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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's amendments and arguments/remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections presented herein. Specifically, the examiner has provided the Johanek and Jiang references to teach the limitations presented in the newly amended claims.
Response to Amendment
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 25 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: See Restriction Requirement dated 07/10/2025, it appears claim 25 is directed to Invention III which was non-elected without traverse in the reply filed 09/10/2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 25 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remes et al. (US Patent No. 6264582) in view of Blurton (US 2016/0249848) and Johanek et al. (US 2016/0121124) and Jiang et al. (US 2016/0045746).
Regarding claim 6, Remes teaches a system for pelvic floor feedback (Abstract), the system comprising:
a memory storing computer-readable instructions (Column 2, Lines 62-65); and
a processor, the processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions, which when executed cause the processor to: (Column 2, Lines 62-65)
capture a strength of action potentials via a plurality of sensors, the plurality of sensors positioned proximate to a pelvic floor of a user (Column 2, Line 66-Column 3, Line 12);
Remes is silent on the wireless sensors and transmit the strength of the action potentials to a mobile device; and recording the strength of the action potentials on the mobile device.
Blurton teaches capturing a strength of action potentials via a plurality of wireless sensors (Paragraph 0026), the plurality of wireless sensors positioned proximate to a pelvic floor of a user (Paragraphs 0025-0026);
transmit and record action potentials on a mobile device (Paragraph 0048);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Blurton it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Remes with the wireless sensors of Blurton and further because transmitting the data to a remote device allows for later analysis yielding predictable results.
Remes is silent on determining which pair of wireless sensor captured a highest strength of action potentials.
Johanek teaches determine which pair of wireless sensors of the plurality of wireless sensors captured a highest strength of the action potentials (Paragraphs 0079 and 0102; detecting all action potentials with all electrodes would inherently also mean detecting the pair of electrodes that capture a highest strength of action potentials; Examiner notes specifically the use of Blurton above for the wireless sensors); and
transmit a command to at least the pair of wireless sensors that captured the highest strength of the action potentials to cause the at least the pair of wireless sensors that captured the highest strength of the action potentials to stimulate the pelvic floor (Paragraphs 0079 and 0102; sense electrodes are the same as the stimulating ones thus this would always occur after adjustment of the pulses after sensing action potentials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Johanek because Johanek teaches these features as being a design choice (Paragraphs 0079 and 0102 of Johanek) such that one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the desired configuration through routine experimentation with expectation of predictable results.
Jiang teaches determine which pair of wireless sensors of the plurality of wireless sensors captured a highest strength of the action potentials (Paragraphs 0011 and 0062-0065 and 0103; Table 1; Figures 1, 8B, 9A, 9E, and 9F; by displaying the response values for each electrode on the display this would inherently determine which pair of electrodes captured the highest strength of action potentials; Examiner notes specifically the use of Blurton above for the wireless sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Jiang because it would aid in receiving feedback of the stimulation and fine tuning stimulation parameters (Paragraph 0011 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 7, Remes teaches wherein the memory further stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed cause the processor to capture controlled contractions and relaxations of a target muscle group of the pelvic floor of the user (Column 3, Lines 36-51).
Regarding claim 9, Remes teaches wherein the memory further stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed cause the processor to compare the controlled contractions and relaxations of the target muscle group with a previous performance of the user (Column 3, Lines 36-51).
Regarding claim 23, Remes is silent on wherein the memory further stores computer- readable instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to transmit the command to each of the plurality of wireless sensors to cause each of the plurality of wireless sensors to stimulate the pelvic floor. Johanek and Blurton teaches wherein the memory further stores computer- readable instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to transmit the command to each of the plurality of wireless sensors to cause each of the plurality of wireless sensors to stimulate the pelvic floor (Paragraphs 0079 and 0102 of Johanek for stimulating with each of the sensors and Paragraphs 0025-0026 of Blurton for the wireless sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Blurton it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Remes with the wireless sensors of Blurton.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Johanek because Johanek teaches these features as being a design choice (Paragraphs 0079 and 0102 of Johanek) such that one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the desired configuration through routine experimentation with expectation of predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Remes is silent on displaying the strength of action potentials on the mobile device. Jiang teaches wherein the memory further stores computer- readable instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to display the strength of the action potentials on the mobile device (Paragraphs 0011 and 0062-0065 and 0103; Table 1; Figures 1, 8B, 9A, 9E, and 9F). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Jiang because it would aid in receiving feedback of the stimulation and fine tuning stimulation parameters (Paragraph 0011 of Jiang).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remes et al. (US Patent No. 6264582) in view of Blurton (US 2016/0249848) and Johanek et al. (US 2016/0121124) Jiang et al. (US 2016/0045746) and in further view of Schneider (US 2016/0066836).
Regarding claim 8, Remes and Schneider teach wherein the memory further stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed cause the processor to compare the controlled contractions and relaxations of the target muscle group with performance of other users (Column 3, Lines 13-51 of Remes and Paragraph 0045 of Schneider). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Schneider because Schneider teaches being able to scale the system to involve multiple users as being understood by those of ordinary skill in the art thus such a modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Remes is silent on the online gaming environment. Schneider teaches wherein the memory further stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed cause the processor to create an online gaming environment via a remote server where a user may compete against other users interacting via other mobile devices connected to the remote server (Paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Schneider because Schneider teaches being able to scale the system to involve multiple users as being understood by those of ordinary skill in the art thus such a modification would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remes et al. (US Patent No. 6264582) in view of Blurton (US 2016/0249848) and Johanek et al. (US 2016/0121124) Jiang et al. (US 2016/0045746) and in further view of Kent et al. (US 2016/0339251).
Regarding claim 26, Remes is silent on the sensor’s series arrangement. Kent and Blurton teaches wherein each of the pairs of the wireless sensors of the plurality of wireless sensors is arranged in series with one another (Paragraphs 0027 and 0026 of Kent for the series arrangement and Paragraphs 0025-0026 of Blurton for the wireless sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Blurton it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Remes with the wireless sensors of Blurton. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Remes with Kent since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.04 VI. (C)
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 PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights