DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 09/08/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-21 are pending. An action on the merits of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-21 is as follows.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/08/2026 has been entered.
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “a bicep” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “target muscle” of claim 1, line 11. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 11 recites “wherein the flexible wall is in abutment with the body part” in lines 1-2, which improperly include a human being as part of the claimed device.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharrock (US 20060224070) in view of Hyde (US 20130245391), Hyde ‘995 (US 20170258995), and Esposito (“A Piezoresistive Sensor to Measure Muscle Contraction and Mechanomyography”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sharrock teaches a sensor attachable to a subject (Abstract: “This invention relates to non-invasive cardiovascular assessment of a patient based on the evaluation of pressure wave signals obtained by means of a low frequency, wideband electrical transducer or sensor disposed in, on or under the Korotkoff arm cuff of a sphygmomanometer.”), the sensor comprising:
a housing having a flexible wall ([0051]: A piezoelectric transducer 4 is retained against the surface of the bladder by means of a thin film 10 of synthetic material such as nylon, rayon or the like”).
However, Sharrock does not teach a constraining wall and an actuating bag disposed in the cavity. Sharrock discloses an actuating bag, however the actuating bag is not in a cavity ([0050]: “The arm 6 is shown as being surrounded by the partially inflated pressure cuff 2 which comprises an inflatable bladder 8 formed of flexible material”. The wall of the bladder teaches on the constraining wall.).
Hyde discloses a blood pressure cuff. Specifically, Hyde teaches a constraining wall and an actuating bag disposed in a cavity ([0070]: “the blood pressure cuff 200 includes cuff 204 which includes an inflatable cuff 240, which can be inflatable with a gas, a liquid, or a fluid mixture. For example, the inflatable cuff 240 can include a reservoir configured to hold the gas, liquid, or fluid mixture; Figure 22). Sharrock and Hyde are analogous arts as they are both related to cuffs that inflate to measure physiological parameters of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the constraining wall and actuating bag being disposed in the cavity from Hyde into the device from Sharrock as it allows the device to have more control over the actuating bag, how much it is inflated, and the volume that it can inflate to, which can allow for fine-tuned measurements to determine the exact parameters that are desired for the analysis of the user.
The Sharrock/Hyde combination teaches a piezoelectric device disposed in the cavity between the actuating bag and the flexible wall (Sharrock, piezoelectric transducer 4), the piezoelectric device being coupled to the housing substantially via an interior face of the flexible wall (Sharrock, Fig. 3B), wherein the actuating bag is configured to be pneumatically operable to apply a compressive force directly on the piezoelectric device and indirectly on the flexible wall (Sharrock, [0065]: “a microprocessor running suitable software which receives the output of the WEP transducer 4 and controls inflation/deflation of blood pressure cuff 2 via a controllable air pump 17.”. Fig. 3B shows that the piezoelectric device (4) is between the actuating bag (2) and the flexible wall (10), therefore the actuating bag applies a compressive force directly on the piezoelectric device by inflating, and the piezoelectric device then applies the force to the flexible wall.), and wherein the actuating bag in an inflated state is constrainable by the housing to press, via the piezoelectric device, an exterior face of the flexible wall against only one target muscle at a body part of the subject (Sharrock, Fig. 3B. The flexible wall is the thin film 10, which only covers a small area over the target muscle, as evidenced by Figure 3B, which is reproduced below. While the entire cuff does inflate around the entire body part, the exterior of the flexible wall is only pressed one target muscle, therefore teaching on this limitation. [AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
420
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
However, the Sharrock/Hyde combination does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to measure a level of muscle stiffness of the target muscle at the body part by generating a signal in response to subjecting the piezoelectric device to a combination of pressure and strain changes.
Hyde ‘995 discloses a system for dispensing medicaments using a compression garment. Specifically, Hyde ‘995 teaches wherein the sensor is configured to measure a parameter related to a muscle at a body part ([0056]: “One suitable sensor configured to sense nerve impulses of at least one muscle (e.g., indicative of the onset of the muscle activity or a change in muscle activity) includes one or more electrical sensors such as electromyography sensors and apparatus, which can be attached, adhered, or embedded within the at least one flexible compression garment 102 or wearable device 107 … The electromyography sensors can detect electrical signals indicative of the strength of muscle contractions or other signs of fatigue. Examples of suitable electromyography sensors and equipment can include surface electromyography sensors (e.g., bipolar electrodes or a piezoelectric thin film sensor)”; [0118]: “the one or more actuators 354 can include a pneumatic system (e.g., a compressed gas system) configured to selectively constrict or selectively dilate at least a portion of the flexible compression garment”; Fig. 2C). Sharrock, Hyde, and Hyde ’995 are analogous arts as they are all related to bands that inflate and measure physiological parameters of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensor measuring muscle parameters from Hyde ‘995 into the Sharrock/Hyde combination as it allows the device to calculate muscle parameters of the user using the same type of technology, which can further inform the user of their health status and determine their muscle activity.
However, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ‘995 combination does not specifically disclose determining a muscle stiffness value based on the signal.
Esposito discloses a piezoresistive sensor to measure muscle contraction and mechanomyography. Specifically, Esposito teaches wherein the sensor is configured to measure a level of muscle stiffness of the target muscle at the body part by generating a signal in response to subjecting the piezoelectric device to a combination of pressure and strain changes (Page 3: “Muscle contraction is associated with volumetric and stiffness changes, which exert radial forces (or pressures)”; Page 2: “Different mechanical features can also be used to monitor muscle activation. Muscle contraction is generally associated with muscle shortening, increase of cross-section areas, increase of stiffness and tension, mechanical vibrations, and other mechanical parameters. Mechanomyography (MMG) can be regarded as the mechanical counterpart of the EMG [7,8], and is based on the recording of muscular vibrations produced by an active muscle. It can be used as a monitor of muscle stiffness and can be related to muscle force exertion [9]. The amplitude of the MMG signal may be related to the number of active motor units (i.e., motor unit recruitment) [8]. Different types of sensors can be used to measure the MMG signal: condenser microphones [8,10,11], piezoelectric contact sensors … Mechanical muscle contraction can be measured in many ways [3], including: Strain gauges [19]: muscle contractions which cause direct stretching of the sensor … A resonance-based active-muscle stiffness sensor [23]: where piezoelectric probes are used to measure stiffness changes in muscles … Pneumatic sensors [26]: muscular activity detected by measuring changes in air pressure in an air-bladder contacting the muscle”). Sharrock, Hyde, and Esposito are analogous arts as they all use piezoelectric sensors to measure physiological parameters of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine muscle stiffness from Esposito in the device from Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ‘995 combination as it allows the device to calculate muscle stiffness of the user using the same type of technology, which can further analyze the user’s muscle and their health status.
Regarding claim 2, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1.
However, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination does not teach wherein the cavity is characterized by a fixed volume.
Hyde teaches wherein the cavity is characterized by a fixed volume ([0070]: “the inflatable cuff 240 can include a fixed volume reservoir”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the fixed volume from Hyde into the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination as it is a known structural formation of an analogous device, and therefore would be a simple substitution that would provide predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the cavity is characterized by a closed volume (Sharrock, Fig. 3B; the cavity formed by rayon film 10 and flexible bladder 8 is considered to have a closed volume).
Regarding claim 5, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the level of muscle stiffness corresponds to a muscle stiffness of a bicep of the subject (Sharrock, Fig. 2 shows the device located on the bicep of the user, therefore the measured signals are from the bicep and indicate the muscle stiffness of the bicep.).
Regarding claim 6, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the actuating bag is characterized by a variable bag volume (Sharrock, [0050]: “FIG. 3b illustrates a patient's arm 6 with a blood pressure cuff (Korotkoff cuff) 2 in cross-section. The arm 6 is shown as being surrounded by the partially inflated pressure cuff 2 which comprises an inflatable bladder 8 formed of flexible material.”), the actuating bag being pneumatically operable to increase in the variable bag volume until the variable bag volume is constrained by the housing (Sharrock, [0065]-[0066]: “it is possible to automate the process of determining cardiac output or blood volume by utilizing a controller 16 which may comprise hardwired electronic devices or may comprise, for example, a microprocessor running suitable software which receives the output of the WEP transducer 4 and controls inflation/deflation of blood pressure cuff 2 via a controllable air pump 17. For fast inflation the controller may be programmed (1) to inflate the cuff 2 while monitoring the output of the WEP transducer to determine when the patient's systolic blood pressure is reached, and then (2) to continue to inflate the cuff to between about 25 to 30 mm Hg above the thus determined systolic pressure in order for the controller to obtain the supra-systolic blood pressure signal exemplified in FIG. 1”).
Regarding claim 7, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the actuating bag is pneumatically operable to expand until the actuating bag is constrained by the constraining wall (Sharrock, [0065]-[0066]: “it is possible to automate the process of determining cardiac output or blood volume by utilizing a controller 16 which may comprise hardwired electronic devices or may comprise, for example, a microprocessor running suitable software which receives the output of the WEP transducer 4 and controls inflation/deflation of blood pressure cuff 2 via a controllable air pump 17. For fast inflation the controller may be programmed (1) to inflate the cuff 2 while monitoring the output of the WEP transducer to determine when the patient's systolic blood pressure is reached, and then (2) to continue to inflate the cuff to between about 25 to 30 mm Hg above the thus determined systolic pressure in order for the controller to obtain the supra-systolic blood pressure signal exemplified in FIG. 1”).
Regarding claim 8, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the flexible wall comprises a first surface and a substantially opposing second surface, and wherein the second surface is a part of an external surface of the sensor (Sharrock, [0051]: “A piezoelectric transducer 4 is retained against the surface of the bladder by means of a thin film 10 of synthetic material such as nylon, rayon or the like. The transducer 4 which is retained by the film 10 is positioned such that the transducer receives pressure waves”).
Regarding claim 9, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the flexible wall is resiliently deformable to vary a shape of the cavity (Sharrock, [0051]: “a thin film 10 of synthetic material such as nylon, rayon or the like.”).
Regarding claim 10, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric device is configured to provide the signal corresponding to a measurement state of the sensor, and wherein in the measurement state the actuating bag is in abutment with the constraining wall and the piezoelectric device (Sharrock, [0080]: “The sensor records signals directly from an occluded brachial artery with the blood pressure cuff inflated to 30 mm Hg above systole”).
Regarding claim 11, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 10, wherein the flexible wall is in abutment with the body part (Sharrock, see the film 10 in Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 12, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 10, wherein the actuating bag is configured to expand to a threshold pressure and wherein the actuating bag is configured to sustain a substantially constant pressure in the measurement state (Sharrock, [0080]: “The sensor records signals directly from an occluded brachial artery with the blood pressure cuff inflated to 30 mm Hg above systole”; [0104]: “With the blood pressure cuff inflated 30 mm Hg above systolic pressure for 10-12 seconds, a series of pulse recordings are obtained”).
Regarding claim 13, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 10, wherein the actuating bag is configured to expand to a threshold volume and wherein the actuating bag is configured to sustain a substantially constant volume in the measurement state (Sharrock, [0080]: “The sensor records signals directly from an occluded brachial artery with the blood pressure cuff inflated to 30 mm Hg above systole”; [0104]: “With the blood pressure cuff inflated 30 mm Hg above systolic pressure for 10-12 seconds, a series of pulse recordings are obtained”. The constant pressure is obtained from inflating the bag to a specific volume, therefore the volume is constant when the pressure is constant.).
Regarding claim 15, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches a muscle spasticity measurement system comprising:
the sensor as recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and
a controller operably coupled to the sensor, the controller being configured to receive the signal from the piezoelectric device (Sharrock, [0065]: “it is possible to automate the process of determining cardiac output or blood volume by utilizing a controller 16 which may comprise hardwired electronic devices or may comprise, for example, a microprocessor running suitable software which receives the output of the WEP transducer 4 and controls inflation/deflation of blood pressure cuff 2 via a controllable air pump 17.”) and to determine a muscle stiffness value of the target muscle, the muscle stiffness value being representative of the level of muscle stiffness, based on the signal (Hyde ‘995, [0056]: “One suitable sensor configured to sense nerve impulses of at least one muscle (e.g., indicative of the onset of the muscle activity or a change in muscle activity) includes one or more electrical sensors such as electromyography sensors and apparatus, which can be attached, adhered, or embedded within the at least one flexible compression garment 102 or wearable device 107 … The electromyography sensors can detect electrical signals indicative of the strength of muscle contractions or other signs of fatigue. Examples of suitable electromyography sensors and equipment can include surface electromyography sensors (e.g., bipolar electrodes or a piezoelectric thin film sensor)”; [0118]: “the one or more actuators 354 can include a pneumatic system (e.g., a compressed gas system) configured to selectively constrict or selectively dilate at least a portion of the flexible compression garment”; Fig. 2C; Esposito, Page 3: “Muscle contraction is associated with volumetric and stiffness changes, which exert radial forces (or pressures)”; Page 2: “Different mechanical features can also be used to monitor muscle activation. Muscle contraction is generally associated with muscle shortening, increase of cross-section areas, increase of stiffness and tension, mechanical vibrations, and other mechanical parameters. Mechanomyography (MMG) can be regarded as the mechanical counterpart of the EMG [7,8], and is based on the recording of muscular vibrations produced by an active muscle. It can be used as a monitor of muscle stiffness and can be related to muscle force exertion [9]. The amplitude of the MMG signal may be related to the number of active motor units (i.e., motor unit recruitment) [8]. Different types of sensors can be used to measure the MMG signal: condenser microphones [8,10,11], piezoelectric contact sensors … Mechanical muscle contraction can be measured in many ways [3], including: Strain gauges [19]: muscle contractions which cause direct stretching of the sensor … A resonance-based active-muscle stiffness sensor [23]: where piezoelectric probes are used to measure stiffness changes in muscles … Pneumatic sensors [26]: muscular activity detected by measuring changes in air pressure in an air-bladder contacting the muscle”).
Regarding claim 16, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the muscle spasticity measurement system as recited in claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to controllably expand the actuating bag in the cavity (Sharrock, [0065]: “it is possible to automate the process of determining cardiac output or blood volume by utilizing a controller 16 which may comprise hardwired electronic devices or may comprise, for example, a microprocessor running suitable software which receives the output of the WEP transducer 4 and controls inflation/deflation of blood pressure cuff 2 via a controllable air pump 17.”).
Regarding claim 17, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the muscle spasticity measurement system as recited in claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to: expand the actuating bag to a threshold pressure; and hold the actuating bag at the threshold pressure (Sharrock, [0080]: “The sensor records signals directly from an occluded brachial artery with the blood pressure cuff inflated to 30 mm Hg above systole”; [0104]: “With the blood pressure cuff inflated 30 mm Hg above systolic pressure for 10-12 seconds, a series of pulse recordings are obtained”).
Regarding claim 18, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the muscle spasticity measurement system as recited in claim 17, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the signal produced by the piezoelectric device when the actuating bag is at the threshold pressure (Sharrock, [0080]: “The sensor records signals directly from an occluded brachial artery with the blood pressure cuff inflated to 30 mm Hg above systole”); and determine the muscle stiffness value based on the signal (Esposito, Page 3: “Muscle contraction is associated with volumetric and stiffness changes, which exert radial forces (or pressures)”; Page 2: “Different mechanical features can also be used to monitor muscle activation. Muscle contraction is generally associated with muscle shortening, increase of cross-section areas, increase of stiffness and tension, mechanical vibrations, and other mechanical parameters. Mechanomyography (MMG) can be regarded as the mechanical counterpart of the EMG [7,8], and is based on the recording of muscular vibrations produced by an active muscle. It can be used as a monitor of muscle stiffness and can be related to muscle force exertion [9]. The amplitude of the MMG signal may be related to the number of active motor units (i.e., motor unit recruitment) [8]. Different types of sensors can be used to measure the MMG signal: condenser microphones [8,10,11], piezoelectric contact sensors … Mechanical muscle contraction can be measured in many ways [3], including: Strain gauges [19]: muscle contractions which cause direct stretching of the sensor … A resonance-based active-muscle stiffness sensor [23]: where piezoelectric probes are used to measure stiffness changes in muscles … Pneumatic sensors [26]: muscular activity detected by measuring changes in air pressure in an air-bladder contacting the muscle”).
Regarding claim 19, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the muscle spasticity measurement system as recited in claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to: expand the actuating bag to a threshold volume; and hold the actuating bag at the threshold volume (Sharrock, [0080]: “The sensor records signals directly from an occluded brachial artery with the blood pressure cuff inflated to 30 mm Hg above systole”; [0104]: “With the blood pressure cuff inflated 30 mm Hg above systolic pressure for 10-12 seconds, a series of pulse recordings are obtained”. The constant pressure is obtained from inflating the bag to a specific volume, therefore the volume is constant when the pressure is constant.).
Regarding claim 20, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the muscle spasticity measurement system as recited in claim 19, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the signal produced by the piezoelectric device when the actuating bag is at the threshold volume (Sharrock, [0080]: “The sensor records signals directly from an occluded brachial artery with the blood pressure cuff inflated to 30 mm Hg above systole”); and determine the muscle stiffness value based on the signal (Esposito, Page 3: “Muscle contraction is associated with volumetric and stiffness changes, which exert radial forces (or pressures)”; Page 2: “Different mechanical features can also be used to monitor muscle activation. Muscle contraction is generally associated with muscle shortening, increase of cross-section areas, increase of stiffness and tension, mechanical vibrations, and other mechanical parameters. Mechanomyography (MMG) can be regarded as the mechanical counterpart of the EMG [7,8], and is based on the recording of muscular vibrations produced by an active muscle. It can be used as a monitor of muscle stiffness and can be related to muscle force exertion [9]. The amplitude of the MMG signal may be related to the number of active motor units (i.e., motor unit recruitment) [8]. Different types of sensors can be used to measure the MMG signal: condenser microphones [8,10,11], piezoelectric contact sensors … Mechanical muscle contraction can be measured in many ways [3], including: Strain gauges [19]: muscle contractions which cause direct stretching of the sensor … A resonance-based active-muscle stiffness sensor [23]: where piezoelectric probes are used to measure stiffness changes in muscles … Pneumatic sensors [26]: muscular activity detected by measuring changes in air pressure in an air-bladder contacting the muscle”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Westergaard (WO 2015135981).
Regarding claim 21, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination teaches the muscle spasticity measurement system as recited in claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to acquire a plurality of signals, including the signal, from the piezoelectric device over time (Sharrock, [0067]: “software may input the recorded values to determine trends or changes in the parameters or values over time to aid in assessing changes in circulatory physiology”).
However, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination does not teach wherein the controller is configured to determine a mean muscle stiffness value of the target muscle at the body part based on the plurality of the signals, the mean muscle stiffness value being a mean value of a plurality of the muscle stiffness value.
Westergaard discloses a system for measurement of muscle stiffness. Specifically, Westergaard teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a mean muscle stiffness value of the target muscle at the body part based on the plurality of the signals, the mean muscle stiffness value being a mean value of a plurality of muscle stiffness values (Page 3, lines 11-12: “The first and/or second stiffness may be determined from e.g. an average, median and/or sum of calculated stiffnesses of data sets in the respective subset”). Sharrock, Esposito, and Westergaard are analogous arts as they all measure parameters of a muscle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the mean muscle stiffness value from Westergaard into the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Esposito combination as it allows the combination to create a combined muscle stiffness value from the values received over time, which can allow the system to produce a comprehensive analysis and value representing the muscle stiffness over the length of time it is measured for.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s argument regarding the rejections and objections previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive unless directly addressed subsequently.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sharrock does not teach the actuating bag applying its compressive force directly on the piezoelectric device and indirectly on the flexible wall. This argument is not persuasive however, since as stated in the 103 rejection above, the piezoelectric device is between the actuating bag and the flexible wall, therefore the force from the actuating bag is applied directly on the piezoelectric device and indirectly on the flexible wall through the piezoelectric device onto the target muscle (Sharrock, [0065]: “a microprocessor running suitable software which receives the output of the WEP transducer 4 and controls inflation/deflation of blood pressure cuff 2 via a controllable air pump 17.”. Fig. 3B shows that the piezoelectric device (4) is between the actuating bag (2) and the flexible wall (10), therefore the actuating bag applies a compressive force directly on the piezoelectric device by inflating, and the piezoelectric device then applies the force to the flexible wall.).
Applicant argues that modifying Sharrock would render the device inoperable, however this limitation is not being modified in Sharrock, therefore this argument is not persuasive. The claims require that only the flexible wall is pressed against only the target muscle, which is taught by Sharrock, since the flexible wall is only a small area which is positioned over the target muscle. The claims do not recite a limitation requiring the entire actuating bag to only compress over the target muscle, only that the flexible wall is only located over the target muscle, therefore Applicant’s arguments against the entire cuff inflating are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the entire cuff not inflating) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues that Hyde and Hyde ‘995 do not teach only providing a localized pressure by routing the cuff’s compressive force through a piezoelectric device before it reaches the limb, however, these references are not relied upon to teach this limitation, therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant additionally argues that Hyde ‘995 does not teach sensing muscle stiffness, however Hyde ‘995 is not relied upon to teach sensing muscle stiffness, therefore this argument is not persuasive. Hyde ‘995 is simply relied upon to teach using a compression garment to measure properties related to muscles, which provides a bridge to Esposito, which teaches the specific parameter of measuring muscle stiffness. Hyde ‘995 is simply relied upon to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to using compression garments to measure properties related to muscles, and therefore would look to Esposito for the specific measurement of muscle stiffness.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kim and Hyde have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
