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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 18 is not referenced in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 12, 14, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “with motion of the” in line 19, but instead should be --with the motion of the--. Claim 11 recites “of the of criteria” in lines 3-4, but instead should be --of the criteria--. Claim 12 recites “the pelvic floor” in line 4, but instead should be --a pelvic floor--. Claim 14 recites “evaluating the processed measurements” in line 2, but instead should recite --evaluating the processed first measurements--. Claim 17 recites “measure motion” in line 4, but instead should recite --measure the motion--. Claim 17 recites “with lack of motion” in the last line, but instead should recite --with the lack of motion--. Claim 18 recites “the pelvic floor muscle” in line 3, but instead should be --a pelvic floor muscle--. Claim 19 recites “the pelvic floor muscle” in the lines 3-4, but instead should be --a pelvic floor muscle--. Claim 20 recites “taken by at least . . . , at least one optical” in line 6, but instead should be --taken by the at least . . . , the at least one optical--.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: 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 § 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 11-12 and 19 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 11 recites “when at least one criterion” in line 6, but is indefinite. Is the at least one criterion the same as the one in line 3 or different? Further clarification required.
Claim 11 recites “one or more criteria thereof” in the last line, but is indefinite. Is the one or more criteria the same as the criteria that is disabled? Further clarification required.
Claim 12 recites “the one or more body members or the pelvic floor muscles” in line 4, but is indefinite. The claims which claim 12 is dependent on do not recite either elements. As such, the claim must be amended to depend on one that does or amend the antecedent basis to omit “the.”
Claim 19 recites “the at least one second criterion” in lines 5-6, but is indefinite. An at least one second criterion has not been introduced in the claims that claim 19 depends on. As such, it is unclear if the second criterion from a different dependent claim is intended to be further limited or if this is a separate second criterion. Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zemp et al. (US 20200384311- Cited by Applicant), hereinafter Zemp.
Regarding claims 1-3 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 whether motion of the one or more body members fulfills at least one first criterion of the predetermined set of criteria, wherein the at least one first criterion is associated with motion of the one or more body members (¶[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 whether the pelvic floor muscle lengthens and/or contracts such that it fulfills at least one second criterion of the predetermined set of criteria, wherein the at least one second criterion is associated with at least one of lengthening and contracting of a pelvic floor muscle (¶[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);
wherein the at least one computing device determines that the person has correctly performed the predetermined physical exercise when all criteria of the predetermined set of criteria have been fulfilled (¶[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.” For clarification, by determining the amount of contractions, a count towards the amount indicates that it was correctly done, if not, no count will be associated to the movement ).
Regarding claim 4, Zemp teaches wherein the at least one motion tracking device is configured to be arranged on 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).
Regarding claim 5, Zemp teaches wherein the criteria comprises at least one first criterion associated with motion of the one or more body members (¶[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 at least one second criterion associated with at least one of lengthening or contracting of the pelvic floor muscle (¶[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).
Regarding claim 6, Zemp 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 (¶[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.).
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 whether the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise 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 of whether the person has performed the predetermined physical exercise further comprises evaluating the processed second measurements to determine whether 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 teaches wherein: the predetermined physical exercise further comprises lack of motion of at least one body member of the person (¶[0087,0090], 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], 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], 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).
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 the at least one second criterion 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”).
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 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemp, as applied to claims 2 and 5, and further in view of Rodionov et al. (US 20220386897- Cited by applicant), hereinafter Rodionov.
Regarding claim 8, Zemp fails 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, 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, 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, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2025006466), hereinafter Kang.
Regarding claim 10, Zemp fails 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, 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]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemp in view of Radionov, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Beer et al. (US 20200337888- Cited by Applicant), hereinafter Beer.
Regarding claim 12, Zemp-Radionov teach wherein the one or more instructions or signals are indicative of at least one of: which criterion 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 have 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, 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 , as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Shim (US 20100174218), 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 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, 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 fails 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, 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 teaches wherein the first measurements are at least taken by the at least one motion tracking device (¶[0087], 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, 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stein teaches an exercise device for strengthening the muscles of the pelvis. US 20020142902
Kim teaches an apparatus for examining and curing urinary incontinence and exercising the pelvic floor muscles and vaginal muscles using bio-feedback including a controller main body, a probe, and a bio-feedback device. Therefore, it is possible for a user to readily perform examination and treatment of urinary incontinence and pelvic floor muscle (vagina muscle) reinforcement exercise using bio-feedback. US 20080139876
Nady teaches an exercise device useful in exercising pelvic floor muscles and provides feedback to a patient for assisting the patient in performing pelvic floor muscle exercises, thereby strengthening the pelvic floor muscles and preventing urinary incontinence. US 20050148447
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 W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791