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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 6-18: delete all instances of “(#)” and “-“
Claim 1, line 3: “movements” should read --movement--
Claim 1, line 12: “the same bus” should read --a same bus--
Claim 1, lines 15-16: “the outer side of the envelope of said electrode module, so they are in contact with the skin” should read --an outer side of an envelope of said at least one electrode module, so they are in contact with skin--
Claim 1, line 18: “said at least one sensor” should read --at least one sensor--
Claim 1, line 18: “said electrode module” should read --said at least one electrode module--
Claim 1, line 18: “the inner portion” should read --an inner portion--
Claim 1, line 19: “said conductive surfaces” should read --said at least two conductive surfaces--
Claim 1, line 23: delete “being”
Claim 1, line 24: “the gain” should read --a gain--
Claim 1, lines 25-26: “the notch frequency to be used in the signal processing and the passband of the frequency filter to be applied” should read --a notch frequency to be used in the signal processing and a passband of a frequency filter to be applied --
Claim 1, lines 29-30: “and converted in digital ones” should read -- and converting the signals into digital signals--
Claim 1, lines 33-34: “the frequencies—should read --frequencies--
Claim 1, line 40: “the position” should read --a position--
Claim 1, lines 40-41: “the acquisition position” should read –an acquisition position--
Claim 1, line 42: add comma after “means”
Claim 3, line 2: “said electrode module” should read --said at least one electrode module--
Claim 3, line 2: delete “also”
Claim 3, line 3: “the skin region” should read --a skin region--
Claim 3, line 4: “the electrode” should read --said at least one electrode module--
Claim 6, line 3: delete “in”
Claim 6, line 4: “the sampling frequency” should read --a sampling frequency--
Claim 6, line 5: “the sending frequency” should read --a sending frequency--
Claim 7, line 3: “the shape” should read --a shape--
Claim 7, line 4: “the shape” should read --a shape--
Claim 7, line 3: “the frequency spectrum” should read –said at least one frequency spectrum”
Claim 8, line 2: “said firmware” should read --said electrode firmware--
Claim 8, line 3: “the presence” should read --a presence-- (in both instances)
Claim 9, line 2: “said firmware” should read --said electrode firmware--
Claim 9, lines 4-5: “the time” should read --time--
Claim 11, line 3: “an envelope” should read --the envelope--
Claim 12, lines 3-4: “the recharge” should read --a recharge--
Claim 13, line 3: “computer programs” should read --the computer programs--
Claim 13, line 5: “the actuator” should read –the actuator--
Claim 13, line 7: delete “configured to”
Claim 13, line 7: “the user” should read --a user--
Claim 14, line 3: “at least an actuator” should read --said actuator--
Claim 14, line 3: “the control signal” should read --a control signal --
Claim 14, line 4: “the power” should read --power--
Claim 15, line 3: delete “in”
Claim 15, line 4: “the power” should read --power--
Claim 16, line 4: “the basal signals” should read -- basal signals --
Claim 16, line 4: “the electrode modules” should read --said at least one electrode modules--
Claim 16, line 5: “the user” should read --a user--
Claim 16, line 6: “the acquisition parameters of the A/D converter on board of the electrode module and the digital filtering parameters, so that the SNR is improved for each electrode module” should read -- acquisition parameters of the analog/digital converter on the printed circuit board of said at least one electrode module and digital filtering parameters, so that a signal-to-noise ratio is improved for said at least one electrode module --
Claim 18, lines 4-5: “the pressure exerted on the electrode by the muscle under the skin region where the electrode module is installed” should read --a pressure exerted on said at least one electrode module by muscle under a skin region where said at least one electrode module is installed--
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.
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:
Claim 1: Claim limitation “moving means”, “amplification means”, “analog/digital conversion means”, “electronic means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “configured to carry out/process/convert” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Claim 13: Claim limitation “digital communication means”, “communication means”, “outer processing means”, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “configured to communicate/allow” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 1: “moving means” refers to the Specification as filed, Page 1, lines 16-18, an actuator; and “amplification means”, “analog/digital conversion means”, “electronic means” refers to the Specification as filed, Page 18, lines 17-19, an electrode module. An electrode module is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a sensor.
Claim 13: “digital communication means”, “communication means”, “outer processing means” refers to Specification as filed, Page 20, lines 4-16, a control module.
See MPEP 2181.II.A. The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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.
For more information, see MPEP 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1, 3 and 6-18 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 recites “acquiring the signals detected by said at least one sensor and converted in digital ones by said analog/digital conversion means; obtaining at least a frequency spectrum relative to said signals acquired at point; carrying out notch operations on said signals by eliminating from each signal the frequencies relative to possible interferences deriving from the electric supply; carrying out frequency filtering operations on said signals, by applying predetermined amplitude band-pass filters; transmitting the signal obtained through the processing of the previous points to said at least one control module” in lines 30-39, which is a method step. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. (MPEP 2173.05(p) citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the analog signal in digital signal" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is not clear what is meant by the limitation "the analog in digital signal”. Suggestion correction: “an analog signal into a digital signal”.
Regarding claim 1, the term “substantially” 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3 and 6-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 reads “wherein said electrode firmware is also configured to receive in input by said control module and by means of said communication means, information about the sampling frequency of the signal by said at least one sensor and the sending frequency of the signal processed to said control module”. The claim reads as a run-on. Suggested correction: “wherein said electrode firmware is also configured to receive in input, by said control module and by means of said communication means, information about a sampling frequency of the signal, by said at least one sensor, and a sending frequency of the signal processed to said control module”.
Claim 6 also recites the limitation "said communication means" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggestion correction: “communication means”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electric network" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggestion correction: “an electric network”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" in line 4 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 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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 12-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerji (WO 2012161657) in view of Jiang (CN 110141239).
Regarding claim 1, Banerji teaches an integrated system for detecting and processing electromyographic signals and for controlling an actuator comprising at least a mechanical moving means and configured to carry out at least a kind of movements as a function of at least an input signal, (Figs. 7A, 8A; Page 4, line 12- Page 5, line 2; Page 21, lines 25-29; Page 72, line 13; Page 78, line 21; Page 79, line 23 orthosis system, i.e., comprising actuators and motors activated as a function of the measured EMG signals), said system comprising:
a controller (30) or control module (Fig. 8B; Page 81, line 18-Page 82, line 5) at least an electrode module (200) configured to acquire, amplify, convert and process electromyographic signals (Fig. 8B, Page 21, lines 24-29; Page 81, lines 18-25);
a supplying module (70) configured to provide an electric supply with predetermined voltage and current to said controller (30) and to said at least one electrode module (200) (Fig. 8B, Page 81, lines 26-27), said controller (30), said at least one electrode module (200) and said supplying module (70) being connected in parallel on the same bus, (Fig. 8B, Page 82, lines 2-5) wherein said electrode module (200) comprises: at least an electromyography sensor (surface EMG electrodes 210) having at least two conductive surfaces positioned on the outer side of the envelope (sleeve 220) of said electrode module (200), so that they are in contact with the skin, (See Fig. 2A; Page 51, lines 26-33, EMG sensors have, by nature, conductive surfaces in contact with the skin), configured to detect a signal on the skin deriving from muscle contraction. (Page 50, lines 12-25).
Banerji further teaches analog/digital conversion means configured to convert the analog signal in digital signal, amplified by said amplification means, electronic means on which computer programs or electrode firmware are loaded, configured to process the signal acquired by said at least one sensor (electrode), (Page 21, lines 6-26); however, the analog/digital conversion means are located in the signal acquisition unit (20) rather than the electrode module (200).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified the electrode module of Banerji to provide “analog/digital conversion means, installed on a printed circuit board contained inside the envelope of said electrode module and in electric contact with the inner portion of said conductive surfaces, configured to convert the analog signal in digital signal, amplified by said amplification means” as the electrode module is simply an alternative structure, on which processing elements are grouped within the scope of customary practice followed by persons skills in the art. Reorganizing the blocks such that the analog/digital conversion and electronic processing module are part of the electronic module is a mere question of design choice and preference. Further, it is well-known that electronic circuits are by nature printed on a circuit board.
Jiang, in a related field of endeavor, teaches amplification means of the signal detected by said at least one sensor (Paragraph [0088] of Machine Translation); and that the position of the analog/digital conversion means is substantially coincident with the acquisition position (Fig. 8; Paragraph [0091] the sensor and processor are disclosed as part of the same unit, hence the analog/digital conversion and the sensor are in close vicinity).
However, Jiang does not explicitly teach “and in that between said at least one sensor and said analog/digital conversion means filtration steps or other processing steps are not interposed, except for an amplification step of the signal.”
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified the electrode module of Banerji as modified by Jiang to provide “and in that between said at least one sensor and said analog/digital conversion means filtration steps or other processing steps are not interposed, except for an amplification step of the signal” as a mere simplification of the design and process that removes the effect relate to denoising.
Jiang further teaches said computer programs being configured to receive in input by said control module information about the gain and offset to be used in the analog/digital conversion step, (Paragraph [0088]), the notch frequency to be used in the signal processing (Paragraphs [0022], [0134]), and the passband of the frequency filter (Paragraph [0088]) to be applied and to carry out the following operations: acquiring the signals detected by said at least one sensor and converted in digital ones by said analog/digital conversion means (Paragraph [0088]); obtaining at least a frequency spectrum relative to said signals acquired at point (Paragraph [0088]); carrying out notch operations on said signals by eliminating from each signal the frequencies relative to possible interferences deriving from the electric supply (Paragraphs [0022], [0134]); carrying out frequency filtering operations on said signals, by applying predetermined amplitude band-pass filters (Paragraph [0088]); transmitting the signal obtained through the processing of the previous points to said at least one control module (Paragraph [0086]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified Banerji to provide “said computer programs being configured to receive in input by said control module information about the gain and offset to be used in the analog/digital conversion step, the notch frequency to be used in the signal processing and the passband of the frequency filter to be applied and to carry out the following operations: acquiring the signals detected by said at least one sensor and converted in digital ones by said analog/digital conversion means; obtaining at least a frequency spectrum relative to said signals acquired at point; carrying out notch operations on said signals by eliminating from each signal the frequencies relative to possible interferences deriving from the electric supply; carrying out frequency filtering operations on said signals, by applying predetermined amplitude band-pass filters; transmitting the signal obtained through the processing of the previous points to said at least one control module” as taught by Jiang. Doing so provides a system that can eliminate common-mode interference and amplify the signal. (Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 6, Banerji teaches wherein said electrode firmware is also configured to receive in input by said control module (10) and by means of said communication means, information about the sampling frequency of the signal by said at least one sensor (21) and the sending frequency of the signal.
Regarding claim 7, Banerji teaches wherein said electrode firmware is configured to compare the shape of the frequency spectrum of the signal detected by said at least one sensor with the shape of at least a reference frequency spectrum. (Page 28, line 24 – Page 29, line 6).
Regarding claim 10, Banerji teaches wherein said system comprises a plurality of electrode modules, which can be arranged in different positions to each other, with no mutual positioning constraints. (See Fig. 2C; Page 50, plurality of electrode modules 210).
Regarding claim 12, Banerji teaches wherein said supplying module (70) comprises at least a rechargeable electric battery, provided with a suitable connector for the recharge by means of connection to the electric network. (Page 81, lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 13, Banerji teaches wherein said controller comprises: control electronic means on which computer programs are loaded; digital communication means configured to communicate with other electrodes, and at least an output of analog or digital kind for the control of an actuator; communication means, configured to communicate with outer processing means where respective computer programs are loaded configured to allow the user to communicate with said control means (10) by means of a suitable user interface. (Page 28, lines 9-21).
Regarding claim 14, Banerji teaches wherein said control module (Fig. 8B; Page 81, line 18-Page 82, line 5) controls directly at least an actuator (Figs. 7A, 8A; Page 4, line 12- Page 5, line 2; Page 21, lines 25-29; Page 72, line 13; Page 78, line 21; Page 79, line 23 orthosis system, i.e., comprising actuators and motors activated as a function of the measured EMG signals), providing the same with both the control signal and the power needed for supplying moving means included in said actuator (Page 72, lines 23-28 by way of one or more flexible drive shafts 512 that are configured to transfer or deliver mechanical power), and in that said control module comprises hardware means for electronic control of at least a power actuator and respective computer programs (Fig 7A, motor mechanism 510).
Regarding claim 15, Banerji teaches wherein said system comprises also an outer controller (Page 73, lines 15-16 mechanical power interface module 530) configured to receive input analog and/or digital signals, and to provide the actuator with control signals and the power needed to said moving means and in that said control module is configured to control said outer controller. (Page 73, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 16, Banerji teaches wherein said computer programs loaded on said control module are configured for: recording the basal signals acquired by the electrode modules during a muscle rest condition of the user, adapting the acquisition parameters of the A/D converter on board of the electrode module and the digital filtering parameters, so that the SNR is improved for each electrode module as a function of the recorded basal signals. (Page 29, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 17, Banerji teaches wherein said at least one sensor comprises an electromyography sensor, comprising at least two electrodes (210) configured to detect a difference of potential between two distinct skin regions. (See Fig. 2C).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerji in view of Jiang, further in view of Lu (CN 106491128).
Regarding claim 3, Banerji as modified does not teach “wherein said electrode module comprises also temperature sensors and/or humidity sensors, configured to detect temperature and humidity relating to the skin region where the electrode is positioned, and in that said electronic means are also configured to acquire and process the signals detected by said temperature sensors and/or humidity sensors.”
Lu, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein said electrode module (Fig. 1) comprises also temperature sensors (2) and/or humidity sensors (4), (Abstract), configured to detect temperature and humidity relating to the skin region where the electrode is positioned, (Page 5, lines 23-27), and in that said electronic means are also configured to acquire and process the signals detected by said temperature sensors and/or humidity sensors (via circuit board 8). (Fig. 5; Page 7, lines 1-7).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified Banerji as modified by Jiang to provide “wherein said electrode module comprises also temperature sensors and/or humidity sensors, configured to detect temperature and humidity relating to the skin region where the electrode is positioned, and in that said electronic means are also configured to acquire and process the signals detected by said temperature sensors and/or humidity sensors” as taught by Lu. Doing so ensures a steady and precise electromyography signal. (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Banerji as modified does not teach “wherein all the components of said at least one electrode module are enclosed inside an envelope with waterproof and powder resistance features and apt to guarantee its functioning without damage even in presence of natural humidity, splashes or sweating.”
Lu teaches wherein all the components of said at least one electrode module (Fig. 5, circuit board 8) are enclosed inside an envelope with waterproof and powder resistance features (Fig. 5, shell 1) and apt to guarantee its functioning without damage even in presence of natural humidity, splashes or sweating. (Page 4, lines 14-26).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified Banerji as modified by Jiang to provide “wherein all the components of said at least one electrode module are enclosed inside an envelope with waterproof and powder resistance features and apt to guarantee its functioning without damage even in presence of natural humidity, splashes or sweating” as taught by Lu. Doing so ensures measurement of a stable and accurate electromyographic signal. (Page 4, lines 16, 22).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerji in view of Jiang, further in view of Harshbarger (WO 2012141714).
Regarding claim 8, Banerji as modified does not teach “wherein said firmware is also configured to detect the presence of peaks under 10 Hz of frequency indicating the presence of electrode-skin movements and to send a respective warning signal to said control module.”
Harshbarger, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein said firmware is also configured to detect the presence of peaks under 10 Hz of frequency (Fig. 34) indicating the presence of electrode-skin movements and to send a respective warning signal to said control module. (Fig. 34 is magnitude plot 3400 of four band pass filters usable to separate each channel into different frequency bands before average power of each band is calculated, such as in feature extraction. In FIG. 34, pass bands are between 1-4 Hz, 6-15 Hz).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified Banerji as modified by Jiang to provide “wherein said firmware is also configured to detect the presence of peaks under 10 Hz of frequency indicating the presence of electrode-skin movements and to send a respective warning signal to said control module” of Harshbarger. Doing so ensures a steady and precise electromyography signal. (Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerji in view of Jiang, further in view of Herrala (WO 2016207471).
Regarding claim 9, Banerji as modified does not teach “wherein said firmware is configured to detect periodically a central frequency of said at least one frequency spectrum, and to send a warning signal to said control module in case said central frequency decreases over the time.”
Herrala, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a system for measuring muscle signals, (Abstract), wherein said firmware is configured to detect periodically a central frequency of said at least one frequency spectrum, (Page 12, lines 5-31 spectral analysis, detection of central frequency), and to send a warning signal to said control module in case said central frequency decreases over the time. (Page 14, lines 11-20).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified Banerji as modified by Jiang to provide “wherein said firmware is configured to detect periodically a central frequency of said at least one frequency spectrum, and to send a warning signal to said control module in case said central frequency decreases over the time” of Herrala. Doing so provides feedback that may be used to optimize training and exercise to match one's target. (Page 11, lines 12-14).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerji in view of Jiang, further in view of Yang (CN 108670244).
Regarding claim 18, Banerji as modified does not teach “wherein said at least one sensor comprises a force myography sensor, comprising a capacitive pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure exerted on the electrode by the muscle under the skin region where the electrode module is installed.”
Yang, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a physiological monitoring device wherein said at least one sensor comprises a force myography sensor, comprising a capacitive pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure exerted on the electrode by the muscle under the skin region where the electrode module is installed. (Page 14, lines 39-41 of Machine Translation).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have modified Banerji as modified by Jiang to provide “wherein said at least one sensor comprises a force myography sensor, comprising a capacitive pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure exerted on the electrode by the muscle under the skin region where the electrode module is installed” of Yang. Doing so provides a mechanism for additional processing of the electromyography signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791