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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 6/30/2025. Claims 1, 9, 12-13 and 16 have been amended. Claim 2 was canceled. No claims were newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been considered and are withdrawn in light of the amendments. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In substance, applicant argues A) Independent claim 1 has been amended and the prior art no longer apply and B) Metallo does not teach stimulating specific muscles (i.e. zygomatic, buccal, and parotid-masseteric muscles).
5. In response to A), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions that the amendments overcome the prior art. The Examiner has updated the action below to provide specific mapping of the newly added limitations. No specific arguments were presented and as such Applicant is directed to the updated rejection below.
6. In response to B), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Metallo explicitly discloses stimulation of the specific muscles (see Fig. 7A; page 12 lines 1- 20). Additionally, Metallo teaches that the user is able to tailor the stimulation of the electrodes in order to selectively stimulate facial muscles of interest (see page 15 lines 4-10; page 20, lines 1- 9). Therefore, Metallo still teaches the scope of the limitations as currently claimed.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
9. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Agrama et al. (US Patent Number: US 9372533 B1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Metallo et al. (International Publication No.: WO 2014/176420 A1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 1, Agrama teaches a method for inducing artificial facial expressions in a user (e.g. abstract), the method comprising:
capturing details of a face of the user using imaging technologies from the face of the user (e.g. column 3 lines 60-62); applying a plurality of electrode masks to the face, each electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks has one or more electrodes of the plurality of electrodes (e.g. column 2, lines 38-40, column 3, lines 14-16);
and delivering the first stimulation pattern, based on the stimulation parameters, by the plurality of electrodes (e.g. column 8, lines 5-13), to a set of predetermined target facial muscles inducing a first facial expression (e.g. column 8, lines 10-13);
upon inducing the first facial expression (e.g. column 8, lines 7-13), capturing, by a camera, an image of the face (e.g. column 3 lines 60-62); comparing the first facial expression in the image with a predefined facial expression (e.g. column 8, lines 24-35); upon comparison, modifying the first stimulation pattern and the stimulation parameters obtaining a second stimulation pattern (e.g. column 2, lines 53-55); and delivering, by the plurality of electrodes (e.g. column 3, lines 14-16), the second stimulation pattern (e.g. column 2, lines 53-55; column 3, lines 14-16) to the set of predetermined target facial muscles (e.g. column 6, lines 32-33) inducing a second facial expression, wherein the first facial expression is different from the second facial expression (e.g. column 2, lines 53-55; column 8, lines 24-32).
However, Agrama does not explicitly teach capturing details of a face of the user using imaging technologies from the face of the user, wherein imaging technologies are configured to capture details of the face, the details of the face comprises face morphology, anatomy of face, muscle tone, and facial expressions, mapping positioning of a plurality of electrodes with the details of the face, determining a first stimulation pattern and stimulation parameters, wherein the stimulation parameters comprises intensity, waveforms, and frequencies for the electrostimulation therapy; applying a plurality of electrode masks to the face based on the mapping.
Metallo, in a similar field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses capturing details of a face of the user using imaging technologies from the face of the user, wherein imaging technologies are configured to capture details of the face, the details of the face comprises face morphology, anatomy of face, muscle tone, and facial expressions (e.g. page 21 lines 1-12), mapping positioning of a plurality of electrodes with the details of the face (e.g. page 21 lines 1-12), determining a first stimulation pattern and stimulation parameters, wherein the stimulation parameters comprises intensity, waveforms, and frequencies for the electrostimulation therapy (e.g. page 20, lines 17-22); applying a plurality of electrode masks to the face based on the mapping (e.g. page 15 lines 4-10; page 22 lines 10-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Agrama to include imaging technologies configured to capture details of the face, the details of the face comprising face morphology, anatomy of face, muscle tone, and facial expressions, mapping positioning of a plurality of electrodes with the details of the face, determining a first stimulation pattern and stimulation parameters, wherein the stimulation parameters comprises intensity, waveforms, and frequencies for the electrostimulation therapy; applying a plurality of electrode masks to the face based on the mapping, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of customizing the electrode placement and tailoring the treatment for the patient.
Regarding claim 3, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Agrama further teaches wherein the first facial expression is a smile (e.g. Fig 3, – figure shows a person expressing a smile). Additionally, Metallo further teaches a first electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate zygomatic, buccal, and parotid-masseteric muscles (e.g. Fig. 7A; page 12 lines 1-20; page 15 lines 4-10; page 13 lines 1-10; page 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include a first electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate zygomatic, buccal, and parotid-masseteric muscles, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of providing more customized therapy and having more control to stimulate specific features of the face (Metallo, page 13 lines 3-19; page 15, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 4, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 3 as discussed above, and Metallo further teaches wherein a second electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate frontal set of muscles, wherein a third electrode of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate supraorbital muscles, a fourth electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate infraorbital muscles, a fifth electrode mask of the plurality of face masks configured to stimulate temporal muscles (e.g. Fig. 7A; page 12 lines 1-20; page 15 lines 4-10, – one or more electrode patterns; page 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include wherein a second electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate frontal set of muscles, wherein a third electrode of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate supraorbital muscles, a fourth electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks is configured to stimulate infraorbital muscles, a fifth electrode mask of the plurality of face masks configured to stimulate temporal muscles, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of providing further customized therapy and being able to stimulate additional features of the face (Metallo, page 13 lines 3-19; page 15, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 5, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Metallo further teaches wherein the set of predetermined target facial muscles comprises zygomatic muscles, buccal muscles, parotid-masseteric muscles, frontal set of muscles, supraorbital muscles, infraorbital muscles, and temporal muscles (e.g. Fig. 7A; page 12 lines 1-20; page 15 lines 4-10, – one or more electrode patterns; page 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include wherein the set of predetermined target facial muscles comprises zygomatic muscles, buccal muscles, parotid-masseteric muscles, frontal set of muscles, supraorbital muscles, infraorbital muscles, and temporal muscles, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of providing customized therapy and having more control to stimulate specific features of the face (Metallo, page 13 lines 3-19; page 15, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 6, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Agrama further teaches wherein the imaging technologies uses one or more cameras and sensors, wherein the one or more cameras captures a plurality of images of the face (e.g. column 3, lines 59-62; column 4, lines 19-23); and sensors for detecting movements and electrophysiology of the facial muscles (e.g. column 3, lines 59-62; column 4, lines 19-23; column 9, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 8, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 6 as discussed above, and Agrama further teaches wherein the sensors comprise muscle tone sensors, accelerometer (e.g. column 3, lines 59-62; column 4, lines 22-23; column 10, lines 42-44). Additionally, Metallo further teaches electromyography (EMG) muscle sensors and gyroscope (e.g. page 11 lines 3-9; page 21 lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include electromyography (EMG) muscle sensors, and gyroscope, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of making it easier for patients to monitor their own muscle activity and track their recovery progress over time (Metallo, page 11 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 9, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 6 as discussed above, and Metallo further teaches receiving a muscle electrophysiology data from the electromyography muscle sensors (e.g. page 11 lines 3-9), wherein the muscle electrophysiology data is used for mapping (e.g. page 11 lines 3-12; page 21, lines 1-12 and lines 23-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include receiving a muscle electrophysiology data from the electromyography muscle sensors, wherein the muscle electrophysiology data is used for mapping, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of improving the treatment of the patient as well as to better track treatment progress over time (Metallo, page 11 lines 3-12).
Regarding claim 10, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Agrama further teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving user data, the user data comprises a mental state of the user (e.g. column 6, lines 1-6, – “the person is trained to change facial expressions to accurately reflect the person’s changing thoughts and emotions”) wherein the first stimulation pattern is further based on the user data (e.g. column 2 lines 53-55; column 6, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Metallo further teaches wherein the detail of face comprises information related to a face morphology, wherein the plurality of electrode masks are made using details of face morphology, wherein the plurality of electrode masks are flexible and configured to conform to contours of the face when applied to the face (e.g. page 2 lines 4-6; page 15 lines 4-10; page 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include wherein the detail of face further comprises information related to a face morphology, wherein the plurality of electrode masks are made using details of face morphology, wherein the plurality of electrode masks are flexible and configured to conform to contours of the face when applied to the face, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of making the therapy more efficient, precise and accurate (Metallo, page 21).
Regarding claim 13, Agrama teaches an electrical stimulation system (e.g. abstract) comprising: a stimulator for delivering a stimulation pattern to target facial muscles through a plurality of electrodes (e.g. column 8, lines 7-13, – “transmit electrical impulses to the electrodes 110 through the electrode wiring 111 in such a pattern and with such an intensity as to electrically stimulate and contract the musculature in the face 107 and induce the desired facial movements or expressions in the face 107 of the subject 106”); a plurality of electrode masks (e.g. column 2, lines 38-40; column 3, lines 14-16), wherein each electrode mask of the plurality of electrode masks has one or more electrodes of the plurality of electrodes, the plurality of electrode masks configured to be applied to a face of a user (e.g. column 2, lines 38-40; column 3, lines 14-16) and conform to contours of the face (e.g. column 6, lines 43-53); a memory (e.g. column 12, lines 41-42), wherein the system is configured to generate a stimulation pattern which when delivered by the stimulator to the target facial muscles induces a predetermined facial expression (e.g. column 8, lines 10-13, – “and induce the desired facial movements or expressions in the face 107 of the subject 106”; column 14, lines 46-55).
However, Agrama does not explicitly teach that the electrode masks are flexible and the plurality of electrodes comprises a first electrode mask configured to stimulate zygomatic, buccal, and parotid-masseteric muscles, a second electrode mask configured to stimulate frontal set of muscles, a third electrode configured to stimulate supraorbital muscles, a fourth electrode mask configured to stimulate infraorbital muscles, a fifth electrode mask configured to stimulate temporal muscles; a memory comprising: details of the face of the user, information related to positioning of the plurality of electrodes, the stimulation pattern for the plurality of electrodes, and stimulation parameters for each electrode of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the stimulation parameters comprises intensity, waveforms, and frequencies for the electrostimulation therapy.
Metallo, in a similar field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses the electrode masks are flexible (e.g. page 2 lines 4-6; page 15 lines 4-10; page 21) and the plurality of electrodes comprises a first electrode mask configured to stimulate zygomatic, buccal, and parotid-masseteric muscles, a second electrode mask configured to stimulate frontal set of muscles, a third electrode configured to stimulate supraorbital muscles, a fourth electrode mask configured to stimulate infraorbital muscles, a fifth electrode mask configured to stimulate temporal muscles, (e.g. Fig. 7A; page 12 lines 1-20; page 15 lines 4-10, – one or more electrode patterns; page 20); a memory (e.g. page 26 lines 10-15) comprising: details of the face of the user (e.g. page 3 lines 9-13; page 21, lines 1-12), information related to positioning of the plurality of electrodes, (e.g. Fig. 4, page 21, lines 1-12) the stimulation pattern for the plurality of electrodes, and stimulation parameters for each electrode of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the stimulation parameters comprises intensity, waveforms, and frequencies for the electrostimulation therapy (e.g. page 20, lines 17-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical stimulation system of Agrama to include electrode masks that are flexible and the plurality of electrodes comprises a first electrode mask configured to stimulate zygomatic, buccal, and parotid-masseteric muscles, a second electrode mask configured to stimulate frontal set of muscles, a third electrode configured to stimulate supraorbital muscles, a fourth electrode mask configured to stimulate infraorbital muscles, a fifth electrode mask configured to stimulate temporal muscles; a memory comprising: details of the face of the user, information related to positioning of the plurality of electrodes, the stimulation pattern for the plurality of electrodes, and stimulation parameters for each electrode of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the stimulation parameters comprises intensity, waveforms, and frequencies for the electrostimulation therapy, as taught and suggested by Metallo, for the purpose of customizing/tailoring the therapy to the patient.
Regarding claim 14, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Agrama further teaches wherein the stimulations are of sub-threshold intensity that tricks the brain to release the chemical messengers without actual muscle contraction (e.g. column 7, lines 60-63).
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Agrama and further in view of Metallo and further in view of Zhu et al. (US Pub.: 2016/0136442, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 11, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method as claimed in claim 10 as discussed above. However, Agrama in view of Metallo does not teach wherein the user data further comprises details of medication taken by the user.
Zhu, in a similar field of endeavor of patient therapy, discloses wherein the user data further comprises details of medication taken by the user (e.g. paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include wherein the user data further comprises details of medication taken by the user, as taught and suggested by Zhu, in order to have a safer procedure/therapy because having a full picture of the medical history of a patient will minimize complications later.
13. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Agrama and further in view of Metallo and further in view of Levenberg et al. (US Pub.: 2019/0232054 A1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 15, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, and Agrama further teaches capturing, by camera, an image of the face (e.g. column 3 lines 60-62). However, Agrama in view of Metallo does not explicitly teach the steps of: capturing, by a camera, an image of the face, wherein the image of face shows a happy mood or a depressed mood; delivering, by the plurality of electrodes, a first level of stimulation for the depressed mood and a second level stimulation for the happy mood, wherein the first level of stimulation is higher than the second level of stimulation.
Levenberg, in a similar field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses the steps of: capturing, by a camera, an image of the face, wherein the image of face shows a happy mood or a depressed mood (e.g. paragraphs 0040-0041); delivering, by the plurality of electrodes, a first level of stimulation for the depressed mood and a second level stimulation for the happy mood, wherein the first level of stimulation is higher than the second level of stimulation (e.g. paragraphs 0046-0047; paragraph 0060, – stimulation intensity is adjusted to achieve the desired effect. Additionally, this limitation contains functional language (see MPEP 2114) and is the intended use of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include capturing, by a camera, an image of the face, wherein the image of face shows a happy mood or a depressed mood (e.g. paragraphs 0040-0041); delivering, by the plurality of electrodes, a first level of stimulation for the depressed mood and a second level stimulation for the happy mood, wherein the first level of stimulation is higher than the second level of stimulation, as taught and suggested by Levenberg, for the purpose of countering negative emotions and enhancing non-negative emotions (Levenberg, paragraph 0047).
14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Agrama and further in view of Metallo and further in view of Asseo et al. (US Pub.: 2016/0096027 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Agrama in view of Metallo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Agrama further teaches a memory (e.g. column 12, lines 41-42), capturing, by a camera, a first image the face showing induced facial expressions as a result of a first test electrical stimulation pattern (e.g. column 3 lines 60-62); comparing the induced facial expressions with a desired facial expressions (e.g. column 3 lines 60-62; column 8, lines 24-35; column 12 lines 66 to column 13 lines 3); and applying a second test electrical stimulation pattern (e.g. column 2, lines 53-55).
However, Agrama in view of Metallo does not explicitly teach wherein the memory comprises a configuration file for the stimulation parameters and the stimulation pattern; wherein the first test electrical stimulation pattern is defined in the configuration file; saving the configuration file containing the first test electrical stimulation pattern.
Asseo, in a similar field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses wherein the memory (e.g. paragraph 0019) comprises a configuration file for the stimulation parameters and the stimulation pattern (e.g. paragraph 0025); wherein the first test electrical stimulation pattern is defined in the configuration file (e.g. paragraph 0025); saving the configuration file containing the first test electrical stimulation pattern (e.g. paragraph 0025); and applying a second test electrical stimulation pattern (e.g. paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Agrama and Metallo to include a configuration file for the stimulation parameters and the stimulation pattern; wherein the first test electrical stimulation pattern is defined in the configuration file; saving the configuration file containing the first test electrical stimulation pattern, as taught and suggested by Asseo, in order to provide the predictable results of a clinician being able to ensure that the exact same stimulation settings/parameters can be used again in the future, thereby allowing them to replicate successful treatment outcomes reliably.
With regards to the limitations of “saving the configuration file containing the first test electrical stimulation pattern when the induced facial expressions are similar to the desired facial expressions” and “wherein the configuration file is updated with the second test electrical stimulation pattern when the second test electrical stimulation pattern results in the induced facial expressions similar to the desired facial expressions”, the Examiner notes that these are contingent limitations and thus the claim does not require that these criteria be met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792