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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment and arguments filed 8/4/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 14, 16, 20, and 25-26 have been amended, claims 4, 6, 12-13, and 17-19 have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-16, and 20-26 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
3. This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a stimulation unit, configured to generate a stimulation action and apply a stimulation action” (claim 1, ln. 6, with the term “stimulation unit” additionally recited in claim 1, ln. 9; claim 5, ln. 1; claim 7, ln. 1; claim 8, ln. 1; claim 9, ln. 1; claim 11 (twice), ln. 2 and 5; claim 14, ln. 1; claim 16, ln. 7);
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the limitation “stimulation unit” appears to be a “stimulation unit 210 capable of inducing a mechanical stimulation” (Page 28, ln. 31-32). While “stimulation unit 210” does not disclose much structure, the “actuator (electric motor)” (Page 31, ln. 12-13) is interpreted as providing an example of structural support for the “stimulation unit” of the wearable device.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations)interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 25-26 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.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “said stimulation inducer is configured to affect a stimulation by providing a magnetic signal to a target body part” (ln. 1-2) in combination with the stimulation device being a “wearable device” (claim 1, ln. 4) is new matter without support in the original disclosure. The disclosure does not provide support for having a “wearable device” that provides both pressure stimulation and magnetic stimulation.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “said stimulation inducer is configured to affect a stimulation by electromagnetic signal emission” (ln. 1-2) in combination with the stimulation device being a “wearable device” (claim 1, ln. 4) is new matter without support in the original disclosure. The disclosure does not provide support for having a “wearable device” that provides both pressure stimulation and electromagnetic signal stimulation.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “said stimulation inducer is configured to affect a stimulation by temperature alteration” (ln. 1-2) in combination with the stimulation device being a “wearable device” (claim 1, ln. 4) is new matter without support in the original disclosure. The disclosure does not provide support for having a “wearable device” that provides both pressure stimulation and temperature alteration stimulation.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “said stimulation inducer is configured to affect a stimulation “by providing a magnetic signal to a target body part, by physical movement, by electromagnetic signal emission, by temperature alteration, and/or by including pressure, or by any combination thereof” (ln. 1-4) is new matter without support in the original disclosure. The disclosure does not provide support for having a “wearable device” that provides both pressure stimulation and a magnetic signal, electromagnetic signal, and/or temperature alteration or by any combination thereof.
6. 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.
7. Claims 11, 14-16, 20, and 26 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.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if the overall “stimulation device for abdominal stimulation” (ln. 1) requires the “controller” introduced in lines 8-9 (i.e. “ communication links, configured to allow transfer of data between the stimulation device and a controller”). While this limitation appears to have the controller as only part of functional language, claim 11 goes on to put numerous limitations on what the controller is “configured” to do (see ln. 14-21). This appears to imply that the applicant is intending the controller itself to be within the scope of claim 11. For the purposes of examination, the controller and its structural and function limitations will be considered positively recited and part of claim 11.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-3, 7-11, 14-16, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Elkah (2012/0310311) in view of Dobak (2007/0203521).
Regarding claim 1, Elkah discloses system for closed loop abdominal stimulation (Fig. 1B depicts a waist cuff 120, a controller 112, and a power source 106 that form a “system for closed loop abdominal stimulation.” See annotated Fig. 1B below for convenience), comprising:
a sensor (Fig. 3B, sensor(s) 110 are part of the energy delivery modular components 104 found within the waist cuff 120), configured to measure a physiological property, and provide a signal indicative thereof ([0035] discloses one or more sensors 110 as temperature sensors, pressure sensors, and/or impedance sensors. [0036] discloses that these sensors 110 provide controller 112 with feedback signals regarding temperature, pressure, and tissue impedance);
a stimulation device having a form of a wearable device (Fig. 1B, waist cuff 120 is a “wearable device”), configured to be placed and/or held on and/or near a target body region (Fig. 2A depicts the waist cuff 120 being placed and held on a stomach of a user), comprising: a stimulation inducer (Fig. 1B, energy delivery modular components 104 are “stimulation inducers”), configured to generate a stimulation action and apply said stimulation action to one or more target organs and/or regions based on stimulation parameters to affect a physiological change in the one or more target organs and/or regions ([0031] discloses energy delivery modular components 104 providing RF energy, light energy, and mechanical energy. [0032] discloses the stimulation as increasing muscle tone, blood circulation, and fat tissue metabolism in the area treated); wherein the stimulation inducer is configured to affect a stimulation by applying a pressure, and altering one or more parameters of the pressure (Fig. 3B, mechanical energy delivery elements 108 would deliver “a pressure” to the body of the user. [0032] discloses that mechanical energy elements 108 maybe including vibrating balls. The application of “vibration” is the definition of altering the amount of “pressure” applied to a user at any given time. The claims do not state how long pressure must be applied, whereby the application of “vibration” is the application and removal of “pressure”),
and a communication unit, configured to allow transfer of data to the stimulation device for modifying one or more stimulation parameters (Fig. 1B, the wiring between the controller 112 and the energy delivery components 104 is considered “a communication unit”), and
a controller (Fig. 1B, controller 112); wherein the controller comprises, a processing circuitry ([0034] discloses the controller including a timer, a time control unit, and a counter unit, which would require “processing circuitry”), configured to: obtain a signal from said sensor ([0036] discloses sensors 110 providing controller 112 with feedback); determine stimulation parameters based on the signal obtained from said sensor ([0049] discloses adjusting cosmetic treatment parameters in accordance with the input from sensor(s) 110. In order to adjust the parameters, the controller must first “determine” the stimulation parameters); and provide said stimulation device with the determined stimulation parameters via said communication unit ([0049] discloses adjusting cosmetic treatment parameters in accordance with the input from sensor(s) 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
336
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Elkah does not disclose altering the pressure according to “an irregular pattern” or the controller configured to randomly alter at least one parameter of the stimulation action during operation of the device.
However, Dobak discloses stimulation of the gastrointestinal tract to treat a condition of a patient, wherein the treatment includes dynamic stimulation where the stimulation intensity, frequency, and/or duty cycle are changed randomly. An advantage of dynamic stimulation is that the patient’s body is unable (or less able) to adapt or compensate to the changing stimulation than to a constant or regular pattern stimulation ([0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elkah to have a controller that sets and alters the stimulation parameters (e.g. pressure or vibration parameters) randomly as taught by Dobak so that the patient’s body is unable (or less able) to adapt or compensate to the changing stimulation than to a constant or regular pattern stimulation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified system of Elkah has the stimulation provided for achieving a desire physiological change (Elkah, [0043], discloses the treatment as contributing to fat reduction).
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of Elkah has the desired physiological change as a lowering of bodyweight (Elkah, [0043], discloses the treatment as contributing to fat reduction).
Regarding claim 7, the modified system of Elkah has said stimulation inducer configured to affect a stimulation by electromagnetic signal emission (Elkah, [0037], discloses RF frequency stimulation. RF stimulation is a type of electromagnetic signal emission), using various types of rate and rhythms of stimuli with various frequencies, amplitudes, durations, and interval, in structured or random manner (Dobak, [0142], discloses using various stimulation intensities, frequencies, and/or duty cycles that are changed randomly).
Regarding claim 8, the modified system of Elkah has the stimulation inducer configured to affect a stimulation by temperature alteration (Elkah, [0049], discloses RF treatment causing heating of tissue that is monitored by a temperature sensor 310), using various types of rate and rhythms of stimuli with various frequencies, amplitudes, durations, and interval, in structured or random manner (Dobak, [0142], discloses using various stimulation intensities, frequencies, and/or duty cycles that are changed randomly).
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Elkah has said stimulation inducer configured to affect a stimulation by using various types of rate and rhythms of stimuli with various frequencies, amplitudes, durations, and interval, in structured or random manner (Dobak, [0142], discloses using various stimulation intensities, frequencies, and/or duty cycles that are changed randomly).
Regarding claim 10, the modified system of Elkah has the sensor configured to measure temperature (Elkah, [0035], discloses the sensor(s) 110 as temperature sensors).
Regarding claim 11, Elkah discloses a stimulation device for abdominal stimulation (Fig. 1B depicts a waist cuff 120 is a “stimulation device.” See annotated Fig. 1B above for convenience), comprising:
a stimulation inducer (Fig. 1B, energy delivery modular components 104 are “stimulation inducers”), configured to generate a stimulation action and apply said stimulation action a target organ and/or region based on stimulation parameters to affect a physiological change in the target organ and/or region ([0031] discloses energy delivery modular components 104 providing RF energy, light energy, and mechanical energy. [0032] discloses the stimulation as increasing muscle tone, blood circulation, and fat tissue metabolism in the area treated); wherein the stimulation inducer is configured to affect a stimulation by applying a pressure, and altering one or more parameters of the pressure (Fig. 3B, mechanical energy delivery elements 108 would deliver “a pressure” to the body of the user. [0032] discloses that mechanical energy elements 108 maybe including vibrating balls. The application of “vibration” is the definition of altering the amount of “pressure” applied to a user at any given time. The claims do not state how long pressure must be applied, whereby the application of “vibration” is the application and removal of “pressure”); and a communication unit, configured to allow transfer of data between the stimulation device and a controller (Fig. 1B, the wiring between the controller 112 and the energy delivery components 104 is considered “a communication unit”);
wherein the controller comprises, a processing circuitry ([0034] discloses the controller including a timer, a time control unit, and a counter unit, which would require “processing circuitry”), configured to: obtain a signal from said sensor indicative of a physiological property ([0036] discloses sensors 110 providing controller 112 with feedback); determine stimulation parameters based on the signal obtained from said sensor ([0049] discloses adjusting cosmetic treatment parameters in accordance with the input from sensor(s) 110. In order to adjust the parameters, the controller must first “determine” the stimulation parameters); and provide said stimulation device with the determined stimulation parameters via said communication unit ([0049] discloses adjusting cosmetic treatment parameters in accordance with the input from sensor(s) 110);
wherein the stimulation device having a form of a wearable device, configured to be placed and/or held on and/or near a target body region (Fig. 2A depicts the waist cuff 120 being placed and held on a stomach of a user).
Elkah does not disclose altering the pressure according to “an irregular pattern” or the controller configured to randomly alter at least one parameter of the stimulation action during operation of the device.
However, Dobak discloses stimulation of the gastrointestinal tract to treat a condition of a patient, wherein the treatment includes dynamic stimulation where the stimulation intensity, frequency, and/or duty cycle are changed randomly. An advantage of dynamic stimulation is that the patient’s body is unable (or less able) to adapt or compensate to the changing stimulation than to a constant or regular pattern stimulation ([0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elkah to have a controller that sets and alters the stimulation parameters (e.g. pressure or vibration parameters) randomly as taught by Dobak so that the patient’s body is unable (or less able) to adapt or compensate to the changing stimulation than to a constant or regular pattern stimulation.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Elkah has said stimulation inducer configured to affect a stimulation by providing a magnetic signal to a target body part, by physical movement, by electromagnetic signal emission, by temperature alteration, and/or by including pressure, or by any combination thereof (Elkah, [0031]-[0032] disclose mechanical energy stimulation, which requires “physical movement” to generate the mechanical stimulation. Additionally, [0037] discloses RF frequency stimulation. RF stimulation is a type of electromagnetic signal emission. Finally, [0049], discloses temperature treatment caused by the heating of tissue using RF).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Elkah has the sensor configured to measure temperature (Elkah, [0035], discloses the sensor(s) 110 as temperature sensors).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Elkah is also a method for a continuous, semi-continuous, conditional, or non-continuous closed loop abdominal stimulation, comprising: providing and/or placing in a proximity of a target body part the stimulation device of claim 11 (Elkah, Fig. 2A, depicts the device placed on the stomach area of the user. See rejection of claim 11 above); providing initial stimulation parameters to the stimulation device based on initial acquired information and a desired physiological change (Elkah, [0039], discloses controller 112 receiving treatment parameter settings from a remote source. This would be the “initial stimulation parameters based on initial acquired information.” [0012] discloses end goals of the treatment as increase in muscle tone, blood-circulation, and fat cell metabolism); applying stimulation via the stimulation inducer based on the initial stimulation parameters (Elkah, [0049], discloses adjusting cosmetic treatment parameter, indicating the application of initial stimulation parameters); and obtaining information from the user and/or device ([0049] discloses adjusting cosmetic treatment parameters in accordance with the input from sensor(s) 110 that obtain information from the user) and randomly altering characteristics of the stimulation, thereby mitigating the habituation effect to the stimulation (Dobak, [0142]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified method of Elkah has the physiological change as a treatment of any metabolic, inflammatory, infectious malignant condition (Elkah, [0008], discloses fat reduction (i.e. a metabolic condition/obesity)).
Regarding claim 21, the modified system of Elkah has the control circuitry further configured to obtain a signal indicative of a state or operation of the target organ from a sensor, and generate stimuli based on the obtained signal (Elkah, [0046], discloses a temperature sensor 110 for detecting the temperature of the target tissue. The controller 112 would then alter stimulation parameters based on the data from the sensor).
Regarding claim 22, the modified system of Elkah has the stimulation device configured to induce a random combination of stimuli, each being delivered in a random-chaotic way (Dobak, [0142]. Discloses “random changes in the stimulation” to prevent the patient’s body from habituating to the stimulation).
Regarding claim 23, the modified system of Elkah has the stimulation device further configured to induce a stimulation which is based on pre-programmed patient-tailored algorithm, according to physiologic parameters of a user comprising body weight, BMI, metabolic and endocrine (Elkah, [0039], discloses controller 112 receiving treatment parameter settings from a remote source. This would be a “preprogramed patient-tailored algorithm” based on physiologic parameters of the user).
Regarding claim 24, the modified system of Elkah has the parameters of the pressure comprising one or more of amplitudes, durations, and interval (Dobak, [0142], discloses randomly changing the intensity (i.e. amplitude), frequency, or duty cycle parameters (e.g. durations or intervals) during treatment. In the modified system, this would result in randomly changing the intensity or duration of the vibrations/pressure applied to the user).
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Elkah has the parameters of the pressure comprising one or more of amplitudes, durations, and interval (Dobak, [0142], discloses randomly changing the intensity (i.e. amplitude), frequency, or duty cycle parameters (e.g. durations or intervals) during treatment. In the modified system, this would result in randomly changing the intensity or duration of the vibrations/pressure applied to the user).
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Elkah in view of Dobak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davey et al (5,725,471).
Regarding claim 5, the modified system of Elkah uses various types of rate and rhythms of stimuli with various frequencies, amplitudes, durations, and interval, in structured or random manner (Dobak, [0142], discloses using various stimulation intensities, frequencies, and/or duty cycles that are changed randomly).
The modified system of Elkah does not have said stimulation inducer configured to affect a stimulation by providing a magnetic signal to a target body part.
However, Davey teaches a system of providing magnetic stimulation to the torso of a person (Fig. 7, stimulator 30) with the goal of inducing weight loss (Col. 4, ln. 55-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimulation inducer of the modified system of Elkah to additionally have magnetic stimulation as taught by Davey to provide an additionally mechanism for reducing body fat.
12. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Elkah in view of Dobak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moffitt et al (2016/0096025).
Regarding claim 24, the modified system of Elkah does not have the control circuitry further configured to apply machine learning capability for adapting to the reaction of a user to the stimulation, and alter the generated stimuli accordingly.
However, Moffit teaches methods for delivering electrical stimulation using feedback to adjust stimulation parameters (Abstract), wherein the adjustment of the parameters takes place using machine learning ([0066]). The use of machine learning helps to improve or optimize stimulation to produce a desired sensed clinical effect ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the controller of the modified system of Elkah to use machine learning to determine its stimulation parameters as taught by Moffit. The use of machine learning would help to improve or optimize stimulation to produce a desired sensed clinical effect.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments filed 8/4/2025 on Pages 6-7 with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejections of 5, 7, 8, and 14 have been considered, but are not persuasive. The applicant cites to Page 5, lines 6-9: “The improved gastrointestinal capsules and belts disclosed herein are configured to apply various stimuli on the GI tract of a subject, including mechanical and/or electrical stimuli, and/or induction of temperature alteration within the GI tract or any type of random combination of any of these stimuli.” However, this passage does not clearly state that the belts definitely have electrical stimuli and/or induction of temperature alteration. This passage could be read that together the capsules and belts cover all of these types of stimuli, but not necessarily that each of the capsules and belts cover all of the recited stimuli. Furthermore, the disclosure that accompanies Fig. 2 (i.e. the wearable device) makes no mention of magnetic, electromagnetic, or temperature stimulation.
14. It is noted that the 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claims 11, 14-16, 20, and 26 are maintained. While the applicant acknowledged this rejection on Page 8 of the reply, the response did not address the clarity issue on whether on not the controller itself is considered part of the overall claimed “stimulation device.” Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
15. Applicant’s arguments on Pages 8-10 that Elkah does not disclose the claimed “pressure stimulation” element because “vibration is not pressure” have been considered, but are not persuasive. Vibration treatment is nothing more than repeated pressure placed upon the body of a user. The applicant does not claim any time duration required for continuously applying pressure, whereby vibration would qualify as applied “pressure” treatment. While the applicant argues that vibration and pressure are delivered using different hardware, these differences in hardware are not recited in the claims.
Conclusion
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY A STANIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5139. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-4835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights