DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/25/2017. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2017143143 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 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 1 is replete with 112(b) issues that provide unclear and confusing language below are the recitations of all the unclear language examiner has identified, but examiner recommends clearing up the entire claim and amending to clarify:
Lines 8-11 recite the limitation “the output circuity is configured to output or supply a first electric signal or a second electric signal as a selected electrical signal”, however, lines 12-13 recite “wherein the selected electrical signal being a sequence of electric signals”. Examiner find this recitation confusing. It is first recited that the selected electrical signal is either a first or second electric signal and then the claim recites that the selected electrical signal is actually a sequence of signal. How can one element, “the selected electrical signal” be a single signal and a sequence of signals at once? Examiner will interpret the selected electrical signal to be a sequence of signals.
Lines 35-36 recite the limitation “the first electric signal is configured to be applied to a distal portion of extremities”, lines 37-38 recite “the second electric signal is configured to be applied to the distal portion of extremities”. This is also unclear given that lines 8-11 recite the limitation “the output circuity is configured to output or supply a first electric signal or a second electric signal as a selected electrical signal”. If one of the two, first or second electric signals, are applied, if one were to select the first electric signal, the second electric signal would have insufficient antecedent basis. For this, examiner suggests positively reciting both first and second electric signals. The claim is replete with antecedent basis issues similar to this one regarding the first electric signal and the second electric signal.
Lines 40-41 recite the limitation “wherein the selected signal is started in the case where the switch is pressed once”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as “wherein the selected signal is started in a case where the switch is pressed once” and suggests amending.
Lines 42-43 recite the limitation “wherein the selected signal is started in the case where the switch is pressed to select either”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as “wherein the selected signal is started in a case where the switch is pressed to select either” and suggests amending.
Lines 46-54 recite “if the first electric signal is selected only by the pressing the switch, then the output circuity is configured to set a first duration of the first pulse train belonging to the sequence of the electric signals less than one second automatically by the controller based on a user’s selection of the first signal and configured to output/apply the sequence of the electric signals with the first duration of the first pulse train set less than one second as the first electric signal”. This limitation is confusing. Earlier in the claim it is suggested that the selected electrical signal is either a first electric signal or a sequence of electric signals, this limitation suggests that the first electric signal is part of the sequence of electric signals. Examiner does not understand if this recitation of “the first electric signal” is the same “the first electric signal” recited in line 9 of the claim or if it’s the first signal in the sequence of signals. A claim amendment is recommended to clarify.
Lines 59-67 recite “if the second electric signal is selected only by the pressing the switch, then the output circuity is configured to set the first duration of the first pulse train belonging to the sequence of the electric signals more than one second automatically by the controller based on the user’s selection of the second signal and configured to output/apply the sequence of the electric signals with the first duration of the first pulse train set more than one second as the second electric signal”. This limitation is confusing. Earlier in the claim it is suggested that the selected electrical signal is either a second electric signal or a sequence of electric signals, this limitation suggests that the second electric signal is part of the sequence of electric signals. Examiner does not understand if this recitation of “the second electric signal” is the same “the second electric signal” recited in line 9 of the claim or if it’s the second signal in the sequence of signals. A claim amendment is recommended to clarify.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Examiner has found references (JP 2003/126272 Handa et al., US 2015/0321000 Rosenbluth et al., and US 2014/0067010 Sumners et al.) that disclose a current stimulation device that has a plurality of electrodes a controller that controls circuitry to output a sequence of radiation pulses having an amplitude of less than 20 mA. The sequence was found to have some groups that are higher in amplitudes than others and a rest period defined by the last group of pulses. The references also taught a switch and a set duration of pulses or pulse groups. However, examiner did not find any references that disclosed a switch that changes settings as specific as the claims lay them out to be. No reference was found disclosing that pressing the switch once would activate the first signal setting that which would change the limitations of the electrical stimulation and the switch is pressed to select a variety of other different options that each have their sequence of events. For this reason claim 1 is objected to as allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796