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 16-28 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the following steps of" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the placement" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the immobilization" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the implementation" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the repetition" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the minimum stimulation charge rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the contraction onset" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the maximum stimulation charge rate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the pain threshold" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the same kind" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 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. The metes and bounds of the claim language “the same kind” are unclear as to what would constitute “the same kind” versus what would be a different kind.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the time" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the stimulation intervals" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the degree of advancement" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campos Uribe et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0228862, herein referred to as Campos) in view of Test Bed with Force-Measuring Crank for Static and Dynamic Investigations on Cycling by Means of Functional Electrical Stimulation, 2001 (herein referred to as Grohler), Kuschner et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0208392), and Meyyappan et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0265833).
Regarding claim 16, Campos teaches a functional electrical stimulation (FES)
system and method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) that alters stimulation charge rate (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0040, lines 1-3) for at least one muscle (Paragraph 0040, line 7) or group of muscles (Paragraph 0046, lines 3-5) of a user’s body (Paragraph 0040, line 7), in a motorized ergometer (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) equipped with a FES system (Paragraph 0084, lines 1-5); said motorized ergometer comprising a motor (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) configured for moving at least one articulated actuator (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4); said stimulation charge being provided by the FES system (Paragraph 0040, lines 1-3) and being personalized (Paragraph 0065, lines 12-14) to the user’s body; said method comprising the following steps of: Step (a): the placement of the user's limbs (Paragraph 0108, lines 4-9) in a use position of the ergometer; Step (c): the implementation of a ramp of stimulation charge rate (Paragraph 0040, lines 1-3) by the FES system for at least one muscle or group of muscles of the user’s limbs; and Step (d): optionally, the repetition (Paragraph 0065, lines 12-14) of step (c) for each muscle or group of muscles of the user's limbs for which a stimulation by the FES system has to be provided when using a functional electrical stimulation system when using the ergometer.
Although Campos does not explicitly disclose a motorized ergometer comprising a
motor configured for moving at least one articulated actuator, or a step of placing the user’s limb in a use position of the ergometer, Campos does disclose that an active or passive cyclo-ergometer can be used in conjunction with the FES system (Paragraph 0108). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that a passive cyclo-ergometer is a motorized stationary bike, which includes at least one pedal (or articulated actuator). It would also be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the user’s limbs must be placed in a use position (e.g. the user’s feet are contacting the pedals) in order to operate said cyclo-ergometer.
Campos does not teach a method for determining a profile of stimulation charge rate in a motorized ergometer equipped with a FES system. Campos also does not teach the method steps of: Step (b): the immobilization of the user's limbs in the use position of step (a) by blocking the at least one articulated actuator; and the implementation of Step (c) in order to obtain a static force profile for said at least one muscle or group of muscles as a function of the stimulation charge rate of the ramp; said static force being the force applied by the user's limbs on a part of the ergometer comprising at least one force sensor; said step being implemented when the user’s limbs are immobilized in the position of step (b).
Grohler, however, details a study that used a test bed with a force-measuring crank and functional electrical stimulation to investigate static and dynamic measurements of applied forces on a pedal. In order to obtain the static measurements, the motor in the test bed moved the crank to a first position and locked it there for a set amount of time (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 3, lines 9-11). While the crank was locked, stimulation was provided and force applied to the pedal was calculated. By locking the crank, Grohler discloses a means for blocking the at least one articulated actuator, which in turn immobilizes the user’s limb in the use position of step (a).
Kuschner, however, teaches an exercising system and method that uses at least one force sensor (Paragraph 0034, line 2) to measure static force, where said static force is the amount of force being applied by the user’s limbs (Paragraph 0034, lines 3-4) on a part of the ergometer. Kuschner further specifies that the force sensor can be located in the pedal of the ergometer (Paragraph 0034, lines 10-12). Although Kuschner does not explicitly state a force sensor is used, it would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that pressure sensors can be used to determine the amount of force applied to a surface.
Meyyappan, however, teaches a method for electrical stimulation that determines
force profiles (Fig. 5, Paragraph 0132, line 15) based on applying fully programable stimulation parameters (Paragraph 0130, lines 1-2) such as pulse width, frequency, amplitude, and duration (Paragraph 0130, lines 7-9) to the diaphragm of a patient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campos to incorporate the teachings of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan to include a means for blocking the at least one articulated actuator, immobilizing the user’s limb, measuring the amount of force the user applies to the pedal of the ergometer, and determining a static force profile based on the alteration of stimulation parameters. Doing so would ensure that the stimulation charge rate applied to the user’s limb is a safe and comfortable amount that also maximizes efficiency of the FES system, as recognized by Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan.
Regarding claim 17, Campos teaches a method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16 that alters stimulation charge rate (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0040, lines 1-3) for at least one muscle (Paragraph 0040, line 7) or group of muscles (Paragraph 0046, lines 3-5) of a user’s body (Paragraph 0040, line 7). Campos does not teach a method step (e) for determining the minimum stimulation charge rate required for induing the contraction onset, or the maximum stimulation charge rate for achieving the pain threshold or that leads to a capping of the force generated by the contraction of said muscle or group of muscles on the ergometer.
Grohler, however, teaches a study that used a test bed with a force-measuring crank and functional electrical stimulation to determine the minimum threshold voltage required for inducing the contraction onset in said muscles (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 2, lines 2-3). Furthermore, Grohler teaches a study that determined maximum voltage where maximum torque is generated by the user (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 2, line 4). Although it is not explicitly stated, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that voltage is directly correlated to current (in mA), which is directly correlated to charge rate (in mC/s)
Although Grohler does not explicitly disclose that maximum stimulation charge rate corresponds to the charge required for achieving the pain threshold of said muscle or group of muscles, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that maximum stimulation charge rate corresponds to the highest tolerable level of stimulation charge that can be applied to a muscle before the user experiences pain.
And while Grohler does not explicitly disclose that the maximum stimulation charge rate leads to a capping of the force generated by the contraction of said muscle or group of muscles on the ergometer, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that force generated by muscle contraction plateaus and does not increase further when stimulation charge rate is applied that is greater than the maximum stimulation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campos to incorporate the teachings of Grohler to include a method step for determining the minimum stimulation charge rate required for induing the contraction onset or the maximum stimulation charge rate for said muscle or group of muscles. Doing so would ensure that the stimulation charge rate applied to the user’s limb is a safe and comfortable amount that contracts the user’s muscle while not causing the user pain or discomfort, as recognized by Grohler
Regarding claim 18, Campos in view of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Campos further discloses a method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16, wherein the user's limbs (Paragraph 0108, lines 4-9) are the user's legs (Paragraph 0108, lines 4-9), and wherein step (c) is simultaneously implemented for the same kind of muscle or group of muscles of both user's legs (Paragraph 0105, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 19, Campos in view of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Campos further discloses a method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16, wherein, in the step (c), the ramp of stimulation charge rate (Paragraph 0040, lines 1-3) ends (Paragraph 0065, lines 14-19) when a static force plateau and/or when the pain threshold for the muscle (Paragraph 0040, line 7) or group of muscles (Paragraph 0046, lines 3-5) of the user's body (Paragraph 0040, line 7) receiving the stimulation charge rate, is obtained.
Although Campos does not explicitly disclose that the ramp of the stimulation charge rate ends when a static force plateau and/or when the pain threshold is obtained, Campos does teach that “the intensity should never generate a contraction producing pain”, and that the stimulation intensity should not be “greater than that already producing a good contraction” (Paragraph 0065).
Grohler, however, teaches a study that used a test bed with a force-measuring crank and functional electrical stimulation to determine the maximum voltage where maximum torque is generated by the user (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 2, line 4). Although it is not explicitly stated, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that voltage is directly correlated to current (in mA), which is directly correlated to charge rate (in mC/s)
Although Grohler does not explicitly disclose that maximum stimulation charge rate corresponds to the charge required for achieving the pain threshold of said muscle or group of muscles, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that maximum stimulation charge rate corresponds to the highest tolerable level of stimulation charge that can be applied to a muscle before the user experiences pain.
And while Grohler does not explicitly disclose that the maximum stimulation charge rate corresponds to a static force plateau being obtained by the contraction of said muscle or group of muscles on the ergometer, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that force generated by muscle contraction plateaus and does not increase further when stimulation charge rate is applied that is greater than the maximum stimulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campos to incorporate the teachings of Grohler to include that the ramp of stimulation charge rate ends when a static force plateau and/or when the pain threshold for the muscle or group of muscles is obtained. Doing so would ensure that the stimulation charge rate applied to the user’s limb is a safe and comfortable amount that contracts the user’s muscle while also not causing the user pain or discomfort, as recognized by Grohler
Regarding claim 20, Campos in view of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Campos further discloses a method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16, wherein the time of the ramp of stimulation charge rate ranges from 0s to 60s (Paragraph 0029, lines 9-10), preferably is 10s. Although Campos does not explicitly disclose that the time of the ramp ranges from 0s to 60s, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, as the claimed range lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, Campos in view of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Campos further discloses a method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16, wherein the stimulation charge rate ranges from more than 0 mC/s to 100 mC/s (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0040, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 22, Campos in view of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Campos further discloses a method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16, wherein the user (Paragraph 0040, line 7) is a paralyzed person (Paragraph 0103, lines 5-6) or a person having a degraded or absent motor ability (Paragraph 0008, lines 1-3), or a degraded or absent sensory ability (Paragraph 0008, lines 1-3) of at least one limb (Paragraph 0008, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 23, Campos in view of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Campos further discloses a method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16, wherein the user is a valid person (Paragraph 0040, line 7). Although Campos does not disclose explicitly that the method can be performed on a valid person, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the method with the FES ergometer could also be performed on a person with no motor disability, for example, in order to increase muscle strength.
Regarding claim 24, Campos teaches an electric stimulation motorized ergometer (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) comprising: a motor (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) configured for moving in a periodic movement (Paragraph 0108, lines 5-7 and 8-9) at least one articulated actuator (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4), a functional electrical stimulation (FES) system (Paragraph 0084, lines 1-5) comprising: a module (Paragraph 0069, line 1), preferably a computer-based module (Paragraph 0069, line 1), comprising a data acquisition system (Paragraph 0059, line 9) and a FES controller (Paragraph 0102, line 1); and a stimulator (Paragraph 0070, line 1) connected to two or more electrical stimulation electrodes (Paragraph 0046, lines 7-9); said electrical stimulation electrodes being implanted in at least one muscle (Paragraph 0040, line 7) or group of muscles (Paragraph 0046, lines 3-5) of a user's body (Paragraph 0040, line 7) being engaged in a periodic movement by the motorized ergometer, and for providing an interface (Paragraph 0046, lines 11-12) to transmit electrical pulses (Paragraph 0070, lines 1-2) from the stimulator to said muscle or group of muscles of the user's body; wherein: said FES controller comprising instructions (Paragraph 0102, lines 4-5) to operate the method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16.
Campos does not teach that the at least one articulated actuator comprises at least one force sensor, or where said articulated actuator is blockable so as to immobilize the user's limb. Campos also does not teach that the electrodes are configured for adhering to at least one muscle or group of muscles of a user's body.
Kuschner, however, teaches an exercising system and method that uses at least one force sensor (Paragraph 0034, line 2) to measure static force, where said static force is the amount of force being applied by the user’s limbs (Paragraph 0034, lines 3-4) on a part of the ergometer. Kuschner further specifies that the force sensor can be located in the pedal of the ergometer (Paragraph 0034, lines 10-12). Although Kuschner does not explicitly state a force sensor is used, it would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that pressure sensors can be used to determine the amount of force applied to a surface.
Grohler, however, details a study that used a test bed with a force-measuring crank and functional electrical stimulation to investigate static and dynamic measurements of applied forces on a pedal. In order to obtain the static measurements, the motor in the test bed moved the crank to a first position and locked it there for a set amount of time (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 3, lines 9-11). While the crank was locked, stimulation was provided and force applied to the pedal was calculated. By locking the crank, Grohler discloses a means for blocking the at least one articulated actuator, which in turn immobilizes the user’s limb in the use position of step (a). Grohler also discloses that in this study, electrodes were attached to the skin of the user’s leg above said muscle or muscle groups (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 1, lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campos to incorporate the teachings of Kuschner and Grohler to include that that the at least one articulated actuator comprises at least one force sensor and is blockable so as to immobilize the user's limb, and that the electrodes are adhere to at least one muscle or group of muscles of a user's body. Doing so would ensure that the ergometer includes a means for accurately measuring force applied to the actuator, and that the electrodes can be easily attached to the user’s body, as recognized by Kuschner and Grohler.
Regarding claim 25, Campos in view of Grohler, Kuschner, and Meyyappan discloses the claimed invention of claim 24. Campos further discloses an electric stimulation motorized ergometer (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) according to claim 24, wherein said motorized ergometer is configured for implementing said method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) that alters stimulation charge rate (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0040, lines 1-3) of at least one muscle (Paragraph 0040, line 7) or group of muscles (Paragraph 0046, lines 3-5) of a user's body (Paragraph 0040, line 7), before implementation of an exercise regime (Paragraph 0087, line 1) by a user (Paragraph 0040, line 7).
Regarding claim 26, Campos teaches an electric stimulation motorized ergometer (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) according to claim 24, wherein the muscle (Paragraph 0040, line 7) or group of muscles (Paragraph 0046, lines 3-5) of the user's body (Paragraph 0040, line 7) is selected from: quadriceps (vastus lateralis) (Paragraph 0108, line 9), quadriceps (vastus medialis) (Paragraph 0108, line 9), quadriceps (rectus femoris) (Paragraph 0108, line 9), hamstrings (Paragraph 0108, line 9), gastrocnemius (Paragraph 0108, line 9), and tibialis anterior (Paragraph 0107, line 4).
Campos does not teach that the muscle or group of muscles can be selected from the gluteus. Grohler, however, teaches that the pedal path in the discloses study was optimized for FES pedaling with the gluteus maximus (Introduction, Paragraph 4, line 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campos to incorporate the teachings of Grohler to also include that electric stimulation motorized ergometer could be used for the gluteus. Doing so would ensure that all pertinent muscles in the user’s legs can receive individual stimulation, as recognized by Grohler.
Regarding claim 27, Campos teaches an electric stimulation motorized ergometer (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) according to claim 24, wherein the FES system (Paragraph 0084, lines 1-5) comprises a user interface (Paragraph 0072, line 4) for: implementing said method (Fig. 1, paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) according to claim 16, and optionally, in a last step, implementing an exercise regime (Paragraph 0087, line 1).
Campos does not teach, optionally, in a second step, implementing a method for determining the stimulation intervals for a periodic movement for at least one muscle or group of muscles of the user's body as a function of the degree of advancement of the periodic movement on the ergometer and as a function of the kind of the exercise regime.
Grohler, however, teaches a study that used a test bed with a force-measuring crank and functional electrical stimulation to determine the minimum threshold voltage required for inducing the contraction onset in said muscles (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 2, lines 2-3). Furthermore, Grohler teaches a study that determined maximum voltage where maximum torque is generated by the user (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 2, line 4). Although it is not explicitly stated, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that voltage is directly correlated to current (in mA), which is directly correlated to charge rate (in mC/s)
Kuschner, however, teaches an exercising system and method that generates a periodic movement (Paragraph 0026, lines 12-13) for at least one muscle or group of muscles of the user's body (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0024, lines 8-9), and determines the degree of advancement (Paragraph 0027, lines 6-7) of the periodic movement on the ergometer (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0024, line 2) and as function of the kind of the exercise regime (Paragraph 0032, line 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campos to incorporate the teachings of Grohler to include a method step for determining the stimulation intervals for a periodic movement for at least one muscle or group of muscles of the user's body as function of the degree of advancement of the periodic movement on the ergometer and as function of the kind of the exercise regime. Doing so would ensure that the stimulation charge rate applied to the user’s limb is a safe and comfortable amount that contracts the user’s muscle while not causing the user pain or discomfort, as recognized by Grohler.
Regarding claim 28, Campos teaches an electric stimulation motorized ergometer (Paragraph 0108, lines 3-4) according to claim 27, wherein the stimulation charge rate (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0040, lines 1-3) is provided by the FES system (Paragraph 0084, lines 1-5).
Campos does not teach that said method for determining stimulation intervals of a periodic movement for at least one muscle or group of muscles of the user's body or during the exercise regime ranges from the minimum stimulation charge rate to the maximum stimulation charge rate determined for each muscle or group of muscles of each user of the ergometer during a further step (e) of said method, the further step (e) for determining both the minimum stimulation charge rate required for inducing the contraction onset of said muscle or group of muscles.
Grohler, however, teaches a study that used a test bed with a force-measuring crank and functional electrical stimulation to determine the minimum threshold voltage required for inducing the contraction onset in said muscles (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 2, lines 2-3). Furthermore, Grohler teaches a study that determined maximum voltage where maximum torque is generated by the user (Section D - Measurements, Sub-Section 2, line 4). Although it is not explicitly stated, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that voltage is directly correlated to current (in mA), which is directly correlated to charge rate (in mC/s)
Although Grohler does not explicitly disclose that the minimum stimulation charge rate corresponds to the rate required for inducing contraction onset of said muscle or group of muscles, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the minimum stimulation charge rate required correlates to the minimum amount of charge necessary to produce the first signs of muscle contraction in the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campos to incorporate the teachings of Grohler to include a method step for determining the stimulation intervals that range from the minimum to the maximum stimulation charge rates, where the minimum stimulation charge rate is the amount required for inducing the contraction onset of said muscle or group of muscles. Doing so would ensure that the stimulation charge rate applied to the user’s limb is a safe and comfortable amount that contracts the user’s muscle while not causing the user pain or discomfort, as recognized by Grohler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WIPO Pub. No. 2018/085770, WIPO Pub. No. 2015/199956, WIPO Pub. No. 2013/063200, U.S. PGPub No. 2010/0331603, U.S. Patent No. 5,150,071, and U.S. Patent No. 10,537,733.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 4:30 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796