Hovey, and further in view Teschner U.S. 2006/0084855 (herein referred to as “Teschner”).
15. Regarding Claim 4, Ascher fails to teach the metal member includes a pair of spring bar members, the spring bar members each include a part positioned in the hole, the parts including in the spring bar members are positioned in the hole are parallel to each other.
Teschner teaches a bioelectric signal measuring electrode of analogous art (Figs. 8 and 9), wherein a metal member includes a pair of spring bar members (Fig. 8, ref num 11 includes ref nums 15; para 0051, “spring elements”), such that the spring bar members each include a part positioned in the hole (para 0051, “spring elements 15, which extend behind the spherical closure 5 of the contact pin and thus ensure a pushbutton-like connection between the electrode 1 and the connection element 11”), the parts included in the spring bar members and positioned in the hole are parallel to each other (see Fig. 8, ref num 15 are parallel to one another). This promotes connection between the electrode member and the metal member (para 0051). 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 Ascher to have included spring bar members to promote a better connection between the metal member and the electrode member.
16. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ascher and Hovey, and further in view Cartmell and Teschner.
17. Regarding Claim 6, Ascher fails to teach the metal member includes a pair of spring bar members, the spring bar members each include a part positioned in the hole, the parts including in the spring bar members are positioned in the hole are parallel to each other.
Teschner teaches a bioelectric signal measuring electrode of analogous art (Figs. 8 and 9), wherein a metal member includes a pair of spring bar members (Fig. 8, ref num 11 includes ref nums 15; para 0051, “spring elements”), such that the spring bar members each include a part positioned in the hole (para 0051, “spring elements 15, which extend behind the spherical closure 5 of the contact pin and thus ensure a pushbutton-like connection between the electrode 1 and the connection element 11”), the parts included in the spring bar members and positioned in the hole are parallel to each other (see Fig. 8, ref num 15 are parallel to one another) and the spring bar members are fitted into the respective grooves (para 0051). This promotes connection between the electrode member and the metal member (para 0051). 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 Ascher to have included spring bar members to promote a better connection between the metal member and the electrode member.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNIE L SHOULDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (alternate Fridays) 8AM-5PM 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.
/ANNIE L SHOULDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights