DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/13/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant has amended their claims, filed 07/13/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment. Claims 2, 9, and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, should read “compare the at least one parameter …”.
Claim 15 should read “wherein the at least one parameter …”.
Claim 16, line 7, should read “compare the at least one parameter …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brokaw (US 9974478), Carballo (US 20220062096), and Kurzweil (US 20080287770).
Regarding claim 1, Brokaw discloses a system for the treatment of dystonic symptoms, the system comprising:
a plurality of surface-electromyogram (EMG) sensors (Fig. 6, EMG electrodes 0605) configured to:
attach to skin of a patient (Fig. 6, EMG electrodes 0605 attached to the skin of a subject);
sense surface-EMG data indicative of muscle contraction of the patient (Col 20, lines 46-52; wherein muscle activity includes muscle contraction; Col 28, lines 26-28 and Col 56, line 67 – Col 57, line 13, wherein tremors are defined by muscle contraction and the sensors measure variables of tremor); and
transmit, to a controller, the surface-EMG data (Col 23, lines 5-10; transceiver);
the controller comprising computer-memory and one or more processors, the computer memory storing instructions (Col 22, lines 63-66) that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to:
receive, from the plurality of surface-EMG sensors, the surface-EMG data (Col 23, lines 5-10);
identify at least one parameter of the surface-EMG data (Col 41, line 62 - Col 42, line 1), wherein the at least one parameter is a voltage value indicative of the muscle contraction of the patient (Col 20, lines 46-57);
compare the parameter to a corresponding dystonia-threshold-value (Col 41, line 62 - Col 42, line 1), wherein the dystonia-threshold-value is a voltage value indicative of a dystonic muscle contraction (Col 20, lines 52-54, EMG sensors measure parameters in voltages; therefore, the threshold values set would also be measured or taken as a voltage) of the patient and wherein the dystonia-threshold-value is individualized for the patient based on calibration data comprising resting and active EMG measurements (Col 30, lines 41-61);
responsive to a determination that the at least one parameter is greater than the corresponding dystonia-threshold-value:
estimate a source location of the dystonic muscle contraction based upon differences between the surface-EMG data detected by at least two adjacent surface-EMG sensors (Fig. 6, depicting two sets of two adjacent EMG electrodes 0605) of the plurality of surface-EMG sensors (Col 33, lines 31-47, wherein the sensors on the portable therapy system are EMG sensors; Col 33, line 62 – Col 34, line 34, “Preferably, such wireless communication components are each capable of two-way communication such that the remotely-placed sensors and the electronics of the portable therapy system or device are each capable of transmitting and receiving signals and data to and from each other. This is preferable for embodiments wherein the cue or stimulus is provided in a specifically targeted manner to a particular body part, and thus allows the device to provide a cue or stimulus directly through one of the remotely-placed sensors”; Col 20, lines 49-54, wherein a voltage or electrical potential difference is measured between at least two electrodes; Examiner interprets that by receiving a signal from the EMG sensors, including voltage/electrical potential differences between two electrodes that Brokaw depicts as being adjacent in Fig. 6, and providing a cue/stimulus directly through the sensors where the signal was received, a “source location” has been determined for the dystonic muscle contraction);
issue a tactile-engagement command to a tactile unit based on the estimated source location (Col 43, lines 1-3, wherein a step includes transmitting output to a cueing/stimulus device; Col 45, line 63 – Col 46, line 3, wherein the stimulus may be a tactile or physical cue; Col 60, lines 30-41, “The device 2115, which can be any device that can comprise or be connected with sensors and contains a processor capable of running the analysis and cueing algorithm(s) (e.g., smartphone with application for analysis, cueing and reporting), determines that a cue or stimulus is required based on the measured movement and predicted or detected impairment, symptom(s) or unsafe or undesirable conditions and provides the cue or stimulus 2125 to the subject”), wherein the tactile unit is a tactor array comprising a plurality of vibrotactile transducers (Col 43, lines 42-45; Col 46, lines 3-8; Examiner notes that the small vibrational motor(s) taught in Brokaw read on the claimed “tactor” and “vibrotactile transducers” of the instant application. Additionally, one or more vibrational motors are taught, and could be arranged in such a way to be an “array”; therefore, reading on the claim of a “tactor array”), the tactile unit configured to:
receive the tactile-engagement command (Col 43, lines 1-3);
generate a tactile stimulation for the patient wherein at least one vibrotactile transducer of the plurality of vibrotactile transducers of the tactile array corresponding to the estimated source location vibrates against the skin of the patient to deliver the tactile stimulation, wherein the tactile stimulation is delivered to the dystonic muscle (Col 43, line 42 – 65; Col 45, line 63 – Col 46, line 8; Col 33, line 62 – Col 34, line 34, “Preferably, such wireless communication components are each capable of two-way communication such that the remotely-placed sensors and the electronics of the portable therapy system or device are each capable of transmitting and receiving signals and data to and from each other. This is preferable for embodiments wherein the cue or stimulus is provided in a specifically targeted manner to a particular body part, and thus allows the device to provide a cue or stimulus directly through one of the remotely-placed sensors”; As described above, Examiner interprets that by receiving a signal from the EMG sensors, including voltage/electrical potential differences between two adjacent sensors, and providing a cue/stimulus directly through the sensors where the signal was received, a “source location” has been determined for the dystonic muscle contraction. The stimulus is provided where the source of the muscle contraction was located; thus, Brokaw reads on the claim limitation).
Brokaw suggests that the cues may take on many forms such as a treatment or therapy (Col 43 lines 54-57, “Cues or stimuli themselves may take on many forms, including audio, visual, physical, instructional or even automated treatment, therapy or assistance methods”), and that the cues can be targeted to a particular body part location as described above. However, Brokaw fails to explicitly disclose providing a cue that non-volitionally reduces the dystonic muscle contraction. Additionally, while Brokaw discloses a harness worn by the patient that contains all components within the harness (Col 32, lines 24-30), Brokaw fails to explicitly disclose that the components are attached via pockets.
However, Carballo teaches an analogous device in the same field of movement detection, wherein a wearable band uses vibrations to reduce tremors and other involuntary movement (Abstract). The system uses sensors to detect involuntary movement, including by EMG sensors (Paragraph 0085; Paragraph 0088, EMG sensor 1107 in the wearable’s sensor suite 1106). The data collected from the sensors are used to send a vibrational stimulus to the nerves to alter or perpetuate the electrical activity (Paragraph 0088, “Using the local data 1103, the processing unit 110, based on results of the local algorithm 1102, instructs the mechanical transducers 1105 to deliver a specific vibrational stimulus 13. The proprioceptive nerves 1201 detect the vibrational stimulus 13 and send the perceived limb position and motion 1202 to the nervous system 1203. Based on that signal, the nervous system 1203 sends a desired activation control signal 1204 to activate the muscles 1205 in a way that either alters or perpetuates their electrical activity 1206 and motion 1207”) or, in an alternate embodiment, the system sends an “anti-tremor signal” 154 via vibrational stimulus 13 (Fig. 15) with the same bodily reaction as described above. The Examiner interprets the proprioceptive nerves reaction to the stimulus as a non-volitional cue to correct the undesired tremor, and that the non-volitional cue to reduce the tremor is a form of “sensory tricking”.
As Brokaw is concerned with reducing muscle contraction by cuing the subject volitionally, Brokaw also suggests that the vibrations may act as an automated therapy or treatment, which Examiner interprets as a suggestion towards a non-volitional cue. Carballo is concerned with providing anti-tremor vibrations to the subject to “provide active mitigation” of involuntary movement (Paragraph 0089). 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 cue/stimulus of Brokaw to incorporate the anti-tremor signal taught by Carballo to provide an active mitigation technique in reducing involuntary movement.
Kurzweil is pertinent art to the instant application as Kurzweil teaches a harness with pockets (Fig. 12, pocket 18; Paragraph 0041), and indicates this is useful to hold the sensors in place (Paragraph 0080). Additionally, there are only a finite number of identified and predictable solutions to secure components to a harness, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. 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 device of Brokaw and Carballo to incorporate the harness with pockets of Kurzweil to hold the sensors in place.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. Brokaw further discloses wherein the surface-EMG sensors are configured to be worn on the patient's forearm (Fig 6, EMG sensors 0605; Col 32, lines 42 – 47).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 6. Brokaw further discloses wherein the surface-EMG sensors are configured to sense surface-EMG data indicative of muscle contractions in at least one of the group consisting of Flexor Carpi Ulnaris, Palmaris Longus, Extensor Digitorum, and Extensor Carpi Radialis (Fig 6, EMG sensors 0605; The sensors are configured to sense EMG data by being placed over one of the muscles claimed).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. Brokaw further discloses wherein the system is configured to deliver a visual stimulation to the patient (Col 45, lines 26-31) when the patient is experiencing dystonic symptoms (Col 9, lines 18-38, “measuring … continuously”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. Brokaw further discloses wherein the system is configured to deliver the tactile stimulation to the patient (Col 45, line 63 – Col 46, line 3) when the patient is experiencing dystonic symptoms (Col 9, lines 18-38, “measuring … continuously”), wherein the tactile stimulation is sufficient to cue the patient to volitionally reduce dystonic muscle contraction of the patient (Col 43, line 65 – Col 44, line 9).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. Brokaw further discloses the system further comprising at least one battery in energetic communication with at least the controller (Col 22, line 63 – Col 23, line 1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the visual stimulation comprises illumination of a light-emitting diode (LED).
However, Brokaw points to a visual stimulation that, “may comprise a single or series of blinking or flashing lights” (Col 45, lines 28-29). Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are known to those of ordinary skill in the art, and the visual stimulation could comprise an LED. It would have been obvious to use LEDs as a visual stimulation as they are more energy efficient than other types of lights, thereby consuming less energy from the battery.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. Brokaw further discloses wherein the parameter is indicative of a one or more of a type, intensity, or periodicity of the muscle contraction on the patient (Fig. 15, variables calculated from the EMG data in box 1550, including frequency, amplitude, and power).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 9974478), Carballo (US 20220062096), and Kurzweil (US 20080287770) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Blum (20230277109).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claims 1 and 6. The combination fails to disclose wherein the harness comprises a sleeve wearable on the patient's arm and sense muscle contractions in each of Flexor Carpi Ulnaris, Palmaris Longus, Extensor Digitorum, and Extensor Carpi Radialis.
However, Blum discloses an analogous EMG sensing arrangement including a harness that comprises a sleeve wearable on the patient's arm (Figs. 1-4), wherein the sensors are arranged over the claimed muscle groups of the arm and configured to sense data therefrom. Blum discloses that by providing electrodes in a sleeve made from stretchable fabric, good contact between the electrodes and the subject’s skin is maintained during measurement (Paragraph 0039). 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 device of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil to incorporate the sleeve of Blum to ensure good contact of the electrodes to the skin.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 9974478), Carballo (US 20220062096), and Kurzweil (US 20080287770) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cao (“Soft Robotic Glove with Integrated sEMG Sensing for Disabled People with Hand Paralysis” – previously cited), hereinafter Cao.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. The combination fails to disclose wherein the harness comprises a glove wearable on the patient's hand.
However, Cao discloses an alternate EMG sensor arrangement wherein the harness comprises a glove wearable on the patient's hand (Fig. 1). Cao discloses that having EMG sensors on a glove allowed the device to measure movement and angle of each individual finger. 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 device of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil to incorporate the glove of Cao to measure individual finger movements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 9974478), Carballo (US 20220062096), and Kurzweil (US 20080287770) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vasanth (US 20220338810).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil disclose the system of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the EMG sensors comprise graphene and a silver electrode.
However, Vasanth teaches an analogous EMG system wherein a wearable device includes biosensor electrodes that can be adapted to monitor muscular activity such as EMG (Paragraph 0052), are silver/silver chloride and include graphene-based materials for improved conductivity and long-term monitoring (Paragraph 0053). 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 device of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil to incorporate the silver/silver chloride and graphene based EMG electrode of Vasanth for improved conductivity and long-term monitoring.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brokaw (US 9974478), Carballo (US 20220062096).
Regarding claim 16, Brokaw discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (Col 9, lines 42-45; Col 6, lines 30-40, wherein the processing device includes coordinated application(s), program(s), or software installed to perform the analysis), cause a controller of the processor to:
receive, from a plurality of surface-EMG sensors, surface-EMG data indicative of muscle contraction of a patient (Col 23, lines 5-10; Col 20, lines 46-52; wherein muscle activity includes muscle contraction; Col 28, lines 26-28 and Col 56, line 67 – Col 57, line 13, wherein tremors are defined by muscle contraction and the sensors measure variables of tremor);
identify at least one parameter of the surface-EMG data (Col 41, line 62 - Col 42, line 1), wherein the at least one parameter is a voltage value indicative of the muscle contraction of the patient (Col 20, lines 46-57);
compare the at least one parameter to a corresponding dystonia-threshold-value (Col 41, line 62 - Col 42, line 1), wherein the dystonia-threshold-value is a voltage value indicative of a dystonic muscle contraction (Col 20, lines 52-54, EMG sensors measure parameters in voltages; therefore, the threshold values set would also be measured or taken as a voltage) of the patient and wherein the dystonia-threshold value is individualized for the patient based on calibration data comprising resting and active EMG measurements (Col 30, lines 41-61); and
responsive to a determination that the at least one parameter is greater than the corresponding dystonia-threshold-value:
estimate a source location of the dystonic muscle contraction based upon differences between the surface-EMG data detected by at least two adjacent surface-EMG sensors (Fig. 6, depicting two sets of two adjacent electrodes 0605) of the plurality of surface-EMG sensors (Col 33, lines 31-47, wherein the sensors on the portable therapy system are EMG sensors; Col 33, line 62 – Col 34, line 34, “Preferably, such wireless communication components are each capable of two-way communication such that the remotely-placed sensors and the electronics of the portable therapy system or device are each capable of transmitting and receiving signals and data to and from each other. This is preferable for embodiments wherein the cue or stimulus is provided in a specifically targeted manner to a particular body part, and thus allows the device to provide a cue or stimulus directly through one of the remotely-placed sensors”; Col 20, lines 49-54, wherein a voltage or electrical potential difference is measured between at least two electrodes; Examiner interprets that by receiving a signal from the EMG sensors, including voltage/electrical potential differences between two electrodes that Brokaw depicts as being adjacent in Fig. 6, and providing a cue/stimulus directly through the sensors where the signal was received, a “source location” has been determined for the dystonic muscle contraction);
issue a tactile-engagement command to a tactile unit based on the estimated source location (Col 43, lines 1-3, wherein a step includes transmitting output to a cueing/stimulus device; Col 45, line 63 – Col 46, line 3, wherein the stimulus may be a tactile or physical cue; Col 60, lines 30-41, “The device 2115, which can be any device that can comprise or be connected with sensors and contains a processor capable of running the analysis and cueing algorithm(s) (e.g., smartphone with application for analysis, cueing and reporting), determines that a cue or stimulus is required based on the measured movement and predicted or detected impairment, symptom(s) or unsafe or undesirable conditions and provides the cue or stimulus 2125 to the subject”) wherein the tactile unit is a tactor array comprising a plurality of vibrotactile transducers (Col 43, lines 42-45; Col 46, lines 3-8; Examiner notes that the small vibrational motor(s) taught in Brokaw read on the claimed “tactor” and “vibrotactile transducers” of the instant application. Additionally, one or more vibrational motors are taught, and could be arranged in such a way to be an “array”; therefore, reading on the claim of a “tactor array”), the tactile unit configured to generate a tactile stimulation for the patient wherein at least one vibrotactile transducer of the plurality of vibrotactile transducers of the tactile array corresponding to the estimated source location vibrates against the skin of the patient to deliver the tactile stimulation to reduce the dystonic muscle contraction of the patient (Col 43, line 42 – 65; Col 45, line 63 – Col 46, line 8; Col 33, line 62 – Col 34, line 34, “Preferably, such wireless communication components are each capable of two-way communication such that the remotely-placed sensors and the electronics of the portable therapy system or device are each capable of transmitting and receiving signals and data to and from each other. This is preferable for embodiments wherein the cue or stimulus is provided in a specifically targeted manner to a particular body part, and thus allows the device to provide a cue or stimulus directly through one of the remotely-placed sensors”; As described above, Examiner interprets that by receiving a signal from the EMG sensors, including voltage/electrical potential differences between two adjacent sensors, and providing a cue/stimulus directly through the sensors where the signal was received, a “source location” has been determined for the dystonic muscle contraction. The stimulus is provided where the source of the muscle contraction was located; thus, Brokaw reads on the claim limitation).
Brokaw suggests that the cues may take on many forms such as a treatment or therapy (Col 43 lines 54-57, “Cues or stimuli themselves may take on many forms, including audio, visual, physical, instructional or even automated treatment, therapy or assistance methods”), and that the cues can be targeted to a particular body part as described above. However, Brokaw fails to explicitly disclose providing a cue that non-volitionally reduces the dystonic muscle contraction. Additionally, while Brokaw discloses a harness worn by the patient that contains all components within the harness (Col 32, lines 24-30), Brokaw fails to disclose that the components are attached via pockets.
However, Carballo teaches an analogous device in the same field of movement detection, wherein a wearable band uses vibrations to reduce tremors and other involuntary movement (Abstract). The system uses sensors to detect involuntary movement, including by EMG sensors (Paragraph 0085; Paragraph 0088, EMG sensor 1107 in the wearable’s sensor suit 1106). The data collected from the sensors are used to send a vibrational stimulus to the nerves to alter or perpetuate the electrical activity (Paragraph 0088, “Using the local data 1103, the processing unit 110, based on results of the local algorithm 1102, instructs the mechanical transducers 1105 to deliver a specific vibrational stimulus 13. The proprioceptive nerves 1201 detect the vibrational stimulus 13 and send the perceived limb position and motion 1202 to the nervous system 1203. Based on that signal, the nervous system 1203 sends a desired activation control signal 1204 to activate the muscles 1205 in a way that either alters or perpetuates their electrical activity 1206 and motion 1207”) or, in an alternate embodiment, the system sends an “anti-tremor signal” 154 via vibrational stimulus 13 (Fig. 15) with the same bodily reaction as described above. The Examiner interprets the proprioceptive nerves reaction to the stimulus as a non-volitional cue to correct the undesired tremor, and that the non-volitional cue to reduce the tremor is a form of “sensory tricking”.
As Brokaw is concerned with reducing muscle contraction by cuing the subject volitionally, Brokaw also suggests that the vibrations may act as an automated therapy or treatment, which Examiner interprets as a suggestion towards a non-volitional cue. Carballo is concerned with providing anti-tremor vibrations to the subject to “provide active mitigation” of involuntary movement (Paragraph 0089). 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 cue/stimulus of Brokaw to incorporate the anti-tremor signal taught by Carballo to provide an active mitigation technique in reducing involuntary movement.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Brokaw and Carballo disclose the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 16. Brokaw further discloses wherein, responsive to a determination that the parameter is greater than the corresponding dystonia-threshold-value, issue a visual-engagement command to an LED array (Col 43, lines 1-3) to generate a visual stimulation for the patient (Col 45, lines 26-31; Col 43, line 43– Col 44, line 42). The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the visual stimulation comprises illumination of an LED array.
However, Brokaw points to a visual stimulation that, “may comprise a single or series of blinking or flashing lights” (Col 45, lines 28-29). Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are known to those of ordinary skill in the art, and the visual stimulation could comprise an LED. It would have been obvious to use LEDs as a visual stimulation as they are more energy efficient than other types of lights, thereby consuming less energy from the battery.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Brokaw and Carballo disclose the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 17. Brokaw further discloses wherein the instructions cause delivery of the visual stimulation to the patient (Col 45, lines 26-31) when the patient is experiencing dystonic symptoms (Col 9, lines 18-38, “measuring … continuously”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Brokaw and Carballo disclose the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 16. Brokaw further discloses wherein the instructions cause delivery of the tactile stimulation to the patient (Col 45, line 63 – Col 46, line 3) when the patient is experiencing dystonic symptoms (Col 9, lines 18-38, “measuring … continuously”), wherein the tactile stimulation is sufficient to cue the patient to volitionally reduce dystonic muscle contraction of the patient (Col 43, line 65 – Col 44, line 9).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Brokaw and Carballo disclose the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 16. Brokaw further discloses wherein the at least one parameter is indicative of one or more of a type, intensity, or periodicity of the dystonic muscle contraction on the patient (Fig. 15, variables calculated from the EMG data in box 1550, including frequency, amplitude, and power).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has provided proper antecedent basis for the source location. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment with regard to the claim interpretation of “visual unit”. Applicant has removed recitation of a “visual unit”. Therefore, that term is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-15, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the limitations of "estimate a source location of the dystonic muscle contraction based upon the differences between the surface-EMG data detected by at least two adjacent surface-EMG sensors of the plurality of surface-EMG sensors”, "issue a tactile-engagement command to a tactile unit based on the estimated source location", and that at least one vibrotactile transducer of the tactile array "corresponding to the estimated source location vibrates against the skin of the patient to deliver the tactile stimulation." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Brokaw suggests that the position of the sensors and the cueing/stimulation device may be capable of two-way communication. The cue or stimulus may be provided in a specifically targeted manner to a particular body part and would allow the device to provide a cue or stimulus directly through one of the sensors (Col 33, line 62 – Col 34, line 34). Thus, a “source location” is determined and a cue or stimulus is provided at that source. Further, Brokaw discusses that EMG is measured by differences in voltage/electrical potential between at least two recording electrodes (Col 20, lines 52-53). The Examiner interprets these paragraphs to mean that the EMG sensor measures differences between the EMG electrodes to identify the muscle contraction, and a cue or stimulus is provided directly to where the muscle contraction was measured.
Applicant further asserts Brokaw does not teach a relationship between the estimated source location and the tactile stimulation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brokaw specifically defines the relationship in an alternate embodiment Col 60, lines 30-41, “The device 2115, which can be any device that can comprise or be connected with sensors and contains a processor capable of running the analysis and cueing algorithm(s) (e.g., smartphone with application for analysis, cueing and reporting), determines that a cue or stimulus is required based on the measured movement and predicted or detected impairment, symptom(s) or unsafe or undesirable conditions and provides the cue or stimulus 2125 to the subject”). Thus, Brokaw’s method discloses estimating the source of the dystonic muscle contraction based on differences between at least two electrodes and cues the subject to the symptom in response.
Therefore, the combination of Brokaw, Carballo, and Kurzweil read on the claim limitations of claim 1, and the combination of Brokaw and Carballo read on the claim limitations of claim 16. The rejections have been updated to reflect the amendments made to the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights