DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on August 11, 2025.
As directed by the amendment: Claims 28 and 39 were amended. Claims 33, 36-38, 40-42, and 47 were cancelled. Claims 48-50 are newly added. Claims 28-32, 34-35, 39, 43-46 and 48-50 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figure 9B is an exploded view, and should have the separated parts embraced by a bracket. See MPEP 608.02(V)(h)(1).
Figure 9C appears to have multiple views of the same parts on the same page (i.e., 512a is shown three times, in three views) which is confusing. Examiner suggests separating these views to different figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, line 5 recites “comprises” which is form/legal phraseology often used in patent claims, and should be avoided. Examiner suggests –includes--.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-29 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28, line 10 recites “first intensity level I1” and Examiner suggests --the first intensity level I1-- to clarify the antecedent basis.
Claim 28, line 11 recites “second intensity level I2” and Examiner suggests --the second intensity level I2-- to clarify the antecedent basis.
Claim 29, line 2 recites “a mechanical stimulus” and Examiner suggests --the at least one mechanical stimulus-- to clarify the antecedent basis.
Claim 44, line 3 recites “form” which appears to be a typographical error. Examiner suggests --from--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
This application includes one or more 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“dissipating portion configured to increase an effective area of a mechanical stimulus” in claim 28. The dissipating portion is disclosed to be a surface such as 104, Figs. 1-2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28, line 8 recites “the focused vibrotactile stimulation” which is confusing because the vibrotactile stimulation is not previously stated to be “focused.” Furthermore, it is unclear what would be considered “focused” vibrotactile stimulation as opposed to just “vibrotactile stimulation.” What aspect of the vibrotactile stimulation is focused?
Claim 28, line 14 recites “an output” which is confusing because “an output” has already been recited in line 4. Examiner suggests –the output—or clarifying if this is considered a separate output.
Claim 28, lines 4-5 recite “a combination of vibrotactile stimulation and cueing” and it is unclear what the distinction is between “vibrotactile stimulation” and “cueing.” The recitation of “cueing” is vague and it is unclear what is the manner and function of the cueing, and what is its relation to the vibrotactile stimulation?
Claim 43, line 1 recites “The wearable device of claim 42” which is confusing because claim 42 is canceled.
Claim 49, line 2 recites “layers of adhesives on a back side thereof … a medical grade adhesive is provided at the back of the loop material… and a second adhesive is provided at the back of the hook material” which is confusing because it appears these “layers” are not both on a (single) back side. Rather, the first layer is on a back of the loop material, and the second layer is on a back of the hook material. Examiner suggests clarifying what “side” each layer is on.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 50, lines 1-2 recite “wherein the wearable device is attached to the sternum of the user” which is directed to or encompassing a human. The Examiner suggests --wherein the wearable device is adapted to be attached to the sternum of the user--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 28-32, 35, 39, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moaddeb et al. (2021/0330547) in view of Borras et al. (2016/0058658), Lazarides et al. (2019/0290534), and Marton et al. (2019/0015295)
Regarding claim 28, Moaddeb discloses a wearable device (wearable tremor control system 10, Fig. 1) to provide at least one mechanical stimulus (such as vibration via vibration elements 136, 138, Fig. 8) to a user with a neurological condition (the recitation of a user with a neurological condition is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02), comprising:
at least one stimulating element (vibration elements 136, 138, Fig. 8) configured to provide the at least one mechanical stimulus (vibration) to the user, wherein an output of the at least one stimulating element (136, 138) comprises a pulsed output (the vibrator(s) produce vibration at a frequency such as 1-30 Hz, which is a rhythmic, pulsed output. See lines 14-18 of [0040]), the pulsed output further comprising a combination of a vibrotactile stimulation (vibration) and cueing applied to an area of skin of the user (the “treatment protocol may comprise a first period of activation of the vibration elements 136, 138 which is initiated immediately after the sensing elements 132, 134 detect a tremor” …The vibration is “configured to abate or completely stop the shaking caused by one or more forms of tremor… The applied vibration to the median nerve will be sensed in the brain of the user, which will alter limb shaking accordingly as part of a physiological feedback loop. The brain is thus “tricked” into playing a more involved interventional role” see all of [0040]. The vibration applied to the skin and median nerve serves as a “cue” by tricking the user’s brain to alter the limb shaking as part of a physiological feedback loop. Additionally, the vibration is considered “focused” in that it is provided at specific times when tremor is detected);
a repeated pattern comprised of at least a first intensity level and a first duration (the “control unit is configured to cause the activation of … at least one vibration element … to produce an activation cycle comprising a first period of activation of the at least one vibration element” and “the control unit is configured to repeat the activation cycle one or more times” and this will necessarily have at least one first intensity, see lines 22-29 and lines 47-48 of [0068]) and a cueing period (the “first period of activation” see para. [0040]. This period of activation is a cueing period because the vibration applied to the skin and median nerve serves as a “cue” by tricking the user’s brain to alter the limb shaking as part of a physiological feedback loop);
a controller (controller 32, Fig. 2; controller 192, Fig. 15) configured to control an output of the at least one stimulating element (configured to automatically adjust the vibration mode, such as turning it on, off, or adjusting it between low, medium, and high vibration. See the last fourteen lines of [0047]. See also user interface 101, Fig. 8, configured to adjust or program the controller such as changing vibration mode, see lines 1-12 of [0047] and see the second sentence of [0059]); and
a button sensitive to touch or pressure (user interface 101 “may comprise a touch screen, and may utilize capacitive or resistive touch sensitivity” and includes first control 111 having a first button 113 and a second button 115, see Fig. 16 and lines 1-12 of [0047]) for the user to interact with to provide instructions to the controller (see lines 1-12 of [0047]).
Additionally, Moaddeb has a battery (battery 186, Fig. 15) and a printed circuit board (circuit board 190, Fig. 15).
Moaddeb is silent regarding the repeated pattern comprised of a first intensity level I1 and a second intensity level I2 of the focused vibrotactile stimulation; wherein I1, I2, and P are adjustable by the user; and period P further comprises a first duration S1 with first intensity level I1, and a second duration S2 with second intensity level I2, wherein S1 and S2 are adjustable by the user, and wherein I2 > I1 ≥ 0 and S1 = S2 or S1 ≠ S2; a total duration of period P is between substantially 0.25 sec and 4 sec; a dissipating portion configured to increase an effective area of a mechanical stimulus provided by the at least one stimulating element; and an LED layer configured to provide different levels of charge of the battery, and disposed on the printed circuit board.
However, providing a user the ability to adjust vibration parameters is well known in the art.
For example, Borras teaches a related vibratory stimulation device (vibration accessory 104, Fig. 1; 202, Fig. 2; 520, Fig. 5; 1001, Fig. 10) for providing physiotherapy (see the first sentence of the Abstract; see also lines 1-10 of [0048]). Borras states that the vibratory device should include variations over time in order to avoid sensory adaptation (see lines 17-23 of [0048], and the second sentence of [0056]). Borras has a variety of selectable repeating patterns (see Figs. 3-4) that each have their own associated period and intensity (see Fig. 3; see para. [0033]). Borras’ controller (controller 208, and corresponding communication device 204, application 203, Fig. 2) allows a user to adjust vibration parameters such as intensity (magnitude, see the first two sentences of [0056]) and durations (see lines 29-31 of [0029]; see all of [0034], see also the last sentence of [0050]) to create customized vibration patterns (see user specified patterns 408, Fig. 4; see the last sentence of [0035] and the first sentence of [0056]). For example, Borras provides a vibration pattern that varies the vibration magnitude (intensity) over time (see vibration pattern 900, Fig. 9; see the last sentence of [0043]), the pattern having a first intensity level I1 (910 at interval 916, Fig. 9) for a first duration S1 (the interval of 916, Fig. 9), a second intensity level I2 (908 at interval 914, Fig. 9) of a second duration S2 (the interval of 914, Fig. 9), wherein I1 and I2 are adjustable by the user (the user is able to customize vibration magnitude, see the first two sentences of [0034], the first two sentences of [0056] and Fig. 9), and I2 > I1 ≥ 0 (908 > 910, see Fig. 9. This is also > 0, and it is also unclear how a vibration intensity would be less than 0) and S1 = S2 or S1 ≠ S2 (the durations are necessarily either equal to one another, or not equal to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Moaddeb to have the controller include a user interface that allows the user to create customized vibration patterns with adjustable intensities and duty cycles/pulse lengths, including patterns with a first intensity level I1 at a first duration, a second intensity level I2 at a second duration as taught by Borras to help avoid sensory adaptation and allow the user to customize the vibration to suit their specific preferences.
The modified Moaddeb/Borras device is silent regarding the cueing period P being adjustable by the user; wherein S1 and S2 are adjustable by the user, a total duration of period P is between substantially 0.25 sec and 4 sec; a dissipating portion configured to increase an effective area of a mechanical stimulus provided by the at least one stimulating element; and an LED layer configured to provide different levels of charge of the battery, and disposed on the printed circuit board.
With respect to the dissipating portion, it is noted that Moaddeb suggests the vibration elements may include an element to improve energy transfer to the wearer (see the last sentence of [0041]).
Furthermore, Lazarides teaches a related wearable vibration device (Fig. 1) in which each vibratory stimulation element includes a dissipation portion (vibration pads 12, 14, 16, 24, Figs. 2-3, Figs. 8a-8b) configured to increase an effective area of a mechanical stimulus (vibration) provided by the at least one stimulating element (“vibration pads 12, 14, 16 (24) provide beneficial features, such as transmitting the vibration effects in a more focused and efficient manner than plastic casing due to the elastic support or mount of the motor 20 within the elastic motor housing 22. The elastic support of the motor 20 with respect to the casing 6 and back casing 26 allows for directing most of the generated vibrations to the user increasing the efficiency of the stimulation device. The silicone vibration pad is also quieter than plastic casing construction and more comfortable for a user”” see para. [0054]. The vibration pads such as 12, 24, are designed to transmit the vibration effects and they are wider than the vibration motor 20 and thus increase an effective area of the mechanical stimulus of vibration, see Fig. 2, Fig. 8a-8b. The elastic motor mount 22 holds the motor 20 against the vibration pad 12, 24, and the pad extends to a larger area than the area of the motor).
Additionally, Lazarides teaches that the control panel allows the user to adjust a wide variety of vibration parameters, including vibratory operation times (“Other controls and selection buttons may be added for independent control of the speed, voltage, amplitude, frequency and time of Operation of each motor independent of the others. Those skilled in the art will recognize that a variety of controls may be incorporated in the control panel to enhance the user experience for convenience and/or maximum health benefit” see para. [0067]). Keeping in mind that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and Office personnel may take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” (see MPEP 2141.03 quoting KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 421 (2007)), one of ordinary skill would be motivated to provide controls for each vibratory parameter including the first duration, second duration, and total period in order to enhance the user experience and customization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one stimulating element of Moaddeb/Borras to 1) include a dissipation portion comprising an elastic motor housing and vibration pad and, 2) to modify the controller to include additional controls to allow the user to adjust the first vibration duration, second vibration duration, and total period duration as taught by Lazarides because the dissipation portion provides beneficial features such as transmitting the vibration effects in a more focused and efficient manner by directing the vibration towards the body instead of throughout the device housing, and the silicone vibration pad is quieter and more comfortable for the user. The relatively increased surface area of the vibration pad would provide an expected result that the target area such as the median nerve would be able to be vibrated more reliably without the patient needing to perfectly position the vibratory element(s) directly over the nerve. Furthermore, the additional controls to allow the user to adjust the first vibration duration, second vibration duration, and total period duration would enhance the user experience and customization.
The modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides device is still silent regarding a total duration of period P is between substantially 0.25 sec and 4 sec; and an LED layer configured to provide different levels of charge of the battery, and disposed on the printed circuit board.
Marton teaches a related vibratory device (Fig. 1) with an LED layer (five light emitting diodes 592, Fig. 15) configured to provide different levels of charge of the battery (“The five LEDs are selectively illuminated to indicate the current charge on the LiPo battery 408. For example, all five LEDs are illuminated to indicate a fully charged battery. One LED at a time is turned off as the charge of the battery decreases” see lines 6-9 of [0090]), and disposed on a printed circuit board (LEDs 592 are mounted on circuit board 420, Fig. 15. The LEDs align with display ports 590, Fig. 17; see the first two sentences of [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printed circuit board of Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides to include an LED layer that aligns with display ports as taught by Marton so the user can readily determine the charge status of the battery.
The modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device is still silent regarding a total duration of period P is between substantially 0.25 sec and 4 sec. However, it is noted that the modified device has an adjustable period duration (as generally taught by Lazarides) and there does not appear to be any particular criticality to this claimed range as the disclosure suggests the total duration may be “between substantially 0 second and 300 seconds” (see para. [0081]), and no rationale or benefit is mentioned as to a period of substantially 0.25 to 4 sec.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjustable period range of Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton to be between substantially 0.25 sec and 4 sec, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Lazarides generally teaches providing adjustable controls for a variety of vibration parameters, including vibratory operation times), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (the period providing controls between substantially 0.25 sec and 4 sec) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 29, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses a surface (external surface of vibration pad(s) 12, 24, Fig 2, Figs. 8a-8b of Lazarides) configured to deliver and/or transmit a mechanical stimulus to the user (see the second sentence of [0054] of Lazarides).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses wherein at least a part of the dissipating portion (the vibration pad(s) 12, 24, Fig. 2, Figs. 8a-8b of Lazarides) is configured to form at least part of the surface configured to deliver a mechanical stimulus to the user (see the second sentence of [0054] of Lazarides).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses wherein the at least one stimulating element (136, 138 of Moaddeb as modified by Lazarides to be motor(s) held by an elastic motor housing 22 against the vibration pad(s) 12, 24) is configured to form at least part of the surface configured to deliver a mechanical stimulus to the user (the vibration elements are held against the pad(s) 12, 24 to cause the pad to vibrate, and thus forms at least part of the vibrating surface).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses wherein the dissipating portion (vibration pad(s) 12, 24, and elastic motor housing 22 of Lazarides) comprises a recess or aperture (motor housing 22 is substantially U-shaped and has a recess or aperture configured to receive the motor 20, see Fig. 2 and Figs. 8a-8b of Lazarides) configured to receive the at least one stimulating element (motor 20).
Regarding claim 35, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses further comprising an electric charging portion (connection port 191, Fig. 8 of Moaddeb “for transferring data, or transferring energy (e.g., to allow charging)” see the last three sentences of [0046] of Moaddeb).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses wherein S2 (interval 914, Fig. 9 of Borras) comprises increasing an output intensity of the at least one stimulating element from the first intensity level I1 (910, Fig. 9 of Borras) to the second intensity level I2 (the interval 914 comprises an increase from first intensity level 910 to second intensity level 908, see Fig. 9 of Borras), and S1 (interval 916, Fig. 9 of Borras) comprises decreasing an output intensity of the at least one stimulating element from the second intensity level I2 (908) to the first intensity level I1 (the interval 916 comprises a decrease from second intensity level 908 to the first intensity level 910, see Fig. 9 of Borras).
Regarding claim 43, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses further comprising a user input (user interface 101, Fig. 8, Fig. 16 of Moaddeb, as modified by Borras) configured to receive at least one command from the user (by selecting a vibration mode or compression mode, see Fig. 8) and relay the at least one command to the controller (user interface relays commands to the controller, see lines 1-12 of [0047] and see the second sentence of [0059] of Moaddeb).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses wherein the user input (101, Fig. 8, Fig. 16 of Moaddeb, as modified by Borras) is configured to receive at least: a first command to cause the controller to instruct the at least one stimulating element to provide a first output (via button 113, Fig. 16 of Moaddeb); and a second command, different from the first command, to cause the controller to instruct the at least one stimulating element to provide a second output (via button 115, Fig. 16 of Moaddeb; see all of para. [0047] of Moaddeb, these buttons allow different user commands to change the stimulating element to provide different outputs such as a low vibration, medium vibration, or high vibration).
Regarding claim 45, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device discloses wherein the first output is or comprises at least one of a different length, frequency, intensity and change in intensity of a mechanical stimulus from the second output (the buttons 113, 115, provide different outputs such as a low vibration, medium vibration, or high vibration, which are outputs that comprise different intensities, see para. [0047] of Moaddeb).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moaddeb et al. (2021/0330547) in view of Borras et al. (2016/0058658), Lazarides et al. (2019/0290534), and Marton et al. (2019/0015295) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Schubert et al. (2014/0107542).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device is silent regarding wherein the surface configured to deliver a mechanical stimulus to the user comprises an adhesive configured to adhere the surface to skin of the user.
Schubert teaches a related vibratory actuator for stimulating an area of the body (Fig. 1, Fig. 8), with a surface (bottom surface 49, Fig. 8) configured to deliver a mechanical stimulus (vibration) to the user comprises an adhesive configured to adhere the surface to the skin of the user (“the bottom surface 59 of the mounting pad 55 is attached to the skin S of the subject by way of the adhesive on the bottom surface 59” see the first two sentences of [0072] and Fig. 8). The surface is “held in place tight against the tissue, preferably having direct contact with the skin or through an adhesive layer or gel such that the vibratory energy is delivered to the tissue” (see the first sentence of [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface of the vibrating elements of Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton to include an adhesive configured to adhere the surface to the skin of the user as taught by Schubert so the vibration can be precisely held tight to deliver vibratory energy in a desired location such as along the median nerve, and not shift substantially during use.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moaddeb et al. (2021/0330547) in view of Borras et al. (2016/0058658), Lazarides et al. (2019/0290534), and Marton et al. (2019/0015295) as applied to claims 28-31, 32, 35, 39, and 43-45 above, and further in view of Imboden et al. (2008/0306417).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device is silent regarding a kit of parts comprising: a wearable device of any of the preceding claims; and a docking station for receiving and storing the wearable device, wherein the docking station is a single unit comprising a base and a lid removably attached at an end. However, providing a storage case with a lid is well known in the art and merely provides expected results of a container to organize and protect the equipment.
For example, Imboden teaches a related vibrating massager (Fig. 7a) and a kit of parts (Fig. 12) comprising: a massage device (massager 250, Fig. 12), and a docking station (base 450, and lid 480, Fig. 12) for receiving and storing the massage device (massager 250 is received by base 250 as seen in Fig. 12, and stored therein by closing lid 480), wherein the docking station is a single unit (base 450 and lid 480) comprising a base (450) and a lid (480) removably attached at an end (the lid 480 is removably attached to each end as seen in Fig. 12; see para. [0064]). This provides a closed container for storage of the massager, and the lid (480) is arranged to hold the massager against the base (450) which is particularly useful during charging to ensure proper contact is maintained (see para. [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable massage device of Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton to be configured to be stored in a charging docking station comprising a base and a lid removably attached at an end as taught by Imboden so the wearable massage device can be conveniently stored and charged.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moaddeb et al. (2021/0330547) in view of Borras et al. (2016/0058658), Lazarides et al. (2019/0290534), Marton et al. (2019/0015295) and Schubert et al. (2014/0107542) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Imboden et al. (2008/0306417).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton/Schubert device is silent regarding a kit of parts comprising: a wearable device of any of the preceding claims; and a docking station for receiving and storing the wearable device, wherein the docking station is a single unit comprising a base and a lid removably attached at an end. However, providing a storage case with a lid is well known in the art and merely provides expected results of a container to organize and protect the equipment.
For example, Imboden teaches a related vibrating massager (Fig. 7a) and a kit of parts (Fig. 12) comprising: a massage device (massager 250, Fig. 12), and a docking station (base 450, and lid 480, Fig. 12) for receiving and storing the massage device (massager 250 is received by base 250 as seen in Fig. 12, and stored therein by closing lid 480), wherein the docking station is a single unit (base 450 and lid 480) comprising a base (450) and a lid (480) removably attached at an end (the lid 480 is removably attached to each end as seen in Fig. 12; see para. [0064]). This provides a closed container for storage of the massager, and the lid (480) is arranged to hold the massager against the base (450) which is particularly useful during charging to ensure proper contact is maintained (see para. [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable massage device of Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton/Schubert to be configured to be stored in a charging docking station comprising a base and a lid removably attached at an end as taught by Imboden so the wearable massage device can be conveniently stored and charged.
Claims 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moaddeb et al. (2021/0330547) in view of Borras et al. (2016/0058658), Lazarides et al. (2019/0290534), and Marton et al. (2019/0015295) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Bhatti (2019/0110949).
Regarding claim 48, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton device is silent regarding wherein the device is configured to attach to the area of skin of the user using at least one consumable adhesive pad.
Bhatti teaches a related vibratory device (device 10, Fig. 1) that is attachable to a user’s skin (see Figs. 1-4) by at least one consumable adhesive pad (skin attachment patches 2, 3, which includes layers of adhesive(s) 4, 7, see Figs. 2-4. The pad is considered “consumable” because it is capable of being disposed after use). This adhesive pad is one “that will adequately hold to an active hand, and that will not irritate the skin of the back of the hand” (see the first sentence of [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface of the vibrating elements of Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton to include at least one consumable adhesive pad configured to adhere the surface to the skin of the user as taught by Bhatti so the vibration can be precisely held tight to deliver vibratory energy in a desired location such as along the median nerve without irritating skin, and not shift substantially during use.
Regarding claim 49, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton/Bhatti device discloses wherein the at least one consumable pad (2, 3, Fig. 2 of Bhatti) is comprised of layers of adhesives on a back side thereof (adhesive layers 4, 7, see Figs. 4-6 of Bhatti) and a hook-and-loop material (hooks 5, loops 6, see Fig. 2 of Bhatti), wherein a medical grade adhesive (“skin adhesive” 7 is intended to be placed directly against skin without irritating the skin and thus is considered “medical” grade, see Figs. 1-4 and the first sentence of [0028] of Bhatti) is provided at the back of the loop material (adhesive 7 is on the back of loop material 6, see Fig. 2 of Bhatti) that is placed towards the skin of the user (see Figs. 1-4 of Bhatti), and a second adhesive (adhesive 4, Figs. 1-4 of Bhatti) is provided at the back of the hook material (adhesive 4 is on the back of hook material 5, see Fig. 2 of Bhatti) that is placed facing towards the wearable device (adhesive 4 faces the wearable vibration device 1, Figs. 1-2 of Bhatti; in the modified device the adhesive 4 will face the Moaddeb vibrator(s)).
Regarding claim 50, the modified Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton/Bhatti device is silent regarding being (adapted to be) attached to the sternum of the user. However, Moaddeb additionally states that it “is common for tremor to affect the hand or wrist area of a sufferer, but arms, legs, head, torso, and even vocal cords may also be affected” (see lines 1-6 of [0033]), and the modified device has a consumable adhesive pad (as taught by Bhatti) that would allow it to be placed on substantially any desired area of the skin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the Moaddeb/Borras/Lazarides/Marton/Bhatti device to be attached to the sternum of the user in order to provide vibration directed to treat tremors of the torso, since it has been held that that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Applicant has amended “an output” to “the output” to clarify the 112(b) rejection (see the third paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive because the alleged change has not been made.
Regarding the argument that the “increase” in claim 28 is supported by sufficient definition in the instant specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the term with reasonable certainty (see the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks), this argument is persuasive.
Regarding the argument that “focused vibrotactile stimulation” refers to stimulation to a specific area of the human body, but that amended claim 28 has been amended to recite “vibrotactile stimulation applied to an area of skin of the user” to better define focused vibrotactile stimulation (see the last paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 8), this argument is not persuasive. Claim 28, line 8 still recites “focused vibrotactile stimulation.” Examiner suggests deleting “focused” because it is unclear what would be considered “focused” vibrotactile stimulation and because the phrase “vibrotactile stimulation applied to an area of skin of the user” better defines the focused vibrotactile stimulation.
Regarding the argument that “cueing” is achieved by pulsing the vibrations like a metronome, and Figs. 6A-6E of the instant drawings [illustrate] what cueing is (see the second paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Figs. 6A-6E merely illustrate the vibrations changing in magnitude over time. The claimed relationship between vibrotactile stimuli and cueing is still unclear. Would any vibration that is pulsed or has a change in intensity also read on cueing? What is the “combination” that is being claimed?
Regarding the argument that Moaddeb, Lazarides, Schubert, Imboden, and Radl do not teach a repeated pattern of alternating application of intensities I1 and I2 over a cueing period P with durations S1 and S2 (see pages 10-11 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Borras has now been relied upon to teach a repeated pattern of vibrotactile stimulation with intensities I1 and I2 with durations S1 and S2.
Regarding the argument that the prior art of record, including Schubert, does not teach the features of newly added claims 48-50 (see the last two paragraphs of page 11 of the Remarks, through page 12), this argument is not persuasive. Bhatti has now been relied upon to teach the consumable adhesive pad with layers of adhesives and a hook-and-loop material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kelley (2014/0179986) discloses a related vibratory device with a smartphone app that allows the user to adjust a variety of vibration parameters.
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 CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30 (eastern).
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785