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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23, “according the instructions” should be rewritten as “according to the instructions”.
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/do not use the word “means,” or “step” 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:
In claim 1, "plurality of stimulation units" → defined as points on the device that provide vibro-tactile stimulation across different parts and/or regions of the body (paragraph [0020], Fig. 3B)
In claim 4, "means for providing the psychological intervention to the user" → defined as a computer program or a separate device configured to provide psychological intervention for a patient (paragraph [0006])
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 4, 7, and 12 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 4, “and means for providing the psychological intervention to the user” is rendered indefinite, as it is unclear whether this is the same computer program that provides the psychological intervention as mentioned in claim 2, or if it is a separate computer program or device.
Regarding claim 7, “means for associating different stimulation units of the plurality of stimulation units with different parts of the user” is rendered indefinite, as the means are not described within the specification.
Regarding claim 12, “generally” in “wherein the apparatus has a generally spherical shape” is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 16, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayo et al. (US 20170296775 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mayo et al. teaches an apparatus for providing vibro-tactile stimulation (“vibrating elements 104 are brought into therapeutic contact with the individual”, paragraph [0036]) for use in combination with a psychological intervention (“therapeutic benefits offered by the present disclosure…aiding in the treatment of: attention deficit disorder, obsessive/compulsive disorder, clinical depression, panic disorder, anxiety”, paragraph [0074]), the apparatus comprising:
A plurality of stimulation units, each adapted to provide vibro-tactile stimulation to a user upon activation (vibrating elements 104, Fig. 1)
A receiver configured to receive instructions as part of the psychological intervention (vibrator 200 is controlled by a controller 202 which receives instructions via the communication module 204”, paragraph [0040]; communication 204, Fig. 2)
A controller configured to activate at least a subset of the plurality of stimulation units according to the instructions (“vibrating elements 104 simultaneously vibrate is randomly selected by the controller”, paragraph [0045]; controller 202, Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 2, Mayo et al. teaches the psychological intervention being provided by a computer program, and wherein the receiver is adapted to receive the instructions from the computer program (“a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying a computer program product includes, but is not limited to, instructions for providing a therapeutic benefit to a person when executed by a processor”, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Mayo et al. teaches the computer program being executed by a separate device, and wherein the receiver is adapted to receive the instructions from the separate device (“vibrating elements 104 are controlled by a mobile device 102…running a software application…communicates with the vibrating elements 104”, paragraph [0037]; mobile device 102).
Regarding claim 4, Mayo et al. teaches the apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute the computer program itself, and means for providing the psychological intervention to the user (“computer program product includes…instructions for providing a therapeutic benefit to a person when executed by a processor”, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Mayo et al. teaches the psychological intervention comprising elements of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and/or relaxation training (“relaxing sounds or music may be used in conjunction with the vibratory stimulation”, paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, Mayo et al. teaches a sensor (pressure sensor 212, Fig. 15) configured to establish which stimulation units of the plurality of stimulation units are in contact with the user, wherein the controller is adapted to activate at least a subset of the plurality of stimulation units that consists of stimulation units that are established to be in contact with the user (“only the stimulation elements…having a sufficient pressure indication would vibrate when instructed…each pressure sensor in the array 1406 reports its pressure indication…which in turn instructs only those pressure sensors…to vibrate to provide the therapeutic benefit to the individual…different vibrating elements 104 of the vibrating array 1406 may come into therapeutic contact”, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Mayo et al. teaches means for associating different stimulation units of the plurality of stimulation units with different parts of the user (“at the individual moves or changes position, different vibrating elements 104 of the vibrating array 1406 may come into therapeutic contact with the individual”, paragraph [0056]). The device can detect different parts of the user and provide different levels of stimulation.
Regarding claim 8, Mayo et al. teaches a surface layer covering at least a portion of the apparatus, wherein the surface layer is removable (“vibrating element 104 may be temporarily fixed to an individual’s body by a removable adhesive disc 400”, paragraph [0041]; removable adhesive disc 400, Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 9, Mayo et al. teaches an energy storage that is replaceable and/or rechargeable (“removable battery 4800 that can be recharged and reconnected to the bilateral array”, paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Mayo et al. teaches the apparatus being in the shape of a pillow (“stimulation elements can be built into a pillow or can be built into a pillow cover into which the pillow is inserted”, paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 16, Mayo et al. teaches the apparatus being in a shape of a glove (“vibrating elements 104…through clothing, accessories, or articles being used by the individual”, paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Mayo et al. teaches the controller being adapted to activate at least the subset of the plurality of stimulation units (“mobile device 102 that may be used to program the alternating asynchronous bilaterial simulation”, paragraph [0042]) synchronously to generate a pulsing sensation for the user (“asynchronous stimulation is provided by the vibrating elements 104…to stimulate each vibrating element 104 in an alternating manner with some period of overlap where both stimulating elements are vibrating simultaneously”, paragraph [0038]). The controller can be adapted to activate the plurality of stimulation units asynchronously as well as synchronously.
Regarding claim 18, Mayo et al. teaches the controller (controller 202, Fig. 2) capable of being adapted to activate at least one or more subsets of the plurality of stimulation units throughout a plurality of bursts, as well as being capable of being at a specific frequency range of 10 Hz to 300 Hz, wherein there are 100 ms to 2000 ms between the bursts.
Regarding claim 19, Mayo et al. teaches the controller (controller 202, Fig. 2) capable of being adapted to successively activate at least the subset of the plurality of stimulation units, individually and/or in groups of two or more, so as to generate a sensation of a wave travelling across the apparatus for the user.
Regarding claim 20, Mayo et al. teaches the controller (controller 202, Fig. 2) capable of being adapted to activate the subset of the plurality of stimulation units, individually and/or in groups of two or more, at N respective onset times T1…TN throughout a cycle period T, wherein N is an integer larger than one and wherein the onset times T1…TN are not arranged substantially uniformly throughout the cycle period T.
Regarding claim 21, Mayo et al. teaches a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program for providing a psychological intervention for use in combination with an apparatus for providing vibro-tactile stimulation (paragraph [0009]), the computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to output instructions to the apparatus as part of the psychological intervention (“instructions contained in the non-transitory computer readable medium cause the first and second stimulations to apply alternating bilateral stimulation to the person…to provide therapeutic benefit to the person”, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 22, Mayo et al. teaches a system for providing vibro-tactile stimulation in combination with a psychological intervention, the system comprising:
The apparatus according to claim 1
A computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to output instructions to the apparatus as part of the psychological intervention, or a separate device configured to execute the computer program (“non-limiting illustrations of a display screen of the mobile device”, paragraph [0042]; instructions shown on screen of separate device in Fig. 4-8)
Regarding claim 23, Mayo et al. teaches a method for providing vibro-tactile stimulation for use in combination with a psychological intervention (paragraph [0009]), the method comprising:
Providing instructions to a user as part of the psychological intervention (Fig. 4-8)
Activating at least a subset of a plurality of stimulation units, each adapted to provide vibro-tactile stimulation to the user upon activation, according to the instructions (“a settings screen 400 is illustrated having a touch-sensitive button 420 to adjust the intensity of the vibrations…duration of the vibrations…overlap period…provided (programmed) by the individual”, paragraph [0042]; Fig. 4-8)
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayo et al. in view of Johnson (US 5165897 A).
Regarding claim 10, Mayo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach between 2 to 500 stimulation units.
However, Johnson teaches an apparatus with comprising between 2 to 500 stimulation units (“vibrating pins…provide vibratory stimulation to the finger tip”, Col. 2, lines 25-27; tactile elements 18, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Mayo et al. with the amount of stimulation units of Johnson in order to ensure an efficient amount of stimulation to be in contact with a patient and to reach various areas of a patient.
Regarding claim 11, Mayo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the stimulation units being arranged at an average distance of 0.1 cm to 20 cm.
Johnson teaches stimulation units being spaced within a compact array, however the distance is not disclosed (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
234
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably modify the distance between stimulation units of Johnson to be within the claimed range of between 0.1 cm to 20 cm to achieve an arrangement that would allow for providing enough vibrotactile stimulation to various areas of the body of a patient as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,” in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, it is notable that the claimed ranges do not have disclosed criticality within the applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayo et al. in view of Daugherty et al. (US 4441487 A).
Regarding claim 12, Mayo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not each a generally spherical shape with a diameter between 5 cm and 100 cm.
However, Daugherty et al. teaches an apparatus for providing vibro-tactile stimulation (“fingers and nails of a hand…massaged with vibrations”, abstract) and is a generally spherical shape (handrest 4, Fig. 3) with a diameter between 5 cm and 100 cm (“handrest 4…cross-sectional dimension in the horizontal plane of 37/8 inches”, Col. 2, lines 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Mayo et al. with the spherical shaped apparatus of Daugherty et al. in order to have a device that is appropriately sized for the hand of a patient in order to deliver vibrotactile stimulation to the hand.
Regarding claim 14, Mayo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach one or more recesses to receive a tip of a finger and/or thumb of a user.
However, Daugherty et al. teaches one or more recesses adapted to receive at least a tip of a finger and/or thumb of the user (“handrest of convex hollow configuration which is contoured to support either hand with outstretched fingers…in contact with the fingertips”, Col. 1, lines 44-47, also shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein each of the one or more recesses comprises at least one stimulation unit of the plurality of stimulation units (“vibrator includes a leaf-spring 11 of a ferromagnetic material…vibration is transmitted through the leaf-spring to the handrest 4”, Col. 3, lines 47-54).
PNG
media_image2.png
175
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Mayo et al. with the one or more recesses of the apparatus of Daugherty et al. in order to support the shape of a patient’s hand and contour against the fingers and provide vibrotactile stimulation along the crevices of the hand.
Regarding claim 15, Mayo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the apparatus being a partially hollow shape.
However, Daugherty et al. teaches the apparatus being at least partially hollow (“handrest 4…molded in a hollow shell-like shape”, Col. 2, lines 35-36, “handrest…substantially hollow on its underside”, claim 1) such that it is positionable over another object. The hollow shell-like shape can allow the apparatus to be positionable over another object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Mayo et al. with the partially hollow apparatus of Daugherty et al. in order to allow for the device to be placed on top of another object, such as a pillow or a grip-shaped object depending on where the patient requires treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3598. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/L.L.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791