DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 02/23/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed on 02/23/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-21 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 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 15-21 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 15, the claim recites the limitation “a signal” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the signal from claim 1, line 10, or a different signal. If it is meant to refer to the signal from claim 1, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different signal, it needs to be distinguished from the signal from claim 1. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the signal from claim 1. Claims 16-21 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “a muscle stiffness value” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the level of muscle stiffness of the target muscle from claim 1, lines 9-10, or a different muscle stiffness value. If it is meant to refer to the muscle stiffness level from claim 1, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different muscle stiffness value, it needs to be distinguished from the muscle stiffness level from claim 1. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the muscle stiffness level from claim 1. Claims 16-21 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a plurality of signals” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to include the signal from claim 1, line 10, or different signals. If it is meant to refer to the signal from claim 1, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to different signals, it needs to be distinguished from the signal from claim 1. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the signal from claim 1.
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), Kim (KR 20120118644), and Chino (“Reliability and Validity of Quantifying Absolute Muscle Hardness Using Ultrasound Elastography”). Citations to KR 20120118644 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
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 (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.”), and wherein the actuating bag in an inflated state is constrainable by the housing to press 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.
Kim discloses an apparatus for measuring muscle stiffness. Specifically, Kim teaches 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 changes ([0036]: “A muscle stiffness measuring device may be implemented”; [0056]: “The transmitted signal may include both a signal generated by vibration when power is initially supplied from the power supply and a signal generated by changes in muscle stiffness”; [0041]: “A piezoelectric element (202) refers to an element that exhibits positive and negative charges proportional to the external force on both sides of a given crystal plate when pressure is applied from a certain direction”; [0084]: “convenience will be provided to the user as he or she can know the degree of change in muscle hardness by measuring and analyzing the change in resonant frequency of the signal generated from the piezoelectric element in response to the change in muscle hardness.”. Muscle hardness is a measure of muscle stiffness, therefore the piezoelectric element measures levels of muscle stiffness depending on the application of pressure in certain directions.). Sharrock, Hyde, and Kim 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 Kim in the device from Sharrock/Hyde 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.
However, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Kim combination does not teach measuring levels of muscle stiffness based on strain changes.
Chino discloses a method for quantifying muscle hardness. Specifically, Chino teaches measuring levels of muscle stiffness based on strain changes (Introduction, pg. 1: “Muscle hardness is a mechanical property that represents transverse muscle stiffness… This method permits real-time measurements of the tissue strain induced by external freehand compression to the tissue using an ultrasound probe. The strain induced within a region of interest (ROI) in each tissue element is compared with the means train of all ROIs. Strain differences between each element are color-coded according to decreasing tissue strain, i.e., increasing tissue hardness”). Sharrock, Kim, and Chino 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 measurement of strain changes being used to determine the level of muscle stiffness as it allows for an additional parameter to be measured that can indicate muscle stiffness, which can allow for a more comprehensive analysis of the muscle and a more accurate measurement of the muscle stiffness.
Regarding claim 2, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Kim/Chino combination teaches the sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the cavity is characterized by a fixed volume (Hyde, [0070]: “the inflatable cuff 240 can include a fixed volume reservoir”).
Regarding claim 3, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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 a 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 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; Kim, [0036]: “A muscle stiffness measuring device may be implemented”; [0056]: “The transmitted signal may include both a signal generated by vibration when power is initially supplied from the power supply and a signal generated by changes in muscle stiffness”; [0041]: “A piezoelectric element (202) refers to an element that exhibits positive and negative charges proportional to the external force on both sides of a given crystal plate when pressure is applied from a certain direction”; [0084]: “convenience will be provided to the user as he or she can know the degree of change in muscle hardness by measuring and analyzing the change in resonant frequency of the signal generated from the piezoelectric element in response to the change in muscle hardness.”. Muscle hardness is a measure of muscle stiffness, therefore the piezoelectric element measures levels of muscle stiffness depending on the application of pressure in certain directions.).
Regarding claim 16, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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 (Kim, [0069]: “the range of change in the resonant frequency as the muscle hardness changes is very small, but if the acquired signal is changed into a binary signal and the frequency is measured, the above-mentioned drawback can be overcome and information related to changes in muscle hardness can be provided to the user”; [0073]: “the amplified signal is not directly input to the signal frequency change unit (206), but goes through a process (520) in which it is regenerated into a binary signal.”; [0075]: “Therefore, measuring the frequency with a binary signal of 0 and 1 is advantageous because it allows obtaining specific information about changes in muscle stiffness regardless of the small frequency change range.”).
Regarding claim 19, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Kim/Chino 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/Kim/Chino 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 (Kim, [0069]: “the range of change in the resonant frequency as the muscle hardness changes is very small, but if the acquired signal is changed into a binary signal and the frequency is measured, the above-mentioned drawback can be overcome and information related to changes in muscle hardness can be provided to the user”; [0073]: “the amplified signal is not directly input to the signal frequency change unit (206), but goes through a process (520) in which it is regenerated into a binary signal.”; [0075]: “Therefore, measuring the frequency with a binary signal of 0 and 1 is advantageous because it allows obtaining specific information about changes in muscle stiffness regardless of the small frequency change range.”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Kim/Chino combination as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Westergaard (WO 2015135981).
Regarding claim 21, the Sharrock/Hyde/Hyde ’995/Kim/Chino combination teaches the muscle spasticity measurement system as recited in claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to acquire a plurality of signals from the piezoelectric device received 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/Kim/Chino 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 the muscle stiffness value (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, Kim, Chino, 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/Kim/Chino 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 has amended the claims to overcome the objections and the 112(b) rejection, however the amendments have introduced new 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sharrock and Hyde do not teach measuring muscle stiffness. However, these references are not relied on to teach this limitation, and therefore this argument is not applicable. Additionally, Applicant argues that Sharrock does not teach pressing the flexible wall against only one target muscle. However, as explained in the 103 rejection above, while the entire cuff is inflated, the flexible wall (reference character 10 in Figure 3B) is only applied in one specific location, not the entirety of the body part, and therefore can be applied to only the target muscle. Applicant also argues that Hyde and Hyde ‘995 do not teach this limitation, yet these references are not relied upon to teach this limitation, therefore this argument is not applicable.
Applicant also argues that Hyde ‘995 does not teach measuring muscle stiffness. However, Hyde ‘995 is not relied upon to teach measuring muscle stiffness. Hyde ‘995 is introduced to teach the limitation of using a compression garment to measure parameters related to muscles, not specifically muscle stiffness, therefore this argument is not applicable.
Applicant also argues that Kim does not teach using a sensor to measure muscle stiffness. However, as explained in the 103 rejection above, Kim does teach this limitation ([0036]: “A muscle stiffness measuring device may be implemented”; [0056]: “The transmitted signal may include both a signal generated by vibration when power is initially supplied from the power supply and a signal generated by changes in muscle stiffness”; [0041]: “A piezoelectric element (202) refers to an element that exhibits positive and negative charges proportional to the external force on both sides of a given crystal plate when pressure is applied from a certain direction”; [0084]: “convenience will be provided to the user as he or she can know the degree of change in muscle hardness by measuring and analyzing the change in resonant frequency of the signal generated from the piezoelectric element in response to the change in muscle hardness.”. Muscle hardness is a measure of muscle stiffness, therefore the piezoelectric element measures levels of muscle stiffness depending on the application of pressure in certain directions.), therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights