DETAILED ACTION 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(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 includes the limitation that the rectangular pulses are either monophasic or biphasic, however these are the only two options available for rectangular pulses, so the limitation fails to further limit claim 2 which it depends upon. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1,13,17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Schroeder et al ( US 20190262212 A1 ); hereinafter Schroeder. Regarding claim 1, Schroeder teaches a system for draining cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) though a subject's neck lymphatic system (a biofluid blood flow device for assisting in moving (draining) CSF fluid through a subject's neck lymphatic system [0038]-[0046]), the system comprising: a signal generator (a device for generating external electrical stimulation, and thus will inherently comprise a signal generator [0038]-[0040], [0043]); a plurality of electrodes operably connected to the signal generator ([0038],[0045],[0046] appropriate voltage/current for electrical stimulation of muscles can be applied with properly positioned electrodes); and a controller operably connected to the signal generator ([0046] a programmable control unit connected to the signal generator), the controller comprising a processor and a memory, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor ([0052] the internal controls in the control unit include microcircuitry and memory as necessary for storing data and for programming the delivery schedule, stimulation sites, and the nature of the stimulation), cause the controller to: deliver a neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal comprising at least one burst of pulses to at least one muscle in the subject's neck ([0014],[0038]-[0040],[0058] a neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal comprising a series of pulses is delivered to contract the muscles in the neck), wherein the neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal is configured to induce a plurality of contractions of the at least one muscle ([0038]-[0040] the neuromuscular electrical stimulation induces a plurality of muscle contractions in the neck), wherein the contractions of the at least one muscle are configured to squeeze at least one lymph node to create a pumping force ([0038]-[0040], [0058] the contractions of the muscle in the neck squeeze the muscles in the neck, thus creating a pumping force), and wherein the pumping force is configured to direct CSF flow in a proximal direction ([0038]-[0040], [0058] by applying external electrical stimulation to a site on that muscle contracts that muscle and in doing so, asserts pressure on a targeted vein, lymph vessel, or CSF passageway; stimulate muscles in the neck to direct CSF movement from the brain and through the neck (in a proximal direction)). Regarding claim 13, Schroeder teaches t he system of claim 1, wherein the neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal comprises a plurality of bursts of pulses ([0014] the biofluid flow assist device is programmed to apply an appropriate series of pulses to a target for an appropriate duration). Regarding claim 17, Schroeder teaches t he system of claim 1, wherein the at least one muscle is one or more of musculus platysma, sternocleidomastoid, or trapezius ([0014],[0038]-[0040],[0058] a neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal comprising a series of pulses is delivered to contract the muscles in the neck - the musculus platysma, sternocleidomastoid, or trapezius are the largest muscles in the neck and the most ). Regarding claim 18, Schroeder teaches t he system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes are surface electrodes (fig. 5 shows patch electrode). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 . Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Sachs et al (US20200391021A1); hereinafter Sachs. Regarding claim 2, Schroeder teaches the system of claim 1. Schroeder fails to teach a burst of pulses comprising rectangular pulses. Sachs teaches the at least one burst of pulses comprises rectangular pulses (figs. 17 and 18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Schroeder with Sachs because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Sachs teaches that s timulation pulses may have any morphology, however, ones with sine or rectangular shapes generally are preferred ([0095]). Therefore, rectangular pulses would be well known to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schroeder and Sachs teaches the system of claim 2. Sachs further teaches the rectangular pulses are monophasic or biphasic pulses (figure 18 shows biphasic, figure 21b shows monophasic). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schroeder and Sachs teaches the system of claim 2. Sachs further teaches each of the rectangular pulses has a duration of about 0.5-1000 usec ([0096] most pulses used in LAMES systems commonly have duration of between 200 microseconds and 1 millisecond). Regarding claim 5, Schroeder teaches the system of claim 1. Schroeder fails to teach that the burst of pulses comprises sinusoidal pulses. Sachs teaches the at least one burst of pulses comprises sinusoidal pulses ([0091] preferred pulse shape should be either sinusoidal or square wave shaped). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Schroeder with Sachs because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Sachs teaches that the parameters of the pulses are “selected to achieve a desired pulse contraction goal without excessive fatigue or causing muscle damage” ([0091]). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schroeder and Sachs teaches the system of claim 5. Sachs further teaches the sinusoidal pulses have a frequency of about 5-150 Hz ([0091] 2-10 Hz for non-tetanic pulse trains or 20-100 Hz for tetanic pulse trains, with amplitudes sufficient to induce muscle contractions and pulse durations of between 0.2 and 1 millisecond). Regarding claim 8, Schroeder teaches the system of claim 1. Schroeder fails to teach detecting muscular contractions. Sachs teaches a sensor configured to detect muscular contractions, wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to receive a feedback signal from the sensor, wherein the feedback signal comprises information related to a contraction state of the at least one muscle ([0023] Sensors may include muscle contraction sensors, muscle condition sensors, vital signs sensors, skin contact sensors, therapy end-point sensors, motion sensors and/or the like). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Schroeder with Sachs because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Sachs teaches that “ a plurality of sensors that provide feedback that assists in electrode selection, adjusting stimulation parameters and further may prevent the occurrence of undesirable conditions, such as temperature hotspots that may lead to burns of comatose or sedated patients ” ([0010]). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schroeder and Sachs teaches the system of claim 8. Sachs further teaches the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to increase the magnitude of the neuromuscular stimulation signal until detecting the contraction of at least one muscle ([0102] Processor 13 receives signals from sensor 15 and patient interface unit 16, processes those signals, and provides signals to the stimulator 11 regarding when and how to stimulate nerve tissue to promote muscle contraction). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schroeder and Sachs teaches the system of claim 9. Sachs further teaches the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to further increase the magnitude of the neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal above a minimum current that induces the contraction of the at least one muscle ([0102] Processor 13 receives signals from sensor 15 and patient interface unit 16, processes those signals, and provides signals to the stimulator 11 regarding when and how to stimulate nerve tissue to promote muscle contraction). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schroeder and Sachs teaches the system of claim 10. The combination fails to teach that the electrical stimulation current is increased about 10-50% above the minimum current. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Schroeder and Sachs to specify the amount above the minimum current because it’s obvious to try (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success). In order to cause a muscular contraction, the magnitude of the signal current has to be above the minimum current and the range provided of 10-50% has no specific benefit over any other range. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Schroeder and Sachs teaches the system of claim 8. Sachs further teaches the sensor is a strain gauge ([0140] strain gauge pressure sensor). Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Castel et al ( US20070156182A1 ); hereinafter Castel . Regarding claim 14, Schroeder teaches the system of claim 1. Schroeder fails to teach details of the bursts of pulses. Castel teaches the plurality of bursts of pulses is a series of about 5-50 bursts of pulses ([0079] burst frequency of approximately 0.1 Hz to 5 Hz for a duration of approximately 1 seconds to 120 seconds - multiplying frequency by duration gives the number of pulses ranging from 0.1 to 600). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Schroeder with Castel because it constitutes overlapping ranges and according to MPEP 2144.05.I, “a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ” Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schroeder and Castel teaches the system of claim 14. Castel further teaches the series is delivered at a frequency of about 0.02-1 Hz ([0079] burst frequency of approximately 0.1 Hz to 5 Hz). Regarding claim 16, Schroeder teaches the system of claim 1. Schroeder fails to teach the time period that the electrical stimulation signal is delivered. Castel teaches the neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal is delivered for a period of about 5-60 minutes ([0079] Preferably, the frequency-sequenced pulse burst train pattern is applied to the patient for a total treatment time of approximately 1 minute to 60 minutes). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Schroeder with Castel because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Castel teaches that “this therapy is also very comfortable and moderately aggressive” ([0079]). Claim(s) 7, 19 , and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder and Williams et al (US20190201684A1); hereinafter Williams. Regarding claim 7, Schroeder teaches the system of claim 1. Schroeder fails to teach the specific current delivered. Castel teaches the neuromuscular electrical stimulation signal is delivered with a current of about 10-100 mA ([0062] current amplitude that typically ranges between 25 milliamps and 140 milliamps) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Schroeder with Williams because it constitutes an overlapping range. According to MPEP 2144.05.I., “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) ”. Additionally, the base reference Schroeder states that appropriate voltage/current for electrical stimulation of muscles can be applied with properly positioned electrodes ([0046]). Therefore, the base reference has room for improvement and a motivation to select a customized current range. Regarding claim 19, Schroeder teaches the system of claim 1. Schroeder fails to teach implantable electrodes. Williams teaches t he plurality of electrodes are implantable electrodes ([0028] implanted intravenous electrode). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Schroeder with Williams because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Williams teaches “ the electrical stimulation is effective to attract proteins to the implanted electrode subjected to the electrical stimulation ” ([0028]). While attracting proteins is not the aim of Schroeder, Williams does teach glymphatic drainage so implanting the electrodes is beneficial for the shared ultimate purpose of clearing waste product from the brain. Regarding claim 20, the combination of Schroeder and Williams teaches the system of claim 19. Williams further teaches the signal generator is an implantable signal generator ([0110] implantable pulse generator). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0780 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Carl Layno can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4949 . 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. /D.S.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /CARL H LAYNO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796