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
The present Office action is responsive to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 12-12-2025. As directed, claims 1-8, and 10-20 have been amended, claim 9 has been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-8 and 10-20 are currently pending examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended each of claims 1-8 and 10-20 to address minor informalities within these claims. The previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed pages 7-10, that the previous 103 rejections of record employing Pamukoff in view of Yu for claims 1 and 20, and Pamukoff in view of Yu in further view of Marton, fail to render obvious the newly amended claims 1 and 20 because Pamukoff, Yu, and Marton fails to disclose and/or teach “wherein the controller user interface comprises a graphical user interface including a first graphical tool for selecting one a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of the oscillation of the oscillator and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation”. Applicant further argues that, in particular, Marton does not indicate the presence of each of a first graphical tool for controlling frequency and a second graphical tool for controlling force/acceleration, because Marton’s Figure 17 only shows graphical tools for vibration wave shape, pulse, and constant. Neither of Pamukoff or Yu were relied on for the graphical user interface portions of the instant claims.
Applicant’s argument are rendered moot in view of new reliance, as necessitated by amendment, on Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184) which teaches a controller user interface (610B) with a graphical user interface (720) for controlling the device (600) which includes a first graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of oscillation and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation (paragraph 42, lines 1-11; paragraph 48, lines 1-23, see in particular the variables ZV and fV, which are respectively defined as amplitude and frequency at paragraph 36, lines 3-6; further, note paragraph 35, lines 13-18 and Fig. 4A, where the amplitude is defined as a force in the Z-axis, where force and acceleration are related through Newton’s second law; at paragraph 48, lines 9-20, note the use of vibration intensity selection button 730, and each of the up and down arrows 755 for setting frequency and amplitude, where at least the respective up and down arrows read on the first and second graphical tools; Fig. 7). Thus, in view of Pisharodi, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. The grounds of rejection will be updated to address the newly amended language below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 15, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 15, it is suggested that iterations of “the oscillator” be replaced with “the electromagnetic oscillator” for consistency with claim 1, line 4.
At claim 1, line 14, it is suggested that “of” be added following “selecting one” for clarity.
At claim 10, line 1 , it is suggested that a comma be added following “claim 1”.
At claim 18, line 1, it is suggested that “controller” be deleted for consistency with claim 16, lines 1-2.
At claim 20, line 14, it is suggested that “of” be added following “selecting one” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
As such, the “means for securing” in claim 1 is being interpreted relative to claim 8 and the instant specification to refer to a strap, and the “means for securing” in claim 17 is being interpreted relative to the instant specification at Figure 1A to include a strap.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamukoff et al. “The acute effects of local muscle vibration frequency on peak torque, rate of torque development, and EMG activity” as cited on the IDS submitted on 09-23-2022 and hereinafter referred to as Pamukoff, in view of Yu (US 10,589,116) and Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184).
Regarding claim 1, Pamukoff discloses a wearable local muscle vibratory stimulator (page 889, section 2.5; Fig. 1 and its appended description, noting the LMV device worn on the subject in the bottom right image) comprising:
a frame including a concave surface for conforming to a treatment surface of a subject (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame. The under surface of the frame was curved to accommodate the shape of the anterior thigh”);
an electromagnetic oscillator located in the frame for applying vibratory stimulus to a treatment region of the subject located beneath the treatment surface (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame”, page 889, section 2.5 further outlines treatment of the muscles and tendons underneath the skin of the applied region);
an accelerometer coupled to the oscillator for measuring frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame” and “the acceleration was constrained to 2g via feedback provided to the controller from an accelerometer”);
a controller coupled to the oscillator and the accelerometer for receiving measurements of frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator from the accelerometer and controlling the frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator to minimize a difference between the desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator and the frequency and acceleration of oscillation measured by the accelerometer (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame” and “the acceleration was constrained to 2g via feedback provided to the controller from an accelerometer”); and
means for securing the frame to the subject so that the oscillator is wearable (see Fig. 1, where the LMV is mounted to the subject’s knee via a series of straps).
Pamukoff fails to explicitly disclose:
a waveform generator coupled to the oscillator for generating an electrical signal that causes the electromagnetic oscillator to oscillate; and
a controller user interface for receiving user input regarding a desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator, wherein the controller user interface comprises a graphical user interface including a first graphical tool for selecting one a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of the oscillation of the oscillator and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation.
However, Yu teaches a wearable pain management system (10) (Col. 4, lines 24-25; Fig. 1) which includes an electromagnetic oscillator (95) and a waveform generator (91) coupled to the oscillator (95) for generating an electrical signal that causes the electromagnetic oscillator (95) to oscillate by sending a particular commanded waveform in order to improve intercellular fluid and blood flow, stimulate electron transport, and stimulate the release of endorphins to mask pain (Col. 4, lines 63-66; Col. 5, lines 1-4; Fig. 5); and
a controller user interface for receiving user input regarding a desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator (Col. 5, lines 36-41, where the external device, i.e, smart phone, is the controller user interface).
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 electromagnetic oscillator of Pamukoff to have included a waveform generator in communication with the electromagnetic oscillator in order to direct and command particular oscillatory waveforms to the oscillator as desired, as taught by Yu, in order to achieve various health outcomes such as improvement of intercellular fluid and blood flow, stimulation of electron transport, and stimulation of the release of endorphins to mask pain, and as a known method of producing oscillation of the oscillator.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LMV device of Pamukoff to include a controller user interface for receiving user input regarding a desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator, as further taught by Yu, in order to enable a user to control the operation of the waveform generator, and thus the oscillator.
The device of now modified Pamukoff fails to disclose wherein the controller user interface comprises a graphical user interface including a first graphical tool for selecting one a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of the oscillation of the oscillator and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation.
However, Pisharodi teaches a controller user interface (610B) with a graphical user interface (720) for controlling the device (600) which includes a first graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of oscillation and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation (paragraph 42, lines 1-11; paragraph 48, lines 1-23, see in particular the variables ZV and fV, which are respectively defined as amplitude and frequency at paragraph 36, lines 3-6; further, note paragraph 35, lines 13-18 and Fig. 4A, where the amplitude is defined as a force in the Z-axis, where force and acceleration are related through Newton’s second law; at paragraph 48, lines 9-20, note the use of vibration intensity selection button 730, and each of the up and down arrows 755 for setting frequency and amplitude, where at least the respective up and down arrows read on the first and second graphical tools; Fig. 7).
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 controller user interface of modified Pamukoff to further include a graphical user interface including a first graphical tool for selecting one a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of the oscillation of the oscillator and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation, as taught by Pisharodi, in order to visually ascertain the settings of the device, and allow the user to manipulate the frequency and force values for the actuator.
Regarding claim 5, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pamukoff further discloses wherein the oscillator comprises a single-axis oscillator for applying vibratory stimulus to the treatment surface along a single axis (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame” and note LMV stands for “local muscle vibration”).
Regarding claim 8, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pamukoff further discloses wherein the means for holding includes at least one strap (see Fig. 1, where the LMV is mounted to the subject’s knee via a series of straps).
Pamukoff does not explicitly disclose or illustrate that the frame includes strap guides located at opposite ends of the concave surface.
However, Yu further teaches strap guides (see Fig. 1, where bottom surface 22 includes vertically oriented guides into which the belt body 45 is inserted) on opposite ends of a frame (20) (Fig. 1).
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 frame of Pamukoff to includes strap guides on opposite ends of the bottom concave surface, as further taught by Yu, in order to secure the straps to the frame and facilitate attachment of the frame to the user’s body.
Regarding claim 10, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 9, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the graphical user interface is displayable on a mobile device (Yu: Col. 5, lines 34-41 and Pisharodi: paragraph 47, lines 1-8) and wherein the stimulator (Pamukoff: electromagnetic stimulator) further comprises a user control communication interface (Yu: 90) for receiving control input from the user via the graphical user interface and for communicating the control input to the controller (Pamukoff: controller) (Yu: Col. 5, lines 36-41, and note the use of Bluetooth in Pisharodi’s paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 11, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 10, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the user control communication interface (Yu: 90) comprises a wireless communication interface (Yu: Col. 5, lines 36-41, see “wireless”; see also “Bluetooth” in Pisharodi’s paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 15, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses an amplifier coupled to the waveform generator, the controller, and the oscillator for controlling the acceleration of oscillations of the oscillator (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “The device was coupled with an amplifier causing it to vibrate in the anterior-posterior direction”, and given that the modified device includes the oscillator and controller of Pamukoff and the waveform generator of Yu, and Pamukoff describes that the amplifier is coupled to the overall device, Examiner interprets the amplifier to be in communication with each of the elements of the device by virtue of its described coupling with the device, and its described function of causing the vibration).
Regarding claim 20, Pamukoff discloses a method for applying vibratory stimulus to a subject during physical rehabilitation or exercise (page 889, section 2.5; Fig. 1 and its appended description, noting the LMV device worn on the subject in the bottom right image, and that the subject is instructed to squat, where a squat is an exercise), the method comprising:
attaching a wearable local muscle vibratory stimulator to the subject (page 889, section 2.5; Fig. 1 and its appended description, noting the LMV device worn on the subject in the bottom right image), the wearable vibratory stimulator including an oscillator for oscillating with a frequency and acceleration to deliver vibratory stimulus to a treatment region of the subject (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame”, page 889, section 2.5 further outlines treatment of the muscles and tendons underneath the skin of the applied region);
while the subject is performing physical rehabilitation or exercise wearing the vibratory stimulator, causing the oscillator to oscillate and deliver vibratory stimulus to a treatment region of the subject;
measuring, using an accelerometer, the frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame” and “the acceleration was constrained to 2g via feedback provided to the controller from an accelerometer”);
controlling, using a controller, the frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator to minimize a difference between the desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator and the frequency and acceleration of oscillation measured by the accelerometer (Fig. 1, and its appended description, which notes “the LMV stimulator consisted of a single-axis electromagnetic oscillator mounted on a plastic frame” and “the acceleration was constrained to 2g via feedback provided to the controller from an accelerometer”).
Pamukoff fails to explicitly disclose:
receiving, from a controller user interface, user input regarding a desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator, wherein the controller user interface comprises a graphical user interface including a first graphical tool for selecting one a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of the oscillation of the oscillator and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation.
However, Yu teaches a wearable pain management system (10) (Col. 4, lines 24-25; Fig. 1) which includes an electromagnetic oscillator (95) and a waveform generator (91) coupled to the oscillator (95) for generating an electrical signal that causes the electromagnetic oscillator (95) to oscillate by sending a particular commanded waveform in order to improve intercellular fluid and blood flow, stimulate electron transport, and stimulate the release of endorphins to mask pain (Col. 4, lines 63-66; Col. 5, lines 1-4; Fig. 5), wherein a controller user interface for receiving user input regarding a desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator is used to issue control commands to the oscillator (95) (Col. 5, lines 36-41, where the external device, i.e, smart phone, is the controller user interface).
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 and method of Pamukoff to include a controller user interface for receiving user input regarding a desired frequency and acceleration of oscillation of the oscillator, as taught by Yu, in order to enable a user to control the operation of the waveform generator, and thus the oscillator.
The device and method of now modified Pamukoff fails to disclose wherein the controller user interface comprises a graphical user interface including a first graphical tool for selecting one a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of the oscillation of the oscillator and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation.
However, Pisharodi teaches a controller user interface (610B) with a graphical user interface (720) for controlling the device (600) which includes a first graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of oscillation and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation (paragraph 42, lines 1-11; paragraph 48, lines 1-23, see in particular the variables ZV and fV, which are respectively defined as amplitude and frequency at paragraph 36, lines 3-6; further, note paragraph 35, lines 13-18 and Fig. 4A, where the amplitude is defined as a force in the Z-axis, where force and acceleration are related through Newton’s second law; at paragraph 48, lines 9-20, note the use of vibration intensity selection button 730, and each of the up and down arrows 755 for setting frequency and amplitude, where at least the respective up and down arrows read on the first and second graphical tools; Fig. 7).
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 controller user interface of modified Pamukoff to further include a graphical user interface including a first graphical tool for selecting one a plurality of different frequencies for controlling the frequency of the oscillation of the oscillator and a second graphical tool for selecting one of a plurality of different force values for controlling the acceleration of the oscillation, as taught by Pisharodi, in order to visually ascertain the settings of the device, and allow the user to manipulate the frequency and force values for the actuator.
Claims 2, 6-7, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamukoff in view of Yu (US 10,589,116) and Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Rahman (US 2018/0085283).
Regarding claim 2, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff fails to explicitly disclose wherein the frame includes an oscillator holder and an accelerometer holder.
However, Rahman teaches a sensory output device (10) (paragraph 14, lines 1-8; Fig. 1) which includes a frame (comprisal of 110A and 110B) wherein the frame (comprisal of 110A and 110B) includes an oscillator holder (see the opening in substrate 170 for output device 120) and a sensor holder (170), as a method of arranging the internal device components (paragraph 16, lines 1-10; paragraph 32, lines 1-10; Fig. 1, where 120 is seated in the opening in 170, and sensor 140 is held on substrate 170 within the housing 110; paragraph 34, lines 1-8).
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 frame of Pamukoff to include an oscillator holder and an accelerometer (i.e. a sensor) holder, arranged in the manner as taught by Rahman, as a known arrangement of protectively housing the internal device components in a sensory output device.
Regarding claim 6, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Rahman disclose the stimulator of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the accelerometer (see Fig. 1’s appended description in Pamukoff for the accelerometer, and position of sensor 140 in Rahman, taken as analogous to the accelerometer for purposes of modification) is located on an outer edge of the oscillator holder (Rahman: opening in 170) (see Rahman at Fig. 1, where 140 is at the edge of the opening of the aperture for the analogous oscillator 120).
Regarding claim 7, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Rahman disclose the stimulator of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the accelerometer (see Fig. 1’s appended description in Pamukoff for the accelerometer, and position of sensor 140 in Rahman, taken as analogous to the accelerometer for purposes of modification) is located at or near a center of the oscillator holder (Rahman: opening in 170) adjacent to a center of the oscillator (see Fig. 1’s appended description in Pamukoff for the electromagnetic oscillator) (Rahman: opening in 170) (see Rahman at Fig. 1, where taking an axis that cuts through the center of 140, sensor 140 is at a center of the opening of the aperture for the analogous oscillator 120, and thus at a center of the analogous oscillator 120).
Regarding claim 16, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff fails to disclose a controller printed circuit board, wherein the controller and the waveform generator are located on the printed circuit board.
However, Rahman teaches a controller printed circuit board (170) (paragraph 32, lines 1-11; Fig. 1), wherein all of the electronic components, including the controller (130), sensors (140) communication modules (150), and the power module (160) are located on the printed circuit board in order to facilitate electrical communication and conduction between components thereon (paragraph 32, lines 1-11; note paragraph 33 indicates that additional components can be placed on 170, and note that paragraph 24 describes that 130 an be a controller).
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 modified Pamukoff to have provided a controller printed circuit board onto which all of the electronic components were situated, as taught by Rahman, as a known method of electrically connecting the electronic components within a treatment device.
Regarding claim 18, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Rahman disclose the stimulator of claim 16, as discussed above.
Presently modified Pamukoff fails to disclose wherein the controller printed circuit board is attached to or integrated within the frame.
However, Rahman further teaches wherein the controller printed circuit board (170) is attached to or integrated within the frame (110) (paragraph 35, lines 1-2).
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 controller printed circuit board of modified Pamukoff to have integrated the controller printed circuit board with the frame, as taught by Rahman, as a known method of constructing a treatment device.
Regarding claim 19, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Rahman disclose the stimulator of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the accelerometer holder (Rahman: 170) includes a central aperture for allowing passage of a connector for connecting to the accelerometer (Rahman: Fig. 1, note the opening where the oscillator will be fit in 170, and given that the aperture is described as functionally allowing passage of a connector, the limitation is deemed to be met since the aperture could reasonably function to pass a connector to the accelerometer therethrough; further note that paragraph 34, lines 1-8 indicate an electrical connection between 120 and 170).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamukoff in view of Yu (US 10,589,116), Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184), and Rahman (US 2018/0085283), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Ehrenreich (US 2013/0102937).
Regarding claim 3, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Rahman disclose the stimulator of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the oscillator holder (Rahman: see aperture in 170 for oscillator 120) includes a central recess for holding the oscillator (Rahman: see Fig. 1 where 170 includes a central aperture for the analogous oscillator 120).
Modified Pamukoff fails to disclose wherein the oscillator comprises a speaker.
However, Ehrenreich teaches an oscillator configured as a speaker to vibrate the treatment device (paragraph 167, lines 1-9, and note that the frequencies described in paragraph 168 all fall within the EM spectrum).
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 substituted the electromagnetic oscillator of Pamukoff for the speaker taught by Ehrenreich, while still yielding the predictable result of delivering a vibratory stimulus (see MPEP 2143.I, exemplary rationale B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamukoff in view of Yu (US 10,589,116), Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184), and Rahman (US 2018/0085283), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Ehrenreich (US 2013/0102937) and Hutcheon (US 2013/0012850).
Regarding claim 4, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Rahman disclose the stimulator of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the oscillator holder (Rahman: see aperture in 170 for oscillator 120) includes a central aperture for holding the oscillator (Rahman: see Fig. 1 where 170 includes a central aperture for the analogous oscillator 120).
Modified Pamukoff fails to disclose wherein the oscillator comprises a speaker, and fails to explicitly disclose that the apertures in the housing and on the holder allow for direct contact with the treatment region, given that Rahman uses a layer of material (300) to cover the holder and oscillator.
However, Ehrenreich teaches an oscillator configured as a speaker to vibrate the treatment device (paragraph 167, lines 1-9, and note that the frequencies described in paragraph 168 all fall within the EM spectrum).
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 substituted the electromagnetic oscillator of Pamukoff for the speaker taught by Ehrenreich, while still yielding the predictable result of delivering a vibratory stimulus (see MPEP 2143.I, exemplary rationale B).
Modified Pamukoff still fails to disclose that the apertures in the housing and on the holder allow for direct contact with the treatment region, given that Rahman uses a layer of material (300) to cover the holder and oscillator.
However, Hutcheon teaches that it is advantageous for an oscillator (see vibration motor and vibration nozzle in Fig. 2) to directly contact the treatment region, and shows its oscillator projecting from an aperture in the holder and housing for achieving direct contact with the treatment region (paragraph 31, lines 1-7; Fig. 1).
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 housing of modified Pamukoff to allow the central aperture in the oscillator holder to align with an aperture in the device housing and allow the oscillator to extend therefrom, so that the oscillator was able to directly contact the treatment region, as taught by Hutcheon, in order to directly apply vibratory stimulus to the affected region.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamukoff in view of Yu (US 10,589,116) and Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Baxter (US 2018/0369064).
Regarding claim 12, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses a control communication interface (Yu: 90) for communicating control signals from the controller (Yu: 92) to the waveform generator (Yu: 91) (Yu: Col. 5, lines 36-41).
Modified Pamukoff fails to explicitly disclose a measurement communication interface for communicating the measurements from the accelerometer to the controller.
However, Baxter teaches a controller (1100) including a measurement communication interface (1116) to allow for communication between the controller (1100) and certain sensors (paragraph 135, lines 1-8, see “transceivers, sensors”).
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 controller of modified Pamukoff to include a measurement communication interface, as taught by Baxter, in order to allow for communication between the controller and the accelerometer (i.e. a sensor) to control the device based on accelerometer feedback, as already contemplated by Pamukoff.
Regarding claim 13, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Baxter disclose the stimulator of claim 12, as discussed above.
Presently modified Pamukoff fails to disclose wherein the control communication interface and the measurement communication interface comprise a single connector.
However, Baxter further discloses that the communication connection (1116) is capable of facilitating communication between the controller (1100) and a sensor (paragraph 135, lines 1-7), as previously discussed, and Baxter further indicates that this single connector (i.e. the communication connection 1116) is further capable of additionally communicating with wireless devices (1122) (paragraph 135, lines 1-7).
Given that the control user interface of modified Pamukoff is a smart phone, and Yu contemplates the use of a wireless transceiver for the control communication interface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect4ive filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two separate interfaces of Yu and Baxter as presented in modified Pamukoff, with a single connector (i.e. 1116 of Baxter) capable of relaying commands from the control user interface (Yu’s smart phone, analogous to the wireless device 1122 of Baxter) and from the Pamukoff accelerometer to the controller, as taught by Baxter, in order to reduce the number of working components in the device, and reduce manufacture cost and complexity.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamukoff in view of Yu (US 10,589,116) and Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tomita (US 2021/0138240).
Regarding claim 12, Pamukoff in view of Yu and Pisharodi disclose the stimulator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses a control communication interface (Yu: 90) for communicating control signals from the controller (Yu: 92) to the waveform generator (Yu: 91) (Yu: Col. 5, lines 36-41).
Modified Pamukoff fails to explicitly disclose a measurement communication interface for communicating the measurements from the accelerometer to the controller.
However, Tomita teaches a measurement communication interface (wired or wireless connection between 102 and 103) for allowing communication between the controller (103) and certain sensors (102) (paragraph 160, lines 1-4, where paragraph 153, lines 1-4 assert that detection section 102 comprises sensors; Fig. 1).
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 controller of modified Pamukoff to include a measurement communication interface, as taught by Tomita, in order to allow for communication between the controller and the accelerometer (i.e. a sensor) to control the device based on accelerometer feedback, as already contemplated by Pamukoff.
Regarding claim 14, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Tomita disclose the stimulator of claim 12, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff further discloses wherein the control communication interface and the measurement communication interface comprise separate connectors (Yu: Col. 5, lines 36-41 separate transceiver for communicating with the smart phone, and Tomita: separate interface/connector at paragraph 160, lines 1-4, where paragraph 153, lines 1-4 assert that detection section 102 comprises sensors; Fig. 1, note the separate communication section 104 which communicates with external apparatus 4).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamukoff in view of Yu (US 10,589,116), Pisharodi (US 2017/0348184), and Rahman (US 2018/0085283), as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Talish (EP 1180057).
Regarding claim 17, Pamukoff in view of Yu, Pisharodi, and Rahman disclose the stimulator of claim 16, as discussed above.
Modified Pamukoff fails to disclose wherein the controller printed circuit board is separate from the frame and the stimulator further comprises a bag for holding the controller printed circuit board and means for securing the bag to the subject.
However, Talish teaches a stimulator (14) (paragraph 37, lines 1-4; Fig. 1) which includes a main operation unit (12) separate from the frame (22) and further comprising a bag (18) for holding the main operation unit (12) and means for securing the bag (18) to the subject (paragraph 37, lines 1-18 and Fig. 1, note the strap attached to 18 in the figure).
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 such that the printed circuit board of modified Pamukoff was provided as separate from the frame, with its own bag and means for securing the bag to the subject, as a known construction for separating the control and treatment elements of a stimulation device, and so that the separated printed circuit board were protected within the bag, and provided with means to easily carry the bag.
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 PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785