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 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: The motion tracking device in claim 4 is referring to a accelerometer and gyroscope (¶[0018]).
The optical sensor in claim 4 is referring to a camera (¶[0104]).
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemp et al. (US 20200384311- previously cited), hereinafter Zemp, further in view of Villanuevaneuva et a. (US 20150182161), hereinafter Villanueva.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 20, Zemp teaches processing, by at least one computing device, first measurements taken at least while a person performs a predetermined physical exercise (¶[0005-6], “a device and a method for training pelvic floor muscles of a user”), wherein: the predetermined physical exercise comprises both movement of one or more body members of the person and at least one of lengthening and contracting of a pelvic floor muscle of the person (¶[0024-26,0056,0088], “wilful contraction of the pelvic floor muscles” and “a sound is played indicating success when the contraction of the pelvic floor muscles reaches a certain level.” Contraction and relaxation requires lengthening back to relaxed state after contraction);
and the first measurements are taken by at least one motion tracking device arranged on the person to measure motion of at least the one or more body members, and/or at least one optical sensor arranged to capture images of at least a portion of the person to measure motion of at least the one or more body members (¶[0028,0049,0087], a motion tracking sensor for abdominal activity measurements);
processing, by at least one computing device, second measurements taken at least while the person performs the predetermined physical exercise, wherein the second measurements are taken by a pelvic sensor (¶[0053,0085-88], “the app provides the user with a training comprising tasks, e.g. special exercises, guiding and motivating the user,” “a device 23 supplying a sensor signal indicative of an activity of the pelvic floor muscles,” and “the system according to any of the embodiments described above comprises a third device comprising an additional sensor for sensing an activity of other muscles of a user” (emphasis added));
determining, by at least one computing device, whether the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise according to a predetermined set of criteria associated with the predetermined physical exercise by both (¶[0085,0090,0096], “comprising computer code means for performing a method for training the pelvic floor muscles of the user” and “The derived data may be used to assess the performance of the pelvic floor muscles according to different aspects, such as power and/or endurance and/or coordination, and to evaluate the development of the performance over time”):
evaluating the processed first measurements to determine that motion of the one or more body members fulfills the at least one first criterion of the predetermined set of criteria (¶[0087], “third device 28 comprises an additional sensor 29 for sensing an activity of abdominal muscles of the user” and “the additional sensor 29 allows to discriminate, whether a signal of the sensor for sensing a movement of and/or a force exerted on the beam is due to an activity of the pelvic floor muscles, which is the desired measurement quantity, or whether it is a spurious signal induced by an activity of the abdominal muscles.” The criteria being spurious movement of the abdomen.);
and evaluating the processed second measurements to determine that the pelvic floor muscle lengthens and/or contracts such that it fulfills the at least one second criterion of the predetermined set of criteria (¶[0090], “The tasks may e.g. consist of reaching a certain level of contraction of the pelvic floor muscles, or holding a certain level of contraction over a certain time interval, or continuously or stepwise increasing or decreasing the level of contraction, or rapidly switching between a certain level of contraction and relaxation.” For clarification, when the muscle begins at a relaxed state, contracts, and goes back to relaxed requires both lengthening and contracting of the muscle).
Zemp fails to teach wherein the exercise is prescribed for both motion of one or more body members of the person and at least one of lengthening or contracting of a pelvic floor muscle of the person, and determining, by at least one computing device, that the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise according to a predetermined set of criteria associated with the predetermined physical exercise based on fulfillment of both at least one first criterion associated with the motion of the one or more body members, as prescribed by the predetermined physical exercise, and at least one second criterion associated with the at least one of lengthening or contracting of the pelvic floor muscle, as further prescribed by the predetermined physical exercise according to criteria associated with the predetermined physical exercise.
Villanueva teaches a biofeedback device for training muscles of the pelvic floor (abstract). The device is configured to obtain signals related to pelvic floor muscles and abdominal muscles (¶[0025], “comprises a probe 10 for capturing the electromyographic (EMG) signal relating to the pelvic floor. The probe can be a vaginal or rectal probe. The system also includes a second channel recording the EMG relating to abdominal muscles from sensors such as electrodes 11 applied in the lower abdomen, to assure that the exercises are being correctly performed. The EMG signals from both sources are filtered and amplified and then processed for obtaining the level of muscle activity”). The device uses the first and second channel recordings to track and guide the user to correct performance of the exercises (¶[0026,0031-2], “The equipment will generally include (for example, stored in a memory) a set of preprogrammed exercises which can be configured by medical personnel. The equipment offers the user guidance for performing the exercises so that she achieves a certain level of activation of the two measurement channels” and “the equipment collects EMG from two channels, the vagina and abdomen, such that it is capable of discerning actual activity of the pelvic floor from that of the abdomen (to assure correct performance of the exercises)” (emphasis added)). Therefore, Villanueva teaches both prescribing physical exercise of both abdomen and pelvic muscle, and determining that a person has performed the exercise based on the prescribed physical exercise. Thus, because Villanueva teaches that the prescribed exercise includes abdomen movement in conjunction with PFM, the modified motion tracking device of Zemp measures motion of the body member as prescribed by the predetermined physical exercise, while the pelvic floor measurements determine whether the PFM criteria are satisfied. Correspondingly, the modified device obtains first measurements corresponding to the prescribed body member motion and second measurements corresponding to pelvic floor activity.
Accordingly, it is obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Zemp, such that the motion tracking device measures one or more body members prescribed by the exercise, while the PFM measurements determine whether the PF criteria are satisfied, as taught by Villanueva, to aid in offering guidance to the user performing the exercise; helping the user to learn and perform the exercise without a medical practitioner; adapt the parameters of the exercise to the particular conditions of the user throughout the exercise; and optimization (¶[0003-4]). Moreover, the combination provides a device with the added benefit of determining proper form throughout the exercise and irregular motion. Zemp already teaches measuring abdomen muscle to help identify pelvic floor muscle, this modification further allows the invention of Zemp to guide the user to better form throughout the exercise. As it is common for form during an exercise to vary throughout performance.
Regarding claim 4, Zemp-Villanueva teach wherein the at least one motion tracking device is configured to be arranged on the person to measure the motion of at least the one or more body members (¶[0028,0049,0087] of Zemp, a motion tracking sensor for abdominal activity measurements. ¶[0026] of Villanueva, “The equipment offers the user guidance for performing the exercises so that she achieves a certain level of activation of the two measurement channels” .).
Regarding claim 5, Zemp-Villanueva teaches wherein the criteria comprises at least one first criterion associated with the motion of the one or more body members (¶[0026] of Villanueva, “The equipment offers the user guidance for performing the exercises so that she achieves a certain level of activation of the two measurement channels”.¶[0087] of Zemp, “third device 28 comprises an additional sensor 29 for sensing an activity of abdominal muscles of the user” and “the additional sensor 29 allows to discriminate, whether a signal of the sensor for sensing a movement of and/or a force exerted on the beam is due to an activity of the pelvic floor muscles, which is the desired measurement quantity, or whether it is a spurious signal induced by an activity of the abdominal muscles.” The criteria being spurious movement of the abdomen.) and at least one second criterion associated with the at least one of lengthening or contracting of the pelvic floor muscle (¶[0026] of Villanueva, “The equipment offers the user guidance for performing the exercises so that she achieves a certain level of activation of the two measurement channels”. ¶[0090] of Zemp, “The tasks may e.g. consist of reaching a certain level of contraction of the pelvic floor muscles, or holding a certain level of contraction over a certain time interval, or continuously or stepwise increasing or decreasing the level of contraction, or rapidly switching between a certain level of contraction and relaxation.” For clarification, when the muscle begins at a relaxed state, contracts, and goes back to relaxed requires both lengthening and contracting of the muscle).
Regarding claim 6, Zemp-Villanueva teaches wherein determining whether the person has performed the predetermined exercise comprises evaluating the processed first measurements to determine whether the motion of the one or more body members fulfills the at least one first criterion of the criteria (¶[0026] of Villanueva, “The equipment offers the user guidance for performing the exercises so that she achieves a certain level of activation of the two measurement channels” .¶[0087] of Zemp, “Third device 28 comprises an additional sensor 29 for sensing an activity of abdominal muscles of the user” and “the additional sensor 29 allows to discriminate, whether a signal of the sensor for sensing a movement of and/or a force exerted on the beam is due to an activity of the pelvic floor muscles, which is the desired measurement quantity, or whether it is a spurious signal induced by an activity of the abdominal muscles.” The criteria being movement of the abdomen.).
Regarding claim 7, Zemp teaches wherein determining whether the person has performed the predetermined exercise comprises evaluating the processed second measurements to determine whether the pelvic floor muscle at least lengthens or contracts such that it fulfills the at least one second criterion of the criteria ([0090], “comprises deriving data indicative of a quantity and/or a dynamics of the contraction of the pelvic floor muscles” and “The tasks present a goal to the user, and through the direct assessment of achievement, the user is motivated for the training.”)
Regarding claim 9, Zemp teaches wherein determining that the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise according to the criteria further comprises: evaluating the processed first and second measurements to determine whether the motion of the one or more body members and the at least one of lengthening or contracting of the pelvic floor muscle fulfill at least one third criterion of the criteria, wherein the at least one third criterion at least requires that the at least one of lengthening or contracting of the pelvic floor muscle must occur during performance of the predetermined physical exercise ([0090], “comprises using the derived data in a software representing tasks for the training” indicating multiple tasks and therefore a third criterion. “[T]asks may e.g. consist of reaching a certain level of contraction of the pelvic floor muscles, or holding a certain level of contraction over a certain time interval, or continuously or stepwise increasing or decreasing the level of contraction, or rapidly switching between a certain level of contraction and relaxation, or others.” Therefore, the abdominal data is discriminated for each of the tasks and the contraction/lengthening data of the pelvic muscles are also obtained for each tasks. The third criterion being for the third task, e.g., reaching a certain level of contraction of the pelvic floor muscles, or holding a certain level of contraction over a certain time interval, or continuously or stepwise increasing or decreasing the level of contraction, or rapidly switching between a certain level of contraction and relaxation, or others. Each of the criterion requiring contraction and lengthening (when going from a contracted state to a relaxed state) cycles).
Regarding claim 16, Zemp teaches wherein the pelvic sensor further measures motion of a pelvic floor of the person, wherein the determination that the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise according to the criteria further comprises evaluating the processed second measurements to determine that the motion of the pelvic floor fulfills at least one further criterion of the criteria (¶[0090], movement, force, and pressure are obtained and evaluated based on speed, force, power, endurance, and/or coordination).
Regarding claim 17, Zemp-Villanueva teach wherein: the predetermined physical exercise further comprises lack of motion of at least one body member of the person (¶[0087,0090] of Zemp, the exercise data does not want motion signals introduced from contraction and relaxation of abs, therefore comprises lack of ab motion);
the first measurements further measure motion of the at least one body member (¶[0090] of Zemp, pelvic muscle floor);
and determining whether the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise further comprises evaluating the processed first measurements to determine whether the motion of the at least one body member fulfills at least one criterion of the criteria associated with lack of motion (¶[0087] of Zemp, the ab motion criteria is determined to be met when there is ab motion and therefore needs to discriminate such data. If no data pertains to ab motion, then criteria is satisfied that no discrimination is required. ¶[0026,0031] of Villanueva, “The equipment offers the user guidance for performing the exercises so that she achieves a certain level of activation of the two measurement channels” indicating that the user is guided throughout exercise that can require the abdomen to remain still, as the level of activation, to achieve a correct performance of the exercise).
Regarding claim 18, Zemp teaches further comprising: processing, by the at least one computing device, a third measurement taken by the pelvic sensor while the person keeps the pelvic floor muscle relaxed or a fifth measurement by the pelvic sensor while the person contracts the pelvic floor muscle (¶[0090], movement, force, and pressure (third and fifth measurements) are measured throughout the exercise which includes a relaxed state and contracted state); and
calibrating, by the at least one computing device, the processed second measurements or at least a portion of the criteria based on the third measurement and at least the fifth measurement (¶[0025], “Normalising the received data with the calibration values makes the data between different users and different training sessions comparable, and allows for a user adaptation and for a control of the training tasks with the processed data” and “Hence deriving such data may comprise signal processing, such as linearising a response function of the sensor, and/or translating the electrical signal of the sensor into physical quantities, e.g. speed or force, and/or taking time derivatives, and/or taking time values, and/or taking force values, and/or others.” Therefore, the second measurements (measurements of contraction/relaxation) is based on values indicative of the static or dynamic behavior ( third/fifth measurements e.g., speed, force, pressure) of the pelvic floor muscles that are normalized and calibrated).
Regarding claim 19, Zemp teaches retrieving, by the at least one computing device, data associated with the person, wherein the data are representative of at least one of a relaxed state, a lengthened state, or a contracted state of the pelvic floor muscle of the person (¶[0090], “tasks may e.g. consist of reaching a certain level of contraction of the pelvic floor muscles, or holding a certain level of contraction over a certain time interval, or continuously or stepwise increasing or decreasing the level of contraction, or rapidly switching between a certain level of contraction and relaxation, or others”); and
calibrating, by the at least one computing device, the processed second measurements or at least one criterion of the criteria based on the data representative of at least one of the relaxed state, the lengthened state, or the contracted state of the pelvic floor muscle of the person (¶[0045], “determining calibration values, in particular in response to a maximum contraction of the muscles and an idle state”).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemp in view of Villanueva, as applied to claims 2 and 5, and further in view of Rodionov et al. (US 20220386897- previously cited), hereinafter Rodionov.
Regarding claim 8, Zemp-Villanueva fail to teach wherein evaluating the processed second measurements to determine whether the pelvic floor muscle at least lengthens or contracts such that it fulfills the at least one second criterion of the criteria comprises: calculating at least one ratio of the pelvic floor muscle lengthening or contracting thereby calculating how much the person lengthened or contracted the pelvic floor muscle.
Rodionov teaches a pelvic floor contraction detection system (abstract) configured to calculate a ratio of the pelvic floor muscle contracting to determine whether the contraction is optimal or suboptimal (¶[0125], “the ratio ΔPmz/ΔPdt is lower than said first threshold value c1, a message of suboptimal pelvic floor muscle contraction is given”).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Zemp-Villanueva, such that it calculates at least one ratio of the pelvic floor muscle lengthening or contracting thereby calculating how much the person lengthened or contracted the pelvic floor muscle, as taught by Rodionov, to aid in determining whether the contraction is suboptimal. This is an obvious modification because Zemp requires counting the amount of contractions (¶[0090] of Zemp) but fails to specify how the count is determined, and Rodionov teaches it can be determined by calculating a ratio.
Regarding claim 11, Zemp fails to teach further comprising one or more of the following: providing, by the at least one computing device, one or more instructions or signals indicative of incorrect performance of the predetermined physical exercise when at least one criterion of the of criteria has not been fulfilled according to the determining step; transmitting, by the at least one computing device to another computing device, data representative of incorrect performance of the predetermined physical exercise when at least one criterion of the predetermined set of criteria has not been fulfilled; or modifying, by the at least one computing device, the criteria by disabling one or more criteria thereof, or by changing values of one or more criteria thereof.
Rodionov teaches that in processing module determines incorrect pelvic floor muscle contraction and notifies the user (abstract).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Zemp-Villanueva, to provide, by the at least one computing device, one or more instructions or signals indicative of incorrect performance of the predetermined physical exercise when at least one criterion of the of criteria has not been fulfilled according to the determining step, as taught by Rodionov, to help the user practice health contractions and avoid inefficient concurrent intra-abdominal contractions (¶[0014]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemp in view of Villanueva, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2025006466- previously cited), hereinafter Kang.
Regarding claim 10, Zemp-Villanueva fail to teach wherein the at least one first criterion comprises one or more of: at least one body member exceeding a predetermined orientation or being within a predetermined orientation range, at least one body member exceeding a predetermined acceleration or being within a predetermined acceleration range, at least one body member exceeding a predetermined angular velocity or being within a predetermined angular velocity range, and at least one body member being still or substantially still with a predetermined orientation for a predetermined period of time.
Kang teaches a pelvic floor strengthening device (abstract) configured to guide the user to a specific predetermined orientation (sitting) and (¶[0022-28], “seat position guide means 63 is to guide the sitting position in the manner that the more the user's body weight increases, or the body height reduces, the more the force or compression against the pelvic floor muscle P increases accordingly”) detect whether the abdomen is substantially still, due to abdomen pressure, while performing the exercise (predetermined time) (¶[0076]). The purpose is such that “the correct Kegel exercise in which only the pelvic floor muscle P can be contracted without exerting on the belly” (¶[0076]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Zemp-Villanueva, such that at least one body member being still or substantially still with a predetermined orientation for a predetermined period of time, as taught by Kang, to aid in determining when the pelvic floor muscle exercise has correctly been performed thereby minimizing pain and optimizing strength training (¶[0005] of Kang).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemp in view of Villanueva and Radionov, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Beer et al. (US 20200337888- previously cited), hereinafter Beer.
Regarding claim 12, Zemp-Villanueva-Radionov teach wherein the one or more instructions or signals are indicative of at least one of: which criterion of the criteria have not been fulfilled (abstract of Radionov, “data processing module determines the incorrect pelvic floor muscle contraction and notifies the user via a user interface”), but fail to teach guidance on how to move the one or more body members or the pelvic floor muscle to fulfill the criterion that has not been fulfilled.
Beer teaches device and methods for diagnosing, treating, or preventing pelvic floor disorders (abstract). The software application is configured to train the user to perform pelvic muscle exercise and provide real-time corrective instruction feedback (¶[0176], “The application provides a step-by-step guide and real-time feedback (e.g., corrective instruction) on positioning the intravaginal device within the vagina and on the specific movements (e.g., pelvic floor muscle engagement and relaxation) which comprise a PFL and/or PFR” (emphasis added)).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Zemp-Villanueva-Radionov, such that guidance on how to move the one or more body members or the pelvic floor muscle to fulfill the criterion that have not been fulfilled, is provided, as taught by Beer, to aid in treating, inhibiting, or reducing the progression of pelvic floor disorders (¶[0016]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemp in view of Villanueva, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Shim (US 20100174218- previously cited), hereinafter Shim.
Regarding claim 13, Zemp teaches wherein the method further comprises processing, by the at least one computing device, the at least one of the first measurements or further measurements taken at least while the person performs the predetermined physical exercise (¶[0090], measurements are taken during exercise), but fails, along with Villanueva, to teach wherein at least one of the first measurements or further measurements are taken by the at least one optical sensor.
Shim teaches a pelvic exercise system that comprises optical sensors for measuring the pelvic variable during exercising various muscles of the pelvic structure to monitor the physiologic state of the pelvic structure (abstract and ¶[0041,0237], “the sensor unit may also assess the contact by a change in optical property” and “the sensor unit may include any conventional optical sensors”).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Zemp-Villanueva, such that at least one of the first measurements or further measurements are taken by the at least one optical sensor, as taught by Shim, to aid in monitoring the physiologic state of the pelvic structure.
Regarding claim 14, Zemp-Villanueva fail to teach wherein determining whether the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise further comprises evaluating the processed measurements of the at least one optical sensor to determine whether motion of one or more joints of the person fulfills at least one further criterion of the criteria.
Shim teaches that pelvic muscle exercises includes contracting the users muscles and varying the joints (legs, back, etc.) to measure desirable pelvic variables representing the physiologic state of the structure of the pelvic muscle (¶[0169,0248], “the user may start the pelvic exercise such as, e.g., contracting and relaxing the pelvic muscles while keeping a preset posture of the pelvic structure, varying the posture of the pelvic structure by moving her legs or thighs or bending her back, and so on. The sensor unit 75 may begin to issue the sensing signals, and the control member may measure desirable pelvic variables representing the physiologic states of the structure from various dynamic patterns thereof”).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Zemp-Villanueva, to determine whether the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise further comprises evaluating the processed measurements of the at least one optical sensor to determine whether motion of one or more joints of the person fulfills at least one further criterion of the criteria, as taught by Shim, to aid in monitoring the physiological state of the pelvic muscle (¶[0248] of Shim).
Regarding claim 15, Zemp-Villanueva teach wherein the first measurements are at least taken by the at least one motion tracking device (¶[0087] of Zemp, sensor 29), but fails to teach wherein each motion tracking device of the at least one motion tracking device comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope.
Shim teaches that the sensor unit comprises acceleration and orientation by measuring acceleration, rotational force, and velocity, thereby teaching an accelerometer and gyroscope (¶[0208,0235-237], “an orientation of the first unit,” “ such variables may include normal force applied onto at least a part of the first unit, bending force applied to such a part, axial force pulling or pushing the part into (or out of) the internal cavity, torque applied around the part, velocity of the part, acceleration of such a part, displacement of the part, contact between the part and a corresponding portion of the pelvic structure, a dimension of the portion, contraction and relaxation of the portion, a duration of at least one of such variables, a frequency of at least one of such variables, and so on,” “sensor unit may be the velocity sensor,” and “sensor unit may also be the acceleration sensor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Zemp-Villanueva, such that each motion tracking device of the at least one motion tracking device comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope, as taught by Shim, to assist the user in improving muscle tones of her pelvic structure (¶[0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2025 have been fully considered. Amendments overcome the rejection, thus, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. Accordingly, the claims have been rejected under new grounds in view of Villanueva.
Applicant contends that Zemp’s “third device 28” with “additional sensor 29” is mapped to measuring body member motion, but is not a sensor for measuring prescribed body member motion, on pages 11-12 of the Remarks. Examiner agrees. The prescribed motion, as required by the amendment, is taught by Villanueva. As such, the rejection has been updated in view of these changes. This modification is obvious and proper because Villanueva teaches “performing periodic muscle exercises of a muscle area to be treated such as the indicated area (i.e., the pelvic floor), capturing information about the muscle activity of the area involved while performing exercises leads to improvement in most cases for strengthening muscles or improving the sensitivity of said exercised area” and “through muscle exercises controlled by an electronic device prepared for capturing, through feedback by means of sensors, electromyographic EMG signals relating to the pelvic floor and EMG signals relating to a lower abdominal area, simultaneously showing a user information illustrating the muscle activity of the treated area, and auxiliary messages particularly offering guidance for said exercises, by means of a visual and/or acoustic interface, while the user performs said muscle exercises.” That is, both Zemp and Villanueva understand the importance of tracking abdominal movement in training PFM, both in discriminating for only PFM and for tracking that the exercise of the abdomen and PFM are being performed accordingly throughout the entire period. Even though Zemp tracks abdomen movement for As such, this does not change the operation of Zemp, and the modification with Villanueva leads to the added benefit of guiding the user to correctly maintain the exercise requirements so that the PFM is trained and monitored accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Batista teaches portable biofeedback devices of practical and easy application with EMG, for Training (exercise) of abdominal muscles. Likewise, devices that promote awareness, stimulation and motivation of constant contraction of abdominal muscles (isometric), for the purpose of reduction of abdominal diameter, backbone stabilization for pain prevention and relief, constant activation of pelvic floor muscles, among other applications. US 20160262689
Philip teaches kegel exercises have been used for decades as a means of strengthening these muscles. However, these exercises are often performed in a fashion that does not accurately recruit the desired musculature. Often the musculature is globally contracting, allowing the stronger musculature to override the weaker musculature, thus perpetuating asymmetry and progressive dysfunctions. Common errors include, but are not limited to the utilization of the respiratory diaphragm, gluteals, groin, and/or abdomen in lieu of the pelvic floor musculature. US 20150126341
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 MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights