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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 38-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/21/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 22-37) in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Burr (US 2024/0042193) does not disclose the special technical feature of detecting a position of the output capacitor on the skin while the therapeutic pulse is being delivered. This is not found persuasive. In the Restriction Requirement of 02/24/2026, Kumar (US 2019/0022400) was used to disclose the feature of a position sensor configured to detect the position of the output capacitor (see 02/24/2026 Restriction, pages 3-4). Kumar discloses this feature at least at pars. [0020] (“The wearable defibrillator can further include an inclinometer configured to determine the position and orientation of the wearable defibrillator”), [0095] (“In one example the wearable defibrillator includes an inclinometer configured to determine the position and orientation of the wearable defibrillator”), and [0186] (“an inclinometer configured to determine the position and orientation of the wearable defibrillator”). Since this sensor is included within the wearable defibrillator, the position of the defibrillator could be determined while it is in use.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 38-42 are withdrawn from consideration.
Remarks
This action is in response to the remarks filed 04/21/2026.
Claims 22-37 are examined in the office action below.
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.
Claim 29 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.
Regarding claim 29, the limitation of the position sensor configured to capture an image is unclear. It is unclear how a position sensor as claimed can capture an image of the skin at regular intervals.
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 22, 26-28, 32, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0022400), hereinafter Kumar.
Regarding claim 22, Kumar discloses an electrotherapy appliance configured to introduce a therapeutic electrical pulse into skin of a patient (e.g. Abstract), the electrotherapy appliance comprising: a pulse source configured to output a pulse voltage (e.g. Par. [0122]: providing electrical energy to the user; Par. [0108]: energy source in the housing); an output capacitor, which is placeable on the skin of the patient and is fitted with a first capacitor electrode connected to a first terminal of the pulse source and fitted with a second capacitor electrode connected to a second terminal of the pulse source, in order to convert the pulse voltage into the therapeutic pulse (e.g. Fig. 3B: electrodes 156 and 158; Par. [0122]: capacitor modules 156 and 158); and a position sensor configured to detect a position of the output capacitor on the skin while the therapeutic pulse is being delivered (e.g. Pars. [0020], [0095], [0186]: an inclinometer configured to determine the position and orientation of the wearable defibrillator).
Regarding claim 26, Kumar further discloses a transmitting interface configured to transmit the position of the output capacitor to a data processing device (e.g. Par. [0032]: “wirelessly transmitting the patient data to a computer for analysis”; Par. [0095]: wirelessly transmitting data).
Regarding claim 27, Kumar further discloses transmitting the position of the output capacitor together with a measured value describing the skin at the detected position (e.g. Par. [0032]: “wirelessly transmitting the patient data to a computer for analysis”; Par. [0095]: wirelessly transmitting data, the sensed data can include position data which is considered to be the measured value).
Regarding claim 28, Kumar further discloses wherein the position sensor is configured to incrementally detect the position of the output capacitor on the skin (e.g. Par. [0168]: patient data is measured for certain time periods).
Regarding claim 32, Kumar further discloses wherein the output capacitor is held on a treatment head having a recess accommodating the position sensor (e.g. Fig. 3B: device shown with multiple recesses for the different parts).
Regarding claim 34, Kumar further discloses an acceleration sensor configured to evaluate the position detection of the position sensor (e.g. Par. [0095]: accelerometer can be one of the sensors of the device).
Regarding claim 35, Kumar further discloses a control device configured to detect a movement of the electrotherapy appliance on the skin with respect to a predetermined starting point, so that the positions are detected as relative positions with respect to the starting position by the position sensor, wherein the control device is configured to transmit the positions to an interface of the electrotherapy appliance for logging (e.g. Par. [0095]: inclinometer is used to detect position of the device; Par. [0032]: “wirelessly transmitting the patient data to a computer for analysis”).
Regarding claim 36, Kumar further discloses wherein the control device is configured to generate a data packet comprising the detected position together with a measured value determined at the skin at the detected position (e.g. Par. [0095]).
Regarding claim 37, Kumar further discloses wherein the measured value comprises a resonant frequency of the oscillating circuit in the form of a first pulse time, a number of zero crossings, or capacitance of the skin at the detected position (e.g. Par. [0095]; Par. [0136]; Par. [0144]: capacitive component of electrode-skin interface).
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.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0022400), hereinafter Kumar, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Tamaki et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0022373), hereinafter Tamaki.
Regarding claim 23, Kumar fails to disclose wherein the position sensor is a dx-dy displacement sensor. Tamaki, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards an electrical stimulus device. Tamaki discloses using a displacement sensor (e.g. Par. [0011]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kumar to include the displacement sensor as taught by Tamaki because doing so would result in improved determination of the displacement.
Regarding claim 24, Kumar fails to disclose wherein the position sensor is an optical displacement sensor. Tamaki, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards an electrical stimulus device. Tamaki discloses using an optical displacement sensor (e.g. Par. [0011]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kumar to include the optical displacement sensor as taught by Tamaki because doing so would result in improved determination of the displacement.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0022400), hereinafter Kumar, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Yakobson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0361965), hereinafter Yakobson.
Regarding claim 25, Kumar fails to disclose wherein the pulse source comprises an oscillating circuit with the output capacitor and a magnetically chargeable coil, which is part of a transformer. Yakobson, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards an electronic patch for stimulating tissue. Yakobson discloses a pulse source comprising an oscillating circuit with the output capacitor and a magnetically chargeable coil (e.g. Par. [0249]: controller comprises oscillator; Par. [0119]: charging a coil). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kumar to include the oscillator and coil as taught by Yakobson because doing so would result in improved stimulation that can enhance healing (e.g. Yakobson, par. [0002]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0022400), hereinafter Kumar, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0215753).
Regarding claim 29, Kumar fails to disclose wherein the position sensor, in order to incrementally detect the position, is configured to capture an image of the skin at regular intervals and to compare the captured image with a previously captured image of the skin. Lee, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a wearable device for electrical stimulation. Lee discloses imaging the user to determine a position of the device (e.g. Pars. [0057]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kumar to include the imaging as taught by Lee because doing so would result in an accurate determination of the position of the device.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0022400), hereinafter Kumar, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Guger et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0240827), hereinafter Guger.
Regarding claim 30, Kumar fails to disclose wherein the first and second capacitor electrodes are closed loops arranged concentrically to one another. Guger is directed towards an electrode arrangement. Guger discloses electrodes arranged in concentric circles (e.g. Par. [0034]: electrodes can be arranged in concentric circles). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kumar to include electrodes arranged in concentric circles as taught by Guger because it is a known arrangement of electrodes.
Regarding claim 31, Kumar further discloses a position sensor located within the device (e.g. Pars. [0020], [0095], [0186]: an inclinometer configured to determine the position and orientation of the wearable defibrillator). Kumar in view of Guger discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose the position sensor being arranged within an inner loop of the closed loops arranged concentrically to each other. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Kumar in view of Guger with the position sensor being arranged within an inner loop of the closed loops, because Applicant has not disclosed that the position sensor being arranged within an inner loop of the closed loops provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the position sensor location as taught by Kumar in view of Guger, because it provides the predictable results of determining the position of the device and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Kumar in view of Guger. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kumar in view of Guger to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0022400), hereinafter Kumar, as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 33, Kumar further discloses wherein the recesses are covered (e.g. Fig. 3B: recesses are covered with other components; Par. [0026]). Kumar discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose the transparent cover. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Kumar with the transparent cover, because Applicant has not disclosed that the transparent cover provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the covers as taught by Kumar, because it provides the predictable results of covering the recesses in the device and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Kumar. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kumar to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 EST.
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 McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights