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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/11/2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1 have been amended, claims 5 and 13-29 have been cancelled, and claim 30 have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 30 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 06/11/2026, regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 and amendments to the claim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to the claim obviate the rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. The claim is now rejected under Tadi et al. (US 20160235323)(Hereinafter Tadi) in view of Brouns et al. (US 20220409904)(Hereinafter Brouns).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the at least one sensor further comprises the electronic processor” should be amended to recite “the at least one sensor further coupled to the electronic processor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (US 20160235323)(Hereinafter Tadi) in view of Brouns et al. (US 20220409904)(Hereinafter Brouns).
Regarding claim 1, Tadi teaches A rehabilitation system ([0167] “A system that reads their intention to make a functional movement and provide an assistance in completing the movement could enhance the rehabilitation outcome.”) comprising:
glasses configured to be worn by a user, the glasses including a video camera configured to monitor movement of a body part (Fig. 4a and [0170] “The physical embodiment illustrated in FIG. 9, comprises a wearable system having a head-mounted display (HMD) 18 [glasses as the HMD is a frame that is worn on the face covering the eyes of the user, [0014] “a virtual or augmented reality” which means the glasses must be see through to the outside world since it is augmented reality.] to display virtual reality 3D video content on micro-displays (e.g., in first person perspective), a stereo video camera 30 and a depth camera 28, whose data is used for tracking the wearer's own arm, objects and any second person under the field of view (motion tracking unit).”);
a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) device configured to be worn on the body part and having electrodes arranged to apply NMES to the body part when the NMES device is worn on the body part ([0170] “Furthermore, functional electrical stimulation (FES) system 31 activates muscles of the arm in completing the planned movement.”); and
an electronic processor ([0171] “The control system 51” [0086] “a control module 51 of the control system.”) programmed to:
obtain a stimulation pattern that when applied to the body part by the NMES device is effective to cause the body part to perform an intended action ([0170] “In case of evidence of the movements through the biological sensor data (ie, EEG, EMG, and motion tracing) feedback mechanisms aid the patient in making goal directed movement using a robotic system 41. Furthermore, functional electrical stimulation (FES) system 31 activates muscles of the arm in completing the planned movement.”);
apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device ([0170] “In case of evidence of the movements through the biological sensor data (ie, EEG, EMG, and motion tracing) feedback mechanisms aid the patient in making goal directed movement using a robotic system 41. Furthermore, functional electrical stimulation (FES) system 31 activates muscles of the arm in completing the planned movement.”).
However, Tadi does not teach wherein the electronic processor is programmed to stop the application of the stimulation pattern to the body part in response to the video of the body part acquired by the video camera indicating the body part has performed the intended action. Brouns, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving feedback from a sensor relating to physical activity to adjust electrical neurostimulation (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises:
a video camera worn by a user ([0014] “At least one sensor 300 may be placed on various parts of the user's 50 body” [0166] “The sensor 300 of such a closed-loop neuromodulation system can be or include at least one of an … infrared camera”);
wherein the electronic processor is programmed to stop the application of the stimulation pattern to the body part in response to the video of the body part acquired by the video camera indicating the body part has performed the intended action ([0194] “As such, these sensors could be used to register a flick of the wrist or other type of gesture. This gesture could then be used to control therapy. For example, a user 50 rotating the wrist back and forth 2 times, could trigger a stop of stimulation” Examiner notes that the indication can be anything found on the video that indicated the stop. In the instant case, the gesture is indicating to stop as the therapy was completed.) and that the camera, IMU/accelerometer, and EMG data are interchangeable sensors for measuring movement ([0138]) to provide ways of obtaining feedback ([0194]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi, with wherein the electronic processor is programmed to stop the application of the stimulation pattern to the body part in response to the video of the body part acquired by the video camera indicating the body part has performed the intended action of Brouns, because such a modification would allow to provide ways of obtaining feedback.
Regarding claim 8, Tadi teaches wherein the electronic processor is further programmed to:
identify the intended action based on at least one of (i) the video of the body part acquired by the video camera and/or (ii) EMG acquired from the body part ([0170] “In case of evidence of the movements through the biological sensor data (ie, EEG, EMG, and motion tracing) feedback mechanisms aid the patient in making goal directed movement using a robotic system 41.”).
Regarding claim 30, Tadi teaches w wherein the glasses further include gaze trackers configured to identify a focus point of the user ([0108] “The eye gaze sensing unit 100 comprises one or more eye gaze sensors 102 for sensing the direction of gaze of the user. In an advantageous embodiment the eye gaze sensor 102 comprises one or more cameras arranged in operation proximity to one or both eyes of the user. The or each camera 102 may be configured to track eye gaze by using the centre of the pupil and infrared/near-infrared non-collimated light to create corneal reflections (CR).”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (US 20160235323)(Hereinafter Tadi) in view of Brouns et al. (US 20220409904)(Hereinafter Brouns) and Verity et al. (WO2018220374A1)(Hereinafter Verity)(citations are from US 20200139115.
Regarding claim 10, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns do not teach the electronic processor is further programmed to record at least a maximum stimulation level applied to the body part using the NMES device. Verity, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the neuromuscular stimulation of weak muscles for muscular rehabilitation (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the electronic processor is further programmed to record at least a maximum stimulation level applied to the body part using the NMES device (See Fig. 5 of all recorded stimulation levels and frequencies including the maximum frequency.) to provide electro-facilitated voluntary muscle stimulation in real time ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns, with wherein the electronic processor is further programmed to record at least a maximum stimulation level applied to the body part using the NMES device of Verity, because such a modification would allow to provide electro-facilitated voluntary muscle stimulation in real time.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (US 20160235323)(Hereinafter Tadi) in view of Brouns et al. (US 20220409904)(Hereinafter Brouns), Verity et al. (WO2018220374A1)(Hereinafter Verity)(citations are from US 20200139115), and Robison et al. (US 11931571)(Hereinafter Robison).
Regarding claim 2, Tadi teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises: a video camera worn by a user (Fig. 4a and [0170] “The physical embodiment illustrated in FIG. 9, comprises a wearable system having a head-mounted display (HMD) 18 to display virtual reality 3D video content on micro-displays (e.g., in first person perspective), a stereo video camera 30 and a depth camera 28, whose data is used for tracking the wearer's own arm, objects and any second person under the field of view (motion tracking unit).”).
Tadi in view of Brouns does not teach ramping stimulation level and applying the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device with a stimulation level at an initial stimulation level that is too low to produce functional electrical stimulation of the body part. Verity, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the neuromuscular stimulation of weak muscles for muscular rehabilitation (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the electronic processor is programmed to apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device with a ramping stimulation level ([0040] “As the patient's voluntary contraction increased about 4 microvolts EMG the stimulation would start from zero mA linearly (or otherwise depending on the setting selected) such that at a level of 15 microvolts the maximum stimulation pulses of 30 mA would be achieved.”) by:
applying the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device with a stimulation level at an initial stimulation level that is too low to produce functional electrical stimulation of the body part ([0040] “The user is then asked to make their best efforts for a maximal (voluntary) contraction of the muscle in the absence of any electrical stimulation pulses during which time the EMG from these electrodes (which consists almost entirely of the voluntary EMG component) is measured such that the maximum and minimum reading of EMG readily achieved, is noted. The muscle is then stimulated via module 20 with these same electrodes to achieve a maximal comfortable contraction such that the device retains this value of stimulation current (mA)… the minimum EMG achieved to be 4 microvolts and the maximum 15 microvolts rms,”) to provide electro-facilitated voluntary muscle stimulation in real time ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns, with ramping stimulation level and applying the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device with a stimulation level at an initial stimulation level that is too low to produce functional electrical stimulation of the body part of Verity, because such a modification would allow to provide electro-facilitated voluntary muscle stimulation in real time.
However, Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity do not teach in response to the at least one sensor indicating the body part is not performing the intended action with the stimulation pattern applied to the body part at the initial stimulation level, increasing the stimulation level above the initial stimulation level. Robinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring movement, measured by sensors like EMG and videos, corresponding to electrical stimulation for muscle and knee extension (Abstract), and further teaches in response to the … indicating the body part is not performing the intended action with the stimulation pattern applied to the body part at the initial stimulation level, increasing the stimulation level above the initial stimulation level (Col. 21 lines 15-19 “The iterative actuations may continue through varying permutations of electrode configurations, with pauses in between each actuation, and then alter the electrical signal by incrementing the frequency by 5 Hz to produce a second electrical signal. The module 225 may then apply this second electrical signal through the same permutations of electrode configurations, pausing between each actuation to receive user feedback of the second electrical signal as applied through a particular electrode configuration.” Col. 20 lines 51-57 “For example, if the comparison indicates that the stimulated movement is not as strong (e.g., the amplitude of the signals are not as high) as the neurotypical movement, the module 225 may adjust the actuation instructions by changing the electrodes used to apply the electrical stimulation or the amplitude of the electrical signal.”) to calibrate stimulation to a user’s movement (Col. 20 lines 51-57). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity, with the teach in response to the at least one sensor indicating the body part is not performing the intended action with the stimulation pattern applied to the body part at the initial stimulation level, increasing the stimulation level above the initial stimulation level of Robinson, because such a modification would allow to calibrate stimulation to a user’s movement.
Regarding claim 3, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity do not teach wherein the increasing of the stimulation level above the initial stimulation level comprising ramping the stimulation level as a function of time. Robinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring movement, measured by sensors like EMG and videos, corresponding to electrical stimulation for muscle and knee extension (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the increasing of the stimulation level above the initial stimulation level comprising ramping the stimulation level as a function of time (Col. 21 lines 15-19 “The iterative actuations may continue through varying permutations of electrode configurations, with pauses in between each actuation, and then alter the electrical signal by incrementing the frequency by 5 Hz to produce a second electrical signal.” The stimulation must occur during a period of time and in before and after time period pauses.) to calibrate stimulation to a user’s movement (Col. 20 lines 51-57). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity, with wherein the increasing of the stimulation level above the initial stimulation level comprising ramping the stimulation level as a function of time of Robinson, because such a modification would allow to calibrate stimulation to a user’s movement.
Regarding claim 9, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity do not teach present a prompt of an activity script indicating the intended action. Robinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring movement, measured by sensors like EMG and videos, corresponding to electrical stimulation for muscle and knee extension (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the electronic processor is further programmed to:
present a prompt of an activity script indicating the intended action (Fig. 5 and Col. 28 lines 4-6 “As shown in the GUIs 600a-b, the heading 510 indicates that the actuation is applied to the left tibialis anterior [intended action].”) to adjust stimulation based on camera video (Col. 18 lines 10-27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity, with present a prompt of an activity script indicating the intended action of Robinson, because such a modification would allow to adjust stimulation based on camera video.
Regarding claim 11, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity do not teach wherein the electronic processor is programmed to obtain the stimulation pattern from a non-transitory storage medium using a look-up table associating intended actions with corresponding stimulation patterns. Robinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring movement, measured by sensors like EMG and videos, corresponding to electrical stimulation for muscle and knee extension (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the electronic processor is programmed to obtain the stimulation pattern from a non-transitory storage medium using a look-up table associating intended actions with corresponding stimulation patterns (Col. 4 lines 2-7 “The measured movement data may be representative of neurotypical movement measured from a general population of users. The model can be trained using a training set with measured movement data associated with respective actuation instructions.” Col. 32 lines 25-27 “Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium”) to adjust stimulation based on camera video (Col. 18 lines 10-27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity, with wherein the electronic processor is programmed to obtain the stimulation pattern from a non-transitory storage medium using a look-up table associating intended actions with corresponding stimulation patterns of Robinson, because such a modification would allow to adjust stimulation based on camera video.
Regarding claim 12, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity do not teach wherein the body part is a hand and the NMES device comprises an NMES sleeve configured to be worn on an arm and/or hand. Robinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring movement, measured by sensors like EMG and videos, corresponding to electrical stimulation for muscle and knee extension (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the body part is a hand and the NMES device comprises an NMES sleeve configured to be worn on an arm and/or hand (Col. 11 lines 61-65 “The dynamometer may be communicatively coupled to a wearable stimulation array that is worn at the user's hand or forearm, and the measurements from the dynamometer and sensors at the array may be used to adjust actuation instructions to assist the user in gripping objects.”) to adjust stimulation based on camera video (Col. 18 lines 10-27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns and Verity, with wherein the body part is a hand and the NMES device comprises an NMES sleeve configured to be worn on an arm and/or hand of Robinson, because such a modification would allow to adjust stimulation based on camera video.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (US 20160235323)(Hereinafter Tadi) in view of Brouns et al. (US 20220409904)(Hereinafter Brouns) and ‘398 et al. (KR102027398B1)(Hereinafter ‘398)(see attached machine translation regarding citations).
Regarding claim 4, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns do not teach the electronic processor is programmed to apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device with the ramping stimulation level implemented as a ramping of a scaling factor applied to the electrode group stimulation level for each subset of electrodes. ‘398, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrical stimulation device for training muscle rehabilitation using a worn device by measuring muscle contraction (Abstract), and further teaches wherein:
the stimulation pattern is defined as one or more subsets of electrodes of the NMES device and an electrode group stimulation level for each respective subset of electrodes (See Fig. 7 and 8 where each row is its own subset of electrodes with their own stimulation intensity level.), and
the electronic processor is programmed to apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device with the ramping stimulation level implemented as a ramping of a scaling factor applied to the electrode group stimulation level for each subset of electrodes (Fig. 8a-c show the changes in intensity (701-1, 701-2, and 701-3 have different intensity values, see page 8 lines 30-35) for the subsets by ramping up or down the intensity based on the selected stimulus module. Examiner interprets the phrase “scaling factor” as a numerical value. In the instant case, the increase and decrease in intensity values for the subset of electrodes are ramped up or down based on the alternation between the first, second, and third stimulus module.) to rehabilitate muscles using a predefined stimulation pattern (Pages 8-9 lines 1-36 and lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns, with the electronic processor is programmed to apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device with the ramping stimulation level implemented as a ramping of a scaling factor applied to the electrode group stimulation level for each subset of electrodes of ‘398, because such a modification would allow to rehabilitate muscles using a predefined stimulation pattern.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadi et al. (US 20160235323)(Hereinafter Tadi) in view of Brouns et al. (US 20220409904)(Hereinafter Brouns) and Robison et al. (US 11931571)(Hereinafter Robison).
Regarding claim 6, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns do not teach wherein the at least one sensor further comprises the electronic processor further programmed to process the video of the body part acquired by the video camera to determine whether the body part has performed the intended action. Robinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring movement, measured by sensors like EMG and videos, corresponding to electrical stimulation for muscle and knee extension (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the at least one sensor further comprises the electronic processor further programmed to process the video of the body part acquired by the video camera to determine whether the body part has performed the intended action (Col. 18 lines 28-40 “The actuation coordination module 224 may process image or video data captured by a remote sensor (e.g., a camera communicatively coupled to the wearable stimulation array 200). For example, a user installs cameras throughout their home (e.g., as part of an assisted living or a remote care environment), where the cameras capture the user walking and transmit the captured images to the wearable stimulation array 200. The module 224 may perform image processing or apply machine learning on the captured data to recognize the position of the user's legs over time and determine a likely, upcoming movement in the user's gait cycle. The module 224 may identify each movement in a gait cycle.”) to adjust stimulation based on camera video (Col. 18 lines 10-27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns, with wherein the at least one sensor further comprises the electronic processor further programmed to process the video of the body part acquired by the video camera to determine whether the body part has performed the intended action of Robinson, because such a modification would allow to adjust stimulation based on camera video.
Regarding claim 7, Tadi in view of Brouns teaches the invention of claim 1. Tadi in view of Brouns do not teach wherein the electronic processor is programmed to apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device in response to the detection of the trigger from a video camera. Robinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring movement, measured by sensors like EMG and videos, corresponding to electrical stimulation for muscle and knee extension (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the electronic processor is further programmed to:
detect a trigger to perform the intended action based on the video of the body part acquired by the video camera;
wherein the electronic processor is programmed to apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device in response to the detection of the trigger (Col. 6 lines 19-35 “The wearable stimulation arrays 110a-c applies electrical stimulation or other types of actuation to increase the mobility of its users. The wearable stimulation arrays 110a-c monitor a user's movement to determine current movement [trigger] (e.g., using IMUs or pressure sensors) or intended movement (e.g., using EMG sensors), and applies actuation based on the monitored movement. … For example, the wearable stimulation array 110a is communicatively coupled to the sensor 111, which may be a camera configured to capture image data of the user's movement [trigger] for determining an appropriate actuation instruction.”) to adjust stimulation based on camera video (Col. 18 lines 10-27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Tadi in view of Brouns, with wherein the electronic processor is programmed to apply the stimulation pattern to the body part using the NMES device in response to the detection of the trigger from a video camera of Robinson, because such a modification would allow to adjust stimulation based on camera video.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights