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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 03-11-2024. As directed, claims 3-7 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and new claims 11-12 have been added. Thus, claims 1-12 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 2, it is suggested that “are configured to” be added before “press a subject” to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that “measures” be replaced with “is configured to measure” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 1, line 6, it is suggested that “the sensors” be replaced with “the one or more sensors” for consistency with line 5.
At claim 2, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “comprising two or more of the sensors” be replaced with “wherein the one or more sensors comprise two or more sensors” for clarity and consistency in the claims.
At claim 3, line 1, it is suggested that “comprising” be replaced with “wherein” for clarity.
At claim 3, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “the pressers” be replaced with “the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
At claim 3, line 2, it is suggested that “Are configured to be positioned” be added before “between” for clarity.
At claim 3, line 2, it is suggested that “the sensors” be replaced with “the one or more sensors” for consistency with claim 1, line 5.
At claim 4, line 2, it is suggested that “the pressers” be replaced with “the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
At claim 5, line 2, it is suggested that “the pressers” be replaced with “the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
At claim 5, line 2, it is suggested that “the air bags” be replaced with “the two or more air bags” for consistency with a previous iteration in line 2.
At claim 6, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “the electrodes” be replaced with “the four or more electrodes” for consistency with claim 1, line 6.
At claim 7, line 2, it is suggested that “applies” be replaced with “is configured to apply” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 7, line 2, it is suggested that “the electrodes” be replaced with “the four or more electrodes” for consistency with claim 1, line 6.
At claim 7, line 2, it is suggested that “measures” be replaced with “is configured to measure” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 7, line 4, it is suggested that “measures” be replaced with “is configured to measure” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 7, line 6, it is suggested that “the electrodes” be replaced with “the four or more electrodes” for consistency with claim 1, line 6.
At claim 8, line 2, it is suggested that “calculates” be replaced with “is configured to calculate” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim, and to more clearly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 8, line 2, it is suggested that “a Jacobian matric of the subject” be replaced with “a Jacobian matrix of biological information from the subject” for consistency with line 7.
At claim 8, line 3, it is suggested that “predetermined” be eliminated as the limitation was previously introduced without recitation of “predetermined”.
At claim 8, line 3, it is suggested that “the” be added before “voltage application” for clarity.
At claim 8, line 5, it is suggested that “the electrodes” be replaced with “the four or more electrodes” for consistency with claim 1, line 6.
At claim 8, line 6, it is suggested that “calculates” be replaced with “is configured to calculate” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim, and to more clearly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 9, line 2, it is suggested that “calculates” be replaced with “is configured to calculate” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 10, line 2, it is suggested that “controls” be replaced with “is configured to control” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 10, line 2, it is suggested that “the pressers” be replaced with “the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
At claim 11, line 2, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “arranged” to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 11, line 3, it is suggested that the comma be eliminated for clarity.
At claim 11, line 3, it is suggested that “the sensors” be replaced with “the one or more sensors” for consistency with claim 1, line 5.
At claim 11, line 4, it is suggested that “controls” be replaced with “is configured to control” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 11, line 5, it is suggested that “the presser” be replaced with “one presser of the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
At claim 11, line 6, it is suggested that “the sensor” be replaced with “the sensor of the one or more sensors” for consistency with claim 1, line 5.
At claim 11, line 6, it is suggested that “obtains” be replaced with “is configured to obtain” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 11, line 7, it is suggested that “a small temporal change” be replaced with “the temporal change that is smaller than the predetermined value” for consistency with lines 4-5.
At claim 12, line 2, it is suggested that “the presser” be replaced with “the one presser of the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2 and in accordance with a previous suggestion to claim 11.
At claim 12, line 2, it is suggested that “the” before “air bags” be eliminated as the limitation ahs not been introduced in this dependency chain.
At claim 12, line 2, it is suggested “configured to be” be added before “arranged” to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 12, line 3, it is suggested that “the presser” be replaced with “the one presser of the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2 and in accordance with a previous suggestion to claim 11.
At claim 12, line 4, it is suggested that “the air bags” be replaced with “the two or more air bags” for consistency with line 2.
At claim 12, line 5, it is suggested that “controls” be replaced with “is configured to control” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 12, line 5, it is suggested that “a case” be replaced with “the case” as this case has been introduced in claim 11 from which claim 12 depends.
At claim 12, line 6, it is suggested that “a predetermined value” be replaced with “the predetermined value” as the limitation was introduced in claim 11 from which claim 12 depends.
At claim 12, line 6, it is suggested that “the air bags” be replaced with “the two or more air bags” for consistency with line 2.
At claim 12, line 7, it is suggested that “the presser” be replaced with “the one presser of the plurality of pressers” for consistency with claim 1, line 2 and in accordance with a previous suggestion to claim 11.
At claim 12, line 7, it is suggested that “the sensor” be replaced with “the sensor of the one or more sensors” for consistency with claim 1, line 5 and in accordance with a previous suggestion to claim 11.
At claim 12, line 7, it is suggested that “obtains” be replaced with “is configured to obtain” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 12, line 8, it is suggested that “a small temporal change” be replaced with “the temporal change that is smaller than the predetermined value” for consistency with claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, lines 2 and 4 each recite “a current” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the current is the same in each instance or different. In order to clarify the claim, it is suggested that “a current” of line 2 be replaced with “an applied current” to differentiate between the applied verses measured currents. The claim will be interpreted as such.
Regarding claim 7, lines 2 and 2-3 each recite “a potential difference” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the potential is the same in each instance or different. In order to clarify the claim, it is suggested that “a potential difference” of line 2 be replaced with “an applied potential difference” to differentiate between the applied verses measured potential differences. The claim will be interpreted as such.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer (US 2017/0367922) in view of Garber (US 2013/0002264).
Regarding claim 1, Pfeiffer discloses a massage apparatus (10) (paragraph 62, lines 1-4; Fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of pressers (either each right and left legging and sock of the garment 10 including pressure segments 15.1-15.7, or each segment 15.1-15.7) that press a subject (paragraph 62, lines 1-13; Fig. 2); and
an in-vivo measurer (35) that measures a change in biological information of the subject due to pressing (paragraph 62, lines 19-21; paragraph 49, lines 1-6; paragraph 50, lines 1-8), wherein
the in-vivo measurer (35) has one or more sensors for electrical impedance tomography (paragraph 62, lines 19-21; paragraph 49, lines 1-6; paragraph 50, lines 1-8).
Pfeiffer fails to disclose wherein each of the sensors for electrical tomography has four or more electrodes.
However, Garber teaches a device for electrical impedance tomography that includes four or more electrodes per device for appropriate data acquisition for reconstructing an impedance distribution of the portion of the body underlying the belt containing the electrodes (paragraph 2; paragraph 4, lines 14-24, see 16 electrodes; paragraph 5, lines 1-6 and 27-29).
Therefore, given that Pfeiffer contemplates the use of electrical impedance tomography by one or more sensors, and that Garber’s arrangement is set forth to measure electrical impedance tomography via the electrode arrangement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each sensor for generating electrical impedance tomography of the device of Pfeiffer to include four or more electrodes, as taught by Garber, for appropriate data acquisition for reconstructing an impedance distribution of the portion of the body underlying the belt containing the electrodes.
Regarding claim 2, Pfeiffer in view of Garber disclose the massage apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pfeiffer further discloses two or more of the sensors for electrical impedance tomography (paragraph 37, lines 1-3, note that there is at least one sensor; paragraph 40, lines 4-5 indicate multiple sensors; paragraph 49, lines 1-5, note that there is at least one sensor; paragraph 50, lines 1-2 notes the use of multiple biosensors).
Regarding claim 3, Pfeiffer in view of Garber disclose the massage apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pfeiffer further discloses the pressers (each segment 15.1-15.7) between the sensors (35) for electrical impedance tomography (paragraph 37, lines 1-3, note that there is at least one sensor; paragraph 40, lines 4-5 indicate multiple sensors; paragraph 49, lines 1-5, note that there is at least one sensor; paragraph 50, lines 1-2 notes the use of multiple biosensors; see Fig. 2, and note that multiple sensors 35 placed circumferentially at the sealing collar as described would be placed such that the pressers were either laterally or vertically oriented between the sensors; i.e., if a second sensor 35 were placed on the opposite leg as shown in Fig. 2, the pressers include surface area that lies between the sensors).
Regarding claim 4, Pfeiffer in view of Garber disclose the massage apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pfeiffer further discloses wherein each of the pressers (each segment 15.1-15.7) has one air bag (paragraph 62, lines 8-13, where each individual segment is inflated via respective conduits; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Pfeiffer in view of Garber disclose the massage apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pfeiffer further discloses wherein each of the pressers (each right and left legging and sock of the garment 10 including pressure segments 15.1-15.7) includes two or more air bags (see each of 15.1-15.7 on the left and right legs), and the air bags are capable of applying respective different magnitudes of pressure (paragraph 62, lines 8-15; paragraph 63, lines 1-12; paragraph 27, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Pfeiffer in view of Garber disclose the massage apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Pfeiffer further discloses wherein the electrodes are arranged at uniform intervals (Garber: paragraph 4, lines 14-24, see “equidistant”).
Regarding claim 7, Pfeiffer in view of Garber disclose the massage apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Pfeiffer further discloses wherein the in-vivo measurer (35 of Pfeiffer incorporating the electrodes of Garber) applies a current or a potential difference between the electrodes, measures a potential difference and a phase based on a current application/voltage measurement pattern in a case where the current is applied, and measures a current and a phase based on a voltage application/current measurement pattern in a case where the potential difference is applied between the electrodes (Pfeiffer: paragraph 5, lines 1-6, see alternate use of current/voltage for each of the applied and measured variables).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The singular identified reference that reads on the combination of limitations in claim 8 is Takei (JP 2021/097916) as cited in the International Search Report. Takei discloses a Jacobian matrix calculator that calculates a Jacobian matrix of the subject based on the predetermined current application/voltage measurement pattern or voltage application/current measurement pattern, mesh coordinates obtained from estimating a contour of the subject, and coordinates of the respective electrodes (Takei: “J is the Jacobian .sub.matrix, V = [V 1, V 2, ..., V m, ..., V M] T is the measured voltage vector .sub.M-dimensional, σ = [σ 1, σ 2, ..., σ n, ..., σ .sub.N ] .sup.T is an element of the conductivity distribution having N mesh elements. FIG. 15 shows the image reconstruction result. The upper row shows the image reconstruction from the contour shape using the elliptical approximation of the conventional method, and the lower row shows the image reconstruction from the contour shape of the present invention”; see the abstract); and
an electrical property distribution calculator that calculates an electrical property distribution that is the biological information from the Jacobian matrix of the subject calculated by the Jacobian matrix calculator and the potential difference and the phase or the current and the phase measured by the in-vivo measurer (Takei: “ a mesh was created from the estimated contour shape of FIG. 13, the measured voltage was actually measured using the measuring instrument of FIG. 11, and a reconstructed image of the conductivity distribution was performed” and “In this embodiment, bioimpedance is used as an electrical characteristic, but at least of conductivity, permittivity, resistance, reactance, capacitance, admittance, conductance, susceptance and phase as long as the same analysis can be performed. Either of them may be measured”).
However, in the cited document, Takei does not appear to explicitly refer to calculating the Jacobian matrix via mesh coordinates obtained by dividing a contour of the subject as is required by claim 8. Further, Takei is the inventor of the present application, which has an effectively filed date of 10-26-2021. The Japanese document in question was published on 07-01-2021. Thus, because Takei is an inventor in each application, and because the application is commonly assigned, the Japanese document does not qualify as prior art under either 102(a)(1) due to the 102(b)(1)(A) exception, and does not qualify as prior art under 102(a)(2) because the Japanese document is not a US Patent, US Patent application, nor a published PCT document with a prior filing date. And further, even if it were, the 102(b)(2)(A) and the 102(b)(2)(C) exceptions would apply. Thus, under US practice, the document is not a qualified piece of prior art, and cannot be properly relied on in rejecting claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2023/0320645) is cited for its massage chair capable of obtaining bio-signals via a plurality of electrodes (see paragraph 133).
Lee (US 2017/0173325) is cited for its placement of a plurality of electrodes 14 on the garment shown in Fig. 1 and described at paragraph 53.
Fahey (US 8,265,763) is cited for its arrangement as shown in Figures 3 and 12. In particular notes the different pressers P1-P4 in Figure 12, and the electrode arrangement.
Iker (US 2011/0082401) is cited for its lymphedema treatment device as shown in Figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights