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 08-27-2026. As directed, claims 1, 7, and 16 have been amended, and claim 10 was previously canceled. Thus, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are currently pending examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims, thereby obviating an objection to the specification for lack of antecedent basis. The previously held specification objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended each of claims 7 and 16 to address minor informalities therein. The previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended each of claims 1 and 16 to address indefinite language. The previously held rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed pages 7-9, that neither of the relied upon Leismer disclosure include a sensor capable of determining an electrodermal or physiological response of a user which indicates the user’s fatigue level. Applicant additionally argues that none of Mason, Reiner, nor Focault remedy this deficiency.
However, given that each of claim 1 refers to reduction/adjustment of vibration force and motion (which could reasonably include vibration), Wang (CN 113855505) is relied on for its teaching of determining skin electrical data for assigning a corresponding fatigue grade, and thereby adjusting a massage intensity (see the abstract). Further, Cardinale (US 7,416,518) provides a system, that includes both motion of an actuator assembly and vibration for recovering muscles (see Col. 4, line 1-Col. 5, line 9) and will be relied on for sensor based motion control of the actuator assembly as outlined in the cited section.
Based on the new grounds of rejection, Applicant’s arguments are moot. The new grounds of rejection are provided hereinbelow to address the amended language of claims 1 and 16. Each dependent claim is addressed by either the combination of Leismer ‘273, Leismer ‘591 and Wang or Cardinale, or with additional reliance on Mason, Reiner, or Focault as 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.
Claims 4-9 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.
Regarding claim 4, line 2 recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor” which renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1, lines 10-14 seem to indicate that the at least one sensor is configured for measuring an electrodermal response of the user, as claim 1 sets forth that the at least one sensor is configured to measure a physiological response and be in communication with the controller, and the controller changes vibration force based on the user’s electrodermal response (i.e., a physiological response that must be measured). Because claim 4 limits the same “at least one sensor” it is therefore unclear how the recited “load sensor” in claim 4 would be capable of measuring both an electrodermal response and a load defined as an amount of axial resistance provided by the user. The specification indicates at paragraph 44, that separate sensors are used to indicate load, thermal properties, and transdermal properties, and thus the specification does not provide any further clarity on this issue.
For the purposes of examination, the load sensor of claim 4 will be interpreted as an additional sensor to the at least one sensor that is capable of measuring an electrodermal response in claim 1. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant amend claim 1 to clearly indicate that the electrodermal response is measured by the at least one sensor, and amend claim 4 to indicate that an additional load sensor is configured to measure the claimed axial resistance.
Regarding claim 5, line 2 recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor” which renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1, lines 10-14 seem to indicate that the at least one sensor is configured for measuring an electrodermal response of the user, as claim 1 sets forth that the at least one sensor is configured to measure a physiological response and be in communication with the controller, and the controller changes vibration force based on the user’s electrodermal response (i.e., a physiological response that must be measured). Because claim 5 limits the same “at least one sensor” it is therefore unclear how the recited “load sensor” in claim 5 would be capable of measuring both an electrodermal response and a load defined as an amount of axial resistance provided by the user. The specification indicates at paragraph 44, that separate sensors are used to indicate load, thermal properties, and transdermal properties, and thus the specification does not provide any further clarity on this issue.
For the purposes of examination, the load sensor of claim 5 will be interpreted as an additional sensor to the at least one sensor that is capable of measuring an electrodermal response in claim 1. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant amend claim 1 to clearly indicate that the electrodermal response is measured by the at least one sensor, and amend claim 5 to indicate that an additional load sensor is configured to measure the claimed axial resistance.
Regarding claim 6, line 2 recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor” which renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1, lines 10-14 seem to indicate that the at least one sensor is configured for measuring an electrodermal response of the user, as claim 1 sets forth that the at least one sensor is configured to measure a physiological response and be in communication with the controller, and the controller changes vibration force based on the user’s electrodermal response (i.e., a physiological response that must be measured). Because claim 6 limits the same “at least one sensor” it is therefore unclear how the recited “load sensor” in claim 6 would be capable of measuring both an electrodermal response and a load defined as an amount of axial resistance provided by the user. The specification indicates at paragraph 44, that separate sensors are used to indicate load, thermal properties, and transdermal properties, and thus the specification does not provide any further clarity on this issue.
For the purposes of examination, the load sensor of claim 6 will be interpreted as an additional sensor to the at least one sensor that is capable of measuring an electrodermal response in claim 1. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant amend claim 1 to clearly indicate that the electrodermal response is measured by the at least one sensor, and amend claim 6 to indicate that an additional load sensor is configured to measure the claimed axial resistance.
Regarding claim 7, line 2 recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor” which renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1, lines 10-14 seem to indicate that the at least one sensor is configured for measuring an electrodermal response of the user, as claim 1 sets forth that the at least one sensor is configured to measure a physiological response and be in communication with the controller, and the controller changes vibration force based on the user’s electrodermal response (i.e., a physiological response that must be measured). Because claim 7 limits the same “at least one sensor” it is therefore unclear how the recited “load sensor” in claim 7 would be capable of measuring both an electrodermal response and a load defined as an amount of axial resistance provided by the user. The specification indicates at paragraph 44, that separate sensors are used to indicate load, thermal properties, and transdermal properties, and thus the specification does not provide any further clarity on this issue.
For the purposes of examination, the load sensor of claim 7 will be interpreted as an additional sensor to the at least one sensor that is capable of measuring an electrodermal response in claim 1. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant amend claim 1 to clearly indicate that the electrodermal response is measured by the at least one sensor, and amend claim 7 to indicate that an additional load sensor is configured to measure the claimed axial resistance.
Regarding claim 8, line 2 recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a thermal sensor” which renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1, lines 10-14 seem to indicate that the at least one sensor is configured for measuring an electrodermal response of the user, as claim 1 sets forth that the at least one sensor is configured to measure a physiological response and be in communication with the controller, and the controller changes vibration force based on the user’s electrodermal response (i.e., a physiological response that must be measured). Because claim 8 limits the same “at least one sensor” it is unclear how the recited “thermal sensor” in claim 8 would be capable of measuring both an electrodermal response and a temperature. The specification indicates at paragraph 44, that separate sensors are used to indicate load, thermal properties, and transdermal properties, and thus the specification does not provide any further clarity on this issue.
For the purposes of examination, the thermal sensor of claim 8 will be interpreted as an additional sensor to the at least one sensor that is capable of measuring an electrodermal response in claim 1. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant amend claim 1 to clearly indicate that the electrodermal response is measured by the at least one sensor, and amend claim 8 to indicate that an additional load sensor is configured to measure the claimed axial resistance.
Regarding claim 9, line 2 recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a thermal sensor” which renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1, lines 10-14 seem to indicate that the at least one sensor is configured for measuring an electrodermal response of the user, as claim 1 sets forth that the at least one sensor is configured to measure a physiological response and be in communication with the controller, and the controller changes vibration force based on the user’s electrodermal response (i.e., a physiological response that must be measured). Because claim 9 limits the same “at least one sensor” it is unclear how the recited “thermal sensor” in claim 9 would be capable of measuring both an electrodermal response and a temperature. The specification indicates at paragraph 44, that separate sensors are used to indicate load, thermal properties, and transdermal properties, and thus the specification does not provide any further clarity on this issue.
For the purposes of examination, the load sensor of claim 9 will be interpreted as an additional sensor to the at least one sensor that is capable of measuring an electrodermal response in claim 1. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant amend claim 1 to clearly indicate that the electrodermal response is measured by the at least one sensor, and amend claim 9 to indicate that an additional load sensor is configured to measure the claimed axial resistance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A/the “vibration system” in claims 1 and 16, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 32 to be a vibrating motor and functional equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-4, 6, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘273, in view of Wang (CN 113855505), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘591, and Wang (CN 113855505).
Regarding claim 1, Leismer ‘273 discloses an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to a limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least a first segment and a second segment each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 9, lines 1-7; paragraph 10, lines 1-4; claim 1, lines 1-4, see “axial vibratory”; Fig. 1, note that the thigh and calf are the respective limb segments communicated by the knee joint), the apparatus (10) comprising:
a drive plate (26) operable to receive the limb of the user (paragraph 47, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2, where the limb is received at the surface 26 by the user’s feet);
a force unit (22) comprising a vibration system (44) in communication with the drive plate (26) to provide a vibration force to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 47, lines 1-15; paragraph 51, lines 1-10; Figs. 1-3) and comprising an actuator assembly (28) in communication with the drive plate (26) and being operable to move the drive plate (26) within an upper limit and a lower limit in a direction that is approximately perpendicular to a surface of the drive plate (26) and one of the first segment and the second segment that is closer to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 48, lines 1-5, note the use of the term “normal” to the support surface 26 regarding the actuation axis 34; paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where the feedback control moves the vibration surface 26 to offset user muscle force, see also paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 between different values; Fig. 1, note that the lower leg includes axes both normal to the support surface 26 and parallel to the support surface);
at least one sensor (49) operable to measure the physiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is, at least in part, understood to be from the user’s feet, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted, and the force is measured between surface 26 and support 23); and
a controller (48) in communication with the at least one sensor (49) and the force unit (22), the controller (48) being operable to reduce the vibration force) based on the physiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force exerted between the surface 26 and floor support 23 is understood to at least include axial force exerted by the user, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 for the general description of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 52; paragraph 64, lines 12-44, which provide an in-depth description of the previous feedback loops used to control vibratory force; note paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where an offset force is provided to surface 26 in response to the user’s force on surface 26; see also paragraph 77 which outlines adjustment of the vibration force, understood to be either increase or decrease of force).
Lesimer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the vibration force is reduced based on an electrodermal response of the user, wherein the electrodermal response indicates the user is experiencing fatigue.
However, Wang teaches a method of alleviating fatigue in a user by changing massage intensity or a massage mode based on a sensed electrodermal response (abstract, lines 1-10), wherein the massage includes a vibration force (“The present technology is to collect the bioelectrical signal of the driver; processing the bioelectric signal of the driver, obtaining the fatigue degree of the driver; controlling the operation of the vibration unit based on the fatigue degree of the driver”).
Therefore, given that Leismer ‘273 indicates that the use of vibration in its device is therapeutic (see paragraphs 8-9, 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 controller of Leismer ‘273 to further include a sensor for detecting a electrodermal response capable of indicating a user’s fatigue level and changing a vibration force based on the sensed electrodermal response, as taught by Wang, in order to operate the device in such a way where the user’s fatigue may be alleviated.
If it is determined that Leismer ‘273 does not disclose a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, then an alternate grounds of rejection is as follows:
Leismer ‘591 teaches an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least first and second segments each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 10, lines 1-5, see “axial vibratory”; paragraph 37, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) further comprising at least one sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user (paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Given that Leismer ‘273 indicates the use of a load cell (i.e., a sensor) in communication with the controller for feedback control of the vibration motion and the actuator assembly, 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 Leismer ‘273 to have included a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, as taught by Leismer ‘591, to be employed in Leismer ‘273’s feedback loop for controlling the output of the vibration system and the actuator assembly of Leismer ‘273, responsive to the output of Leismer ‘591’s sensor configured as a biosensor for determining a physiological parameter relative to the user.
It is believed that such a modification can be made with reasonable expectation of success given that Leismer ‘273 already contemplates force offset based on user-directed force on the surface of the drive plate (26) (paragraph 68, lines 1-12), and further given that the at least one sensor (“biosensor”) of Leismer ‘591 is taught to directly measure such a force (paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40”), and since Leismer ‘273 contemplates using sensor feedback to control vibration and bias motion (paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44).
Modified Lesimer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the vibration force is reduced based on an electrodermal response of the user, wherein the electrodermal response indicates the user is experiencing fatigue.
However, Wang teaches a method of alleviating fatigue in a user by changing massage intensity or a massage mode based on a sensed electrodermal response (abstract, lines 1-10), wherein the massage includes a vibration force (“The present technology is to collect the bioelectrical signal of the driver; processing the bioelectric signal of the driver, obtaining the fatigue degree of the driver; controlling the operation of the vibration unit based on the fatigue degree of the driver”).
Therefore, given that Leismer ‘273 indicates that the use of vibration in its device is therapeutic (see paragraphs 8-9, 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 controller of Leismer ‘273 to further include a sensor for detecting a electrodermal response capable of indicating a user’s fatigue level and changing a vibration force based on the sensed electrodermal response, as taught by Wang, in order to operate the device in such a way where the user’s fatigue may be alleviated.
Regarding claim 2, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to alter the upper limit or the lower limit of the drive plate (26) in response to an input from the at least one sensor (49, or the biosensor of Leismer ‘591 as modified) (Leismer ‘273 at paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for feedback loops using sensor input, see bias force and paragraph 68, lines 1-12, see bias force; Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “load cell” and/or “biosensor” for the at least one sensor; see also Wang at the abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to control a frequency, an amplitude and a waveform of vibration communicated via the drive plate (26) (paragraph 63, lines 1-4; paragraph 64, lines 36-44, see “frequency”, “wave form”, and “force”, where the vibratory force would equate to the amplitude of the waveform over time; see also paragraph 19, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect an amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Regarding claim 6, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect an amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) which is operable to increase or decrease the axial force generated by the force unit (22) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, note the previous and Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Regarding claim 11, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the actuator assembly (28) in communication with the drive plate (26) is operable to adjust the bias force applied via the drive plate between the upper limit and the lower limit (see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 respectively).
Regarding claim 13, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the actuator assembly (28) is operable to vary the force required to move drive plate (26) between the upper limit and the lower limit (see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 respectively, i.e. increasing bias force changes the ability for the user to move the drive plate by conscious or unconscious muscle use).
Regarding claim 14, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the actuator assembly (28) is operable to vary a force required to move drive plate (26) and a speed at which the drive plate (26) is configured to move between the upper limit and the lower limit (see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 respectively, i.e. increasing bias force changes the ability for the user to move the drive plate by conscious or unconscious muscle use; paragraph 76, lines 16-26).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273) in view of Wang (CN 113855505), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mason (US 2021/0134428), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591) and Wang (CN 113855505), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mason (US 2021/0134428).
Regarding claim 5, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect the amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Neither Leismer ‘273 nor modified Leismer ‘273 indicate the detection of an amount of mean resistance.
However, Mason teaches a treatment apparatus including pedals (paragraph 94, lines 1-8; Fig. 4), wherein an amount of mean resistance applied to the pedals by the user’s feet is measured and received by a processor (paragraph 131, lines 1-2 and 10-11).
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 employed the sensor of Leismer ‘273 to measure a mean axial resistance applied by the user, as taught by Mason, as a known value measured by a load cell when a user interfaces with a treatment device at the lower limb.
Regarding claim 7, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect the amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) which is operable to increase or decrease the axial force generated by the force unit (22) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Neither Leismer ‘273 nor modified Leismer ‘273 indicate the detection of an amount of mean resistance.
However, Mason teaches a treatment apparatus including pedals (paragraph 94, lines 1-8; Fig. 4), wherein an amount of mean resistance applied to the pedals by the user’s feet is measured and received by a processor (paragraph 131, lines 1-2 and 10-11).
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 employed the sensor of Leismer ‘273 to measure a mean axial resistance applied by the user, as taught by Mason, as a known value measured by a load cell when a user interfaces with a treatment device at the lower limb.
Claims 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273) in view of Wang (CN 113855505), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Reiner (US 2008/0269652), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591) and Wang (CN 113855505), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiner (US 2008/0269652).
Regarding claim 8, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a thermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of a thermal sensor capable of detecting a change in temperature (paragraph 18, lines 1-8 and paragraph 20, lines 1-4).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include a thermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s skin temperature indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop for varying the axial or vibratory force supplied to the drive plate (26) (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a thermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of a thermal sensor capable of detecting a change in temperature (paragraph 18, lines 1-8 and paragraph 20, lines 1-4).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include a thermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s skin temperature indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus to control vibratory and axial force of the drive plate.
Regarding claim 12, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop for varying the axial or vibratory force supplied to the drive plate (26) (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is an electrodermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of an electrodermal sensor (paragraph 18, lines 1-9 and 14-15, see “electrodes 36 for measuring galvanic skin response”).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include an electrodermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s galvanic skin response indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus to control vibratory and axial force of the drive plate.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273) in view of Wang (CN 113855505), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Foucault (WO 2021/016482), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591) and Wang (CN 113855505), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foucault (WO 2021/016482).
Regarding claim 15, Leismer ‘273 in view of Wang, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Wang, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, either alone or as modified, fails to disclose wherein the controller further comprises a gaming application and the gaming application operable to use the mechanical force that an individual places onto the footplate of the claimed invention to relay a real time input signal to the gaming application that would take the real time input signal and display an in-game output response.
However, Foucault teaches a rehabilitation apparatus (1) employing a virtual reality module (91) (paragraph 83, lines 1-15; Figs. 2 and 31) wherein the controller (72) further comprises a gaming application and the gaming application is operable to use a mechanical force that the user places onto the footplate (5) of the claimed invention to relay a real time input signal to the gaming application that is configured to take the real time input signal and display an in-game output response in order to guide the user through rehabilitative motions while gamifying the experience (paragraphs 112-113 and 136, note that the footplate 5 becomes the game 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 Leismer ‘273, either alone or as modified, to have included a gaming application on the controller operable to use the mechanical force that an individual places onto the footplate of the claimed invention to relay a real time input signal to the gaming application that would take the real time input signal and display an in-game output response, as taught by Foucault, in order to guide the user through rehabilitative motions while gamifying the experience.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘273, in view of Cardinale (US 7,416,518), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘591, and Cardinale (US 7,416,518).
Regarding claim 16, Leismer ‘273 discloses an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to a limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least a first segment and a second segment each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 9, lines 1-7; paragraph 10, lines 1-4; claim 1, lines 1-4, see “axial vibratory”; Fig. 1, note that the thigh and calf are the respective limb segments communicated by the knee joint), the apparatus (10) comprising:
a drive plate (26) operable to receive the limb of the user (paragraph 47, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2, where the limb is received at the surface 26 by the user’s feet);
a force unit (22) comprising a vibration system (44) in communication with the drive plate (26) to provide a vibration force to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 47, lines 1-15; paragraph 51, lines 1-10; Figs. 1-3) and comprising an actuator assembly (28) in communication with the drive plate (26) and being operable to move the drive plate (26) within an upper limit and a lower limit in a direction that is approximately perpendicular to a surface of the drive plate (26) and generally either of the first segment or the second segment of the limb closest to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 48, lines 1-5, note the use of the term “normal” to the support surface 26 regarding the actuation axis 34; paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where the feedback control moves the vibration surface 26 to offset user muscle force, see also paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 between different values; Fig. 1, note that the lower leg includes axes both normal to the support surface 26 and parallel to the support surface);
at least one sensor (49) operable to measure a physiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is, at least in part, understood to be from the user’s feet, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted, and the force is measured between surface 26 and support 23); and
a controller (48) in communication with the at least one sensor (49) and the force unit (22), the controller (48) being operable to reduce a motion of the actuator assembly (28) based on the physiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force exerted between the surface 26 and floor support 23 is understood to at least include axial force exerted by the user, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 for the general description of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 52; paragraph 64, lines 12-44, which provide an in-depth description of the previous feedback loops used to control vibratory force; note paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where an offset force is provided to surface 26 in response to the user’s force on surface 26).
Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the controller is operable to reduce a motion of the actuator assembly based on the physiological response of the user, wherein the physiological response indicates the user is experiencing fatigue.
However, Cardinale teaches an exercise device that provides each of vibrational force and a motion by an actuator assembly (Col. 4, lines 35-42; Fig. 1), wherein at least one sensor is used to determine a physiological response of the user (Col. 4, lines 43-53 and Col. 4, line 57-Col. 5, line 9; note claim 1, lines 16-21 which indicate that the pressure exerted by the user measured by the pressure sensor indicates physical exertion of the user, i.e., a fatiguing state) in order to help recover the muscles in a customized manner based on sensed parameters applied by the user (Col. 4, lines 1-7).
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 device and controller of Leismer ‘273, to further include the capability of operating the controller to control a motion of the actuator assembly based on the physiological response of the user, wherein the physiological response indicates the user is experiencing fatigue, as taught by Cardinale, in order to help recover the muscles in a customized manner based on sensed parameters applied by the user.
If it is determined that Leismer ‘273 does not disclose a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, an alternate grounds of rejection is applied as follows:
Leismer ‘591 teaches an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least first and second segments each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 10, lines 1-5, see “axial vibratory”; paragraph 37, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) further comprising at least one sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user (paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Given that Leismer ‘273 indicates the use of a load cell (i.e., a sensor) in communication with the controller for feedback control of the vibration motion and the actuator assembly, 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 Leismer ‘273 to have included a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, as taught by Leismer ‘591, to be employed in Leismer ‘273’s feedback loop for controlling the output of the vibration system and the actuator assembly of Leismer ‘273, responsive to the output of Leismer ‘591’s sensor configured as a biosensor for determining a physiological parameter relative to the user.
It is believed that such a modification can be made with reasonable expectation of success given that Leismer ‘273 already contemplates force offset based on user-directed force on the surface of the drive plate (26) (paragraph 68, lines 1-12), and further given that the at least one sensor (“biosensor”) of Leismer ‘591 is taught to directly measure such a force (paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40”), and since Leismer ‘273 contemplates using sensor feedback to control vibration and bias motion (paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44).
Modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the controller is operable to reduce a motion of the actuator assembly based on the physiological response of the user, wherein the physiological response indicates the user is experiencing fatigue.
However, Cardinale teaches an exercise device that provides each of vibrational force and a motion by an actuator assembly (Col. 4, lines 35-42; Fig. 1), wherein at least one sensor is used to determine a physiological response of the user (Col. 4, lines 43-53 and Col. 4, line 57-Col. 5, line 9; note claim 1, lines 16-21 which indicate that the pressure exerted by the user measured by the pressure sensor indicates physical exertion of the user, i.e., a fatiguing state) in order to help recover the muscles in a customized manner based on sensed parameters applied by the user (Col. 4, lines 1-7).
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 device and controller of Leismer ‘273, to further include the capability of operating the controller to control a motion of the actuator assembly based on the physiological response of the user, wherein the physiological response indicates the user is experiencing fatigue, as taught by Cardinale, in order to help recover the muscles in a customized manner based on sensed parameters applied by the user.
Regarding claim 17, Leismer ‘273 in view of Cardinale, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Cardinale, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to alter the upper limit or the lower limit of the drive plate (26) in response to an input from the at least one sensor (49, or the biosensor of Leismer ‘591 as modified) (Leismer ‘273 at paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for feedback loops using sensor input, see bias force and paragraph 68, lines 1-12, see bias force; Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “load cell” and/or “biosensor” for the at least one sensor).
Regarding claim 18, Leismer ‘273 in view of Cardianle, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Cardinale, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to control a frequency, an amplitude and a waveform of vibration communicated via the drive plate (26) (paragraph 63, lines 1-4; paragraph 64, lines 36-44, see “frequency”, “wave form”, and “force”, where the vibratory force would equate to the amplitude of the waveform over time; see also paragraph 19, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Leismer ‘273 in view of Cardinale, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Cardinale, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect an amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273) in view of Cardinale (US 7,416,518), as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Mason (US 2021/0134428), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591) and Cardianle (US 7,416,518), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mason (US 2021/0134428).
Regarding claim 20, Leismer ‘273 in view of Cardinale, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Cardinale, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect the amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Neither Leismer ‘273 nor modified Leismer ‘273 indicate the detection of an amount of mean resistance.
However, Mason teaches a treatment apparatus including pedals (paragraph 94, lines 1-8; Fig. 4), wherein an amount of mean resistance applied to the pedals by the user’s feet is measured and received by a processor (paragraph 131, lines 1-2 and 10-11).
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 employed the sensor of Leismer ‘273 to measure a mean axial resistance applied by the user, as taught by Mason, as a known value measured by a load cell when a user interfaces with a treatment device at the lower limb.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273) in view of Cardinale (US 7,416,518), as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Reiner (US 2008/0269652), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591) and Cardinale (US 7,416,518), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Reiner (US 2008/0269652).
Regarding claim 21, Leismer ‘273 in view of Cardinale, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591 and Cardinale, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a thermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of a thermal sensor capable of detecting a change in temperature (paragraph 18, lines 1-8 and paragraph 20, lines 1-4).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include a thermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s skin temperature indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
