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 .
The action is in response to the application filed on 12/28/2023. Claims 1-8 are pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim. Here the claim references to two sets of claims to different features. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210045671 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Wiese”).
Regarding claim 1, Wiese, a tissue oxygen saturation detection device, teaches a muscle oxygen saturation detection method (abstract; paragraphs [0029]-[0030]), applied to a muscle oxygen saturation detection device (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]; as shown in Figure 1A-B), wherein the muscle oxygen saturation detection device comprises a light source (102; paragraphs [0036]-[0038]; Figure 1b) and at least two detectors (103; paragraphs [0036]-[0038]; Figure 1b), the light source is configured to alternately emit light of at least two different wavelengths (paragraph [0088]), the at least two detectors comprise a first detector and a second detector, a distance between the first detector and the light source and a distance between the second detector and the light source are unequal (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]; as shown in Figure 1A-B), and the muscle oxygen saturation detection method comprises:
acquiring an intensity of light of a first wavelength exiting a tissue to be measured detected by the first defector to obtain a first exiting light intensity, and acquiring an intensity of the light of the first wavelength exiting the tissue to be measured detected by the second detector to obtain a second exiting light intensity when the light source emits light of the first wavelength to the tissue to be measured (paragraphs [0036]-[0038], [0044]-[0049]);
acquiring an intensity of light of a second wavelength exiting a tissue to be measured detected by the first detector to obtain a third exiting light intensity, and acquiring an intensity of the light of the second wavelength exiting the tissue to be measured detected by the second detector to obtain a fourth exiting light intensity when the light source emits light of the second wavelength to the tissue to be measured (paragraphs [0036]-[0038], [0044]-[0049]); and
determining a muscle oxygen saturation of the tissue to be measured according to an intensity of the light of the first wavelength incident on the tissue to be measured, an intensity of the light of the second wavelength incident on the tissue to be measured, the first exiting light intensity, the second exiting light intensity, the third exiting light intensity, the fourth exiting light intensity, the distance between the first detector and the light source, and the distance between the second detector and the light source (paragraphs [0036]-[0038], [0044]-[0049], [0088]-[0090]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200391021 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sachs”).
Regarding claim 5, Sachs, a system/method for therapeutic muscle stimulation, teaches a muscle oxygen saturation recovery method (paragraph [0107], [0112]), applied to a recovery device (paragraph [0107], [0112]), and comprising:
receiving information sent by a muscle oxygen saturation detection device, wherein the information comprises a first notification for notifying the recovery device of turning-on or a second notification for notifying the recovery device of turning-off (paragraph [0107], [0112]); and
performing a corresponding action based on the information, wherein a muscle oxygen saturation of a tissue to be measured detected by the muscle oxygen saturation detection device will rise when the recovery device is turned on (paragraph [0107], [0112]).
Regarding claim 6, Sachs teaches wherein performing the corresponding action based on the information comprises: performing a turning-on action and outputting an electrical pulse to the tissue to be measured under the condition that the information comprises the first notification (paragraph [0107], [0112], [0116], [0135]).
Regarding claim 7, Sachs teaches wherein performing the turning-on action and outputting the electrical pulse to the tissue to be measured comprises: performing a turning-on action and acquiring a target amplitude, a target period and a target pulse width (paragraph [0107], [0112]); and outputting a symmetrical bidirectional electrical pulse to the tissue to be measured according to the target amplitude, the target period and the target pulse width (paragraph [0096]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200391021 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sachs”).
Regarding claim 2, Wiese determining the muscle oxygen saturation and that muscle oxygenation is indicative of lactic acid (paragraphs [0031], [0097]), but does not explicitly teach the method further comprises: judging whether a turning-on condition of a recovery device is satisfied based on the muscle oxygen saturation and a first preset threshold, and notifying the recovery device of turning-on when the turning-on condition of the recovery device is satisfied, wherein the muscle oxygen saturation of the tissue to be measured will rise when the recovery device is turned on.
However, Sachs, a device/method for therapeutic muscle stimulation teaches judging whether a turning-on condition of a recovery device is satisfied based on the muscle oxygen saturation and a first preset threshold, and notifying the recovery device of turning-on when the turning-on condition of the recovery device is satisfied, wherein the muscle oxygen saturation of the tissue to be measured will rise when the recovery device is turned on (paragraph [0107], [0112]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wiese, to include the recovery device, as taught by Sachs, because doing so allows for improvement of low or insufficient muscle oxygenation.
Regarding claim 3, Wiese, in view of Sachs, teaches wherein after notifying the recovery device of turning-on, the method further comprises: continuing to determine a muscle oxygen saturation of the tissue to be measured, judging whether a turning-off condition of the recovery device is satisfied based on the continuously determined muscle oxygen saturation and a second preset threshold, and notifying the recovery device of turning-off when the turning-off condition of the recover device is satisfied (paragraph [0107], [0112]; as taught by Sachs).
Regarding claim 4, Wiese, in view of Sachs, teaches wherein after notifying the recovery device of turning-on, the method further comprises: continuing to determine a muscle oxygen saturation of the tissue to be measured, judging whether an early warning condition is satisfied based on the continuously determined muscle oxygen saturation within a preset time period, and a preset rising amplitude, and issuing an early warning prompt when the early warning condition is satisfied, wherein the early warning prompt comprises information for indicating that a rising amplitude of the muscle oxygen saturation is too slow (paragraph [0107], [0112]; as taught by Sachs).
Regarding claim 8, Wiese, in view of Saches, teaches A muscle oxygen saturation recovery system, comprising a muscle oxygen saturation detection device (abstract; paragraphs [0029]-[0030]) and a recovery device (paragraph [0107], [0112]; as taught by Sachs); wherein
the muscle oxygen saturation detection device is configured to perform the muscle oxygen saturation detection method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection);
the recovery device is configured to perform the muscle oxygen saturation recovery method according to claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791