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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, 5, the phrase “based on a muscle activity of the muscle to be relaxed” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the muscle activity of the muscle to be relaxed is being measured. If so, no element , sensor etc. has been set forth to measure that muscle activity . The dependent claims inherit the deficiency. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dernebo et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0197688), hereinafter ‘ Dernebo ’. Regarding claim 1, Dernebo teaches a relaxation support device (Fig. 9, right arm module 102) comprising: a processor ([0173], CPU 854 of master unit 266 , Fig. 19) ; and a memory storing program instructions ( [0151] , CPU is programmed by software in a computing device ) that cause the processor to: control electrical stimulation to a muscle different from a muscle to be relaxed ( [0143] , antagonist muscle 508 is not used for stimulation ) based on a muscle activity of the muscle to be relaxed ( [0160] , stimulation signals to agonist muscle on upper side of lower arm to indirectly relax tense antagonist muscles on lower side of lower arm ) ; and present the electrical stimulation to the muscle different from the muscle to be relaxed ([0143], stimulation pulses sent to agonist muscle 502) (stimulation signal 512, Fig. 9) . Regarding claim 2, Dernebo teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein the processor is configured to : present the electrical stimulation to a muscle linked with the muscle to be relaxed in a certain exercise ([0140], stimulation used to induce relaxation and embodiment practice) . Regarding claim 3, Dernebo teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein the processor is further configured to: measure a muscle activity of the muscle to be relaxed ( [0183] , measuring voltage difference between electrodes 138, 140 mounted on antagonist muscle 508 , Fig. 9); control the electrical stimulation according to a magnitude of the muscle activity ([0183], report voltage difference to master unit 266 to determine how much stimulation signal 512 should be increased/decreased, Fig. 9); and present the electrical stimulation to a site different from a site where the muscle activity is measured ([0183], stimulation signal 512 of agonist muscle 502 increases if antagonist muscle 508 is not sufficiently relaxed, as indicated by voltage difference, and vice versa) . Regarding claim 4, Dernebo teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein in a form of an elbow supporter, two sets of electrodes are arranged diagonally ( Fig. 9, electrodes 134, 136, 138, 140 ) . Regarding claim 5, Dernebo teaches a relaxation support method that is executed by a relaxation support device ([0003], used for muscle relaxation) , the relaxation support method comprising: controlling electrical stimulation to a muscle different from a muscle to be relaxed based on a muscle activity of the muscle to be relaxed ( [0160] , stimulation signals to agonist muscle on upper side of lower arm to indirectly relax tense antagonist muscles on lower side of lower arm ) ; and presenting the electrical stimulation to the muscle different from the muscle to be relaxed ([0143], stimulation pulses sent to agonist muscle 502) (stimulation signal 512, Fig. 9) . Regarding claim 6, Dernebo teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the relaxation support device according to claim 1 ([0151], CPU is programmed by software in a computing device) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0095200) teaches an electrical stimulation training program. Shiba et al. (W IP O 2006/022307 ) teaches a muscle stimulating method. Tran (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0247650) teaches a system for augmenting muscle controls. Katsunori et al. (JP 2017/173589) teaches a data glove and signal processing method. CN 108492674 (author undisclosed) teaches a piano hand training device. Hyde et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0164876) teaches a system for monitoring/facilitating user motion. Bulsen et al. ( US Pre- Grant Publication 2015/0148866) teaches a method for electrical stimulation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH L OKONAK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1594 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8-5 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Benjamin Klein can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5213 . 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. /E.L.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /MALLIKA D FAIRCHILD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792