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. Priority This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior A pplication N o . 17111833 , filed 4 December 2020 , and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division al . Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. Per the Office mailing of 26 September 2022, Applicant was notified of an Improper Benefit Claim to Prior-Filed Provisional Application(s). The ADS filed 7 September 2022 lists 17111833 as a Divisional of 62943660, which is incorrect as 17111833 is not a Divisional of provisional 62943660 ; rather 17111833 would claim benefit of provisional 62943660. A corrected ADS should be filed complying with the indications made in the filing from the Office on 26 September 2022. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “35”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more pairs of cross rails”; “one or more sled s ,” “a pair of sled rails;” and “a bracket” of a chair (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, “one or more actuators” and “treatment module” (claims 1 and 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, “t he lower surface of the chair is recessed, and the magnetic nerve/muscle stimulator is located within the recessed area ” (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, “an optical scanner or pressure pad” and “sensor module” (claims 4 and 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, the “one or more pairs of cross rails”; “one or more sleds,” “a pair of sled rails;” and “a bracket” of a chair (claim 7 ) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 “ When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter) ” (see 37 CFR 1.74) . The D etailed D escription of the specification filed 7 September 2022 does not refer to the number of figures 1-6, 8-15 and 19-25; only figures 7 and 16-18 . Claim Objections Claims 1 , 5 , 7 , 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: at lines 17-18 of claim 1, “generates and directs” should apparently read –is configured to generate and direct--; at line 3 of claim s 5 and 12 , “patters” should apparently read –patterns-- ; at line 37 of claim 7, “at a frequency” should apparently read –at a frequency;-- ; at line 2 of claim 9, “the electrical coils” should apparently read –the one or more electrical coils--; at line 2 of claim 9, “the cord cradle” should apparently read –the one or more cord cradles-- . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-13 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 1 at line 6 recites “the arm supports”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite multiple arm supports or not as line 6 previously recites “ one or more arm supports”. A possible suggestion for “the arm supports” is –the one or more arm supports--. An appropriate amendment should also be made at lines 10-11 and 19 for “the…arm supports”. Claim 1 at line 8 recites “the leg supports”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite multiple leg supports or not as line 8 previously recites “ one or more leg supports”. A possible suggestion for “the leg supports” is –the one or more leg supports--. An appropriate amendment should also be made at lines 10-11 and 19 for “the…leg supports”. Claim 1 at line 18 recites the limitation "the anatomy of a patient". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 at line 21 recites “the actuators”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite multiple actuators or not as line 20 recites “ one or more actuators”. A possible suggestion for “the actuators” is –the one or more arm actuators--. An appropriate amendment should also be made at line 27 for “the…actuators”. Claim 1 at line 21 recites the limitation "the x-axis and y-axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 at line 24 recites the limitation "the power supplied". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 at line 33 recites the limitation "the chair elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. At lines 32-33 of claim 1, it is unclear what recited element/component is performing the “directing each bracket” and the “supplying each coil with an amount of power”. At line 2 of claim 2, it is unclear if “programs” is the same as or different than “one or more treatment programs” recited at line 32 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. At line 2 of claim 2, it is unclear if “program ming instructions ” is the same as or different than “ programming instructions ” recited at line 3 1 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Claim 2 at lines 2-3 recites the limitation "each individual patient". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 3 at lines 2-3 recites the limitation "the recessed area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 at lines 5-6 recites the limitations "the location” and “the patient’s torso, head, arms and legs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 4 at line 9 recites the limitation "the one or more magnetic nerve/muscle stimulators". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. At lines 9-10 of claim 4, it is unclear if “one or more treatment programs” is the same as or different than “one or more treatment programs” recited at line 32 of claim 1. At line 2 of claim 5, it is unclear if “treatment programs” is the same as or different than “one or more treatment programs” recited at line 32 of claim 1. At line 2 of claim 5 , it is unclear if “multiple magnetic nerve/muscle stimulators” includes “a magnetic nerve/muscle stimulator ” recited in claim 1 or is in addition to such. At line 2 of claim 6, it is unclear if “apparatuses” references “An apparatus” as recited at line 1 of claim 1 or is a different set of “apparatuses”. At line 2 of claim 6, it is unclear if “a single CPU/processing computer” is the same as or different than “a CPU/processing computer” recited at line 26 of claim 1. Claim 7 at line 8-9 recites “the arm supports”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite multiple arm supports or not as line 8 previously recites “ one or more arm supports”. A possible suggestion for “the arm supports” is –the one or more arm supports--. An appropriate amendment should also be made at line 21 and line 46 for “the…arm supports”. Claim 7 at line 10-11 recites “the leg supports”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite multiple leg supports or not as line 10 previously recites “one or more leg supports”. A possible suggestion for “the leg supports” is –the one or more leg supports--. An appropriate amendment should also be made at lines 21-22 and line 46 for “the…leg supports”. Claim 7 at line 13 recites the limitation "the platform". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 at line 19 recites “the magnetic nerve/muscle stimulator”. It is unclear in light of this recitation if “a magnetic nerve/muscle stimulator mounted to each bracket ” at line 17 is intended to imply more than one magnetic nerve/muscle stimulator being recited (one for each bracket) or just one magnetic nerve/muscle stimulator, and it is mounted to each/all bracket(s). Claim 7 at line 20 recites the limitation "the anatomy of a patient". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 at line 2 4 recites “the actuators”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite multiple actuators or not as line 2 3 recites “one or more actuators”. A possible suggestion for “the actuators” is –the one or more arm actuators--. An appropriate amendment should also be made at line 30 for “the…actuators”. Claim 7 at line 2 4 recites the limitation "the x-axis and y-axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 at line 2 7 recites the limitation "the power supplied". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 at line 3 6 recites the limitation "the chair elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. At lines 35-36 of claim 7 , it is unclear what recited element/component is performing the “directing each bracket” and the “supplying each coil with an amount of power”. Claim 7 at line 38 recites the limitation "the upper surface of the platform". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. At lines 41-42 of claim 7, it is unclear if “one or more treatment programs” is the same as or different than “one or more treatment programs” recited at line 35. Claim 7 at line 49 recites the limitation "the patient’s treatment ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In step “g.” of claim 7, it is unclear when the patient’s treatment would be considered to be complete. At line 2 of claim 8, it is unclear if “programs” is the same as or different than “one or more treatment programs” recited at line 35 of claim 7, from which claim 8 depends. At line 2 of claim 8, it is unclear if “programming instructions” is the same as or different than “programming instructions” recited at line 34 of claim 7, from which claim 8 depends. Claim 8 at line 2 recites the limitation "each individual patient". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 9 recites that the method further includes “one or more cord cradles”. It is unclear how a method itself would include a cord cradle. Claim 10 at line 2 recites the limitation "the recessed area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 at lines 5-6 recites the limitations "the location” and “the patient’s torso, head, arms and legs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 11 at line 9 recites the limitation "the one or more magnetic nerve/muscle stimulators". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. At lines 9-10 of claim 9, it is unclear if “one or more treatment programs” is the same as or different than “one or more treatment programs” recited at line 35 of claim 7. At lines 1-2 of claim 12, it is unclear if “treatment programs” is the same as or different than “one or more treatment programs” recited at line 35 of claim 7. At line 2 of claim 12 , it is unclear if “multiple magnetic nerve/muscle stimulators” includes “a magnetic nerve/muscle stimulator ” recited in claim 7 or is in addition to such. At line 1 of claim 13, it is unclear if “two or more apparatuses” includes/references “an apparatus” recited at line 3 of claim 7 or is a different set of “apparatuses”. At line 2 of claim 13, it is unclear if “a single CPU/processing computer” is the same as or different than “a CPU/processing computer” recited at line 29 of claim 7. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-1 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0170188; U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0262287; U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0339059; U.S. Patent No. 6,280,376; U.S. Patent No. 10,398,906 and U.S. Patent No. 10,245,439 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9058 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4730 . 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. /CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791