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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structure of the conductive pads in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1,11,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott et al (US20160114160A1); hereinafter Scott.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Scott teaches an enhanced athletic performance and overcoming muscular inefficiencies through electro muscular stimulation (EMS) technology comprising:
a garment having a plurality of conductive pads placed in interior surfaces of said garment ([0010] the compression suit is wearable by the user and comprises an EMS device); said plurality of conductive pads being connected to a power control unit on said garment ([0010] control unit); said power control unit having a wireless connection to a separate command device that operates under an application ([0016] mobile computing device, figs. 1 and 2); said conductive pads being configured to cover at least two of a group consisting of triceps, pectorals, biceps, bottom abdominals, top abdominals, obliques glutes, hamstrings, quadriceps, caves, tibialis, and abdominals (fig. 1, see locations for EMS devices); said application measure a baseline minimum stimuli response ([0011] The electro-muscular stimulation system may also comprise a sensor configured to monitor various physical characteristics of the user); and an intensity of stimuli is increased until a pain tolerance during exercise is achieved.
Regarding claim 19, Scott teaches the EMS technology according to claim 11, wherein said conductive pads cover at least two of a group consisting of triceps, pectorals, biceps, bottom abdominals, top abdominals, obliques glutes, hamstrings, quadriceps, caves, tibialis, and abdominals (fig. 1, see locations for EMS devices).
Regarding claim 20, Scott teaches the EMS technology according to claim 19, wherein said conductive pads are connected to a power control unit ([0010] control unit) that is controlled by an application ([0016] mobile computing device, figs. 1 and 2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Chahine et al (US 20170056644 A1); hereinafter Chahine.
Regarding claim 2, Scott teaches the EMS technology according to claim 1. Scott fails to teach the composition of the garment. Chahine teaches said garment is made from a 20% spandex and 80% nylon (claim 11 - the network of non-conductive fibres includes non-conductive fibre material that comprises at least one of: nylon; cotton; spandex; polyester; or silk). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Scott with Chahine because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Chahine teaches that the garment needs to be made of a non-electrically conductive textile yarn ([0184]).
Regarding claim 3, Scott teaches the EMS technology according to claim 1. Scott fails to teach the structure of the conductive pads. Chahine teaches said conductive pads include a conductive silica gel, a silver fabric, a sponge and a fabric cover ([0098] The electrodes can be made of silica gels ... The electrodes can be made of silicone gels).
Claim(s) 4-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Moaddeb et al (US 20210330547 A1); hereinafter Moaddeb.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Scott teaches the technology according to claim 1. Scott fails to teach the fundamental and carrier waves. Moaddeb further discloses said intensity of stimuli has a fundamental wave ([0040] fundamental frequency/first harmonic). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Scott with Moaddeb because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Moaddeb teaches “one or more vibration elements 136, 138 may be configured to vibrate at multiple frequencies” ([0040]). In order to accommodate the multiple frequencies, it would be obvious to have harmonic frequencies (or fundamental and carrier frequencies as the present application).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination of Scott and Moaddeb teaches the EMS technology according to claims 4 and 12. Moaddeb teaches the intensity of stimuli also includes a carrier wave ([0040] higher harmonics).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combination of Scott and Moaddeb teaches the EMS technology according to claims 5 and 13. Moaddeb teaches intensity of stimuli is with wave forms of at least one square, sine, trapezoidal, triangle, exponential, diamond, right triangle, and left triangle ([0060] The period of activation of the electrodes 302, 304, 306 may include one or more of the following patterns: a biphasic sine wave, a multiphasic wave, a monophasic sine wave, a biphasic pulsatile sine wave, a biphasic rectangular wave, a monophasic square wave, a monophasic pulsatile rectangular wave, a biphasic spiked wave, a monophasic spiked wave, and a monophasic pulsatile spiked wave).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combination of Scott and Moaddeb teaches the EMS technology of claims 5 and 13, Moaddeb further teaches said fundamental wave is from 4 Hz to 200 Hz ([0040] The first harmonic, for example, in a particular embodiment may be 10 Hz).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination of Scott and Moaddeb teaches the EMS technology of claims 5 and 13. Moaddeb further teaches said carrier wave is a frequency of 5 Hz to 30 Hz ([0040] a second harmonic may be 20 Hz).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the combination of Scott and Moaddeb teaches the EMS technology of claims 8 and 16. Moaddeb further teaches said carrier wave has a pulse width of 150 μs to 200 μs ([0059] pulse width: 0.01 microsecond (μs) to 1000 microseconds (μs), or 1 microsecond (μs) to 1000 microseconds (μs), or 0.01 microsecond (μs) to 5 microseconds (μs).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Scott teaches the EMS technology of claims 1 and 11. Scott fails to teach the scale of the intensity. Moaddeb teaches the intensity of stimuli is a scale from 0 to 100 ([0047] elements 136, 138 are caused to activate in a manner which is proportional to or matches in some way the reduction or increase in amplitude, intensity).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at (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 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796