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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2024 and 04/15/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and are under examination. As per the amendments filed on 06/21/2024, claims 1, 5-7, 9, 15, 17-18, 20-25, and 27 are amended.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 06/21/2024) is a national stage of PCT/AU2022/051556 (filed on 12/22/2022), filed under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim to foreign priority based on application AU2021904237 filed on 12/23/2021. Instant claims 1-28 are represented in the attached certified foreign priority disclosure. Therefore, the instant application will receive an effective filing date of 12/23/2021 and all prior art will be evaluated with respect to this date.
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 1-28 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.
Claims 1 and 11: The phrase “upon receiving a de-activation of the stimulation control” is indefinite because the origin of the de-activation signal is not included. The previous ramp signal limitation (“ramp, on receiving an activation of the stimulation control by a user”) specifies the user as the source of the activation of the stimulation control. The clarity of the claim would be improved by specifying the source of the de-activation of the stimulation control.
Claims 7-8: The phrase “the processor is configured to animate the stimulation control” is indefinite because the structural element (e.g. the display) on which the animation occurs is not included in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-10, and 12-28 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-28 are rejected under U.S.C 102(a)(1) and U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo (US PG Pub 2019/0001135 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoo discloses a neurostimulation system ([0002]) comprising:
• a neurostimulation device for controllably delivering neural stimuli ([0046]), the neurostimulation device comprising:
a stimulus source configured to deliver neural stimuli via selected electrodes of a plurality of implantable electrodes to a neural pathway of a patient ([0218-0220] – different embodiments of an implantable neurostimulation device (implantable electrodes) with a stimulation generator); and
a control unit configured to control the stimulus source to deliver each neural stimulus according to a stimulus intensity parameter (Fig. 2, [0065] – stimulation intensity: “The user interface module 44, provides at least one user control for allowing adjustment of therapy (e.g. turning therapy on/off or increasing/decreasing stimulation intensity”); and
• an external computing device in communication with the neurostimulation device ([0058] – remote computer 82, which includes a mobile app on a doctor-oriented user device), the external computing device comprising:
a display ([0065] – “The display/notification module 42 includes displays (e.g., LCD or LEDs, touchscreen) and associated circuitry for presenting text, image information, notification signals, and a graphical user interface for obtaining user input”) and a processor ([0065] – “The control module contains the circuitry needed to control the other modules including at least one processor, readable and writeable memory, timers, clocks, signal processing circuitry, and all circuitry that is typically included in a device such as smartphone”) configured to:
initialise the stimulus intensity parameter ([0076-0080] – interface controls used to set parameters and run device);
render a stimulation control on the display (Fig. 5, [0073] – “When the stimulator device 12a operates with the user device 32 then the user device 32 may display virtual controls and display information and communicate using wireless signals 86a);
ramp, on receiving an activation of the stimulation control by a user ([0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “on” button: “The user interface module 44, provides at least one user control for allowing adjustment of therapy ( e.g. turning therapy on/off or increasing/decreasing stimulation intensity”); [0079] – a ramping signal is also disclosed as being initiated in response to a button push/mode selection; [0198] – ramping protocol described), a value of the stimulus intensity parameter while instructing the control unit to control the stimulus source to deliver the neural stimuli according to the ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter (Fig. 10A, [0180] – ramping protocol to discover different thresholds of stimulation for producing sensation, recruitment, discomfort, and pain); and
cease, upon receiving a de-activation of the stimulation control, ramping the value of the stimulus intensity parameter ([0180] – the up-ramping feature is stopped when reaching a pain threshold; can also include a ramp down, [0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “off” button).
Therefore, Claim 1 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 2, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to ramp down, upon receiving the de-activation, the value of the stimulus intensity parameter, while instructing the control unit to control the stimulus source to deliver the neural stimuli according to the down-ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter ([0180] – once a user-indicated pain threshold is met, a ramp down feature is implemented toward a sensation level: “stimulation intensity is then decreased. The user can then be asked to indicate thresholds as the intensity decreases from pain towards sensation, or patient input is only prompted for by the user device 32 on the upward slope”).
Therefore, Claim 2 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 3, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to instruct, upon receiving the de-activation, the stimulus source to cease delivering the neural stimuli [0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “off” button).
Therefore, Claim 3 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 4, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to record, upon receiving the de-activation, the value of the stimulus intensity parameter as a discomfort threshold for the selected electrodes ([0180] – a ramp up waveform is implemented where the user provides feedback via the interface to identify thresholds as the ramp increases). While reaching the pain threshold is given as an example of a trigger to implement the deactivation signal in [0180], the discomfort threshold could reasonably be used as the same trigger given Yoo considers both pain and discomfort undesirable upper limits ([0178] – “A therapeutic level used during an awake protocol should often be set between a minimum effective level (recruitment threshold) and a maximum level that is less than the level at which a subject experiences pain or discomfort”).
Therefore, Claim 4 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 4, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to program, using the recorded value of the stimulus intensity parameter, the neurostimulation device to deliver neural stimuli to the patient. ([0180] – threshold data captured via user input during the ramp-up function, [0181] – the stimulation waveform intensity is meant to operate between the user-defined discomfort and recruitment thresholds).
Therefore, Claim 5 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is configured to animate the stimulation control to indicate elapsed time since the activation of the control ([0076] – “The device may provide a timed stimulation session where the timer automatically starts counting down when the stimulation intensity is greater than zero, or exceeds a minimum defined amplitude. The timer value can be displayed on the display 120”).
Therefore, Claim 7 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 8, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 7, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is configured to animate the stimulation control ([0058] – graphs of stimulation control are a part of the display) to indicate that the stimulus intensity has reached a neural response threshold ([0186] – warnings are provided when an intensity reaches a neural response threshold: “During patient adjustment 518 due to user input 522, the system 8 will warn a patient if they decrease the intensity of stimulation below the level defined as recruitment threshold”).
Therefore, Claim 8 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cease ramping the value of the stimulus intensity parameter ([0180] – the up-ramping feature stops when reaching a pain threshold; [0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “off” button) upon expiry of a first timeout period since receipt of a communication from the neurostimulation device ([0180] – for one cycle, the timing of the ramping waveform is preprogrammed and would either stop ramping due to a user input or reaching the end of the waveform; [0198] – for the calibration process, if a user response is not received in a defined time period then an automatic protocol takes effect: “In step 528 the stimulus is presented to the user and in step 530 the response of the user is sensed or otherwise obtained. If the response is not detected the method returns to step 526 and the stimulus is adjusted according to the assessment protocol in the absence of a user response”).
Therefore, Claim 9 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoo anticipates the neurostimulation system according to Claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to ramp down ([0180] – once a user-indicated pain threshold is met, a ramp down feature is implemented towards a sensation level: “stimulation intensity is then decreased. The user can then be asked to indicate thresholds as the intensity decreases from pain towards sensation, or patient input is only prompted for by the user device 32 on the upward slope”), upon expiry of a second timeout period since the expiry of the first timeout period without receiving a communication from the neurostimulation device, the value of the stimulus intensity parameter, while instructing the control unit to control the stimulus source to deliver the neural stimuli according to the down-ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter ([0180] – for one cycle, the timing of the ramping waveform is preprogrammed and would either down-ramp due to a user input or the programmed waveform; [0198] – for the calibration process, if a user response is not received in a defined time period then an automatic protocol takes effect: “In step 528 the stimulus is presented to the user and in step 530 the response of the user is sensed or otherwise obtained. If the response is not detected the method returns to step 526 and the stimulus is adjusted according to the assessment protocol in the absence of a user response”).
Therefore, Claim 10 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 11, Yoo discloses an automated method of controlling (methods such as those in Figures 10B and 10C) a neurostimulation device ([0046]) to deliver neural stimuli (Fig. 2, [0065] - control feature) using an external computing device in communication with the neurostimulation device ([0058] – remote computer 82, which includes a mobile app on a doctor-oriented user device), the method comprising:
• rendering, by a processor of the external computing device, a stimulation control on a display of the external computing device (Fig. 5, [0073] – “When the stimulator device 12a operates with the user device 32 then the user device 32 may display virtual controls and display information and communicate using wireless signals 86a”);
• ramping, by the processor, on receiving an activation of the stimulation control by a user ([0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “on” button: “The user interface module 44, provides at least one user control for allowing adjustment of therapy ( e.g. turning therapy on/off or increasing/decreasing stimulation intensity”); [0079] – a ramping signal is also disclosed as being initiated in response to a button push/mode selection; [0198] – ramping protocol described), a value of a stimulus intensity parameter ([0065]), while instructing the neurostimulation device to deliver the neural stimuli according to the ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter via selected electrodes of a plurality of implanted electrodes (Fig. 10A, [0180] – ramping protocol to discover different thresholds of stimulation for producing sensation, recruitment, discomfort, and pain); and
• ceasing, by the processor, upon receiving a de-activation of the stimulation control, to ramp the value of the stimulus intensity parameter ([0180] – the up-ramping feature is stopped when reaching a pain threshold; can also include a ramp down, [0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “off” button).
Therefore, Claim 11 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses ramping down, by the processor, upon receiving the de-activation, the value of the stimulus intensity parameter, while instructing the neurostimulation device to deliver the neural stimuli according to the down-ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter via the selected electrodes ([0180] – once a user-indicated pain threshold is met, a ramp down feature is implemented toward a sensation level: “stimulation intensity is then decreased. The user can then be asked to indicate thresholds as the intensity decreases from pain towards sensation, or patient input is only prompted for by the user device 32 on the upward slope”).
Therefore, Claim 12 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses ramping down, by the processor, upon the stimulus intensity parameter satisfying a predetermined condition, the value of the stimulus intensity parameter to zero, while instructing the neurostimulation device to deliver the neural stimuli according to the down-ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter via the selected electrodes ([0180] – once a user-indicated pain threshold is met, a ramp down feature is implemented toward a sensation level: “stimulation intensity is then decreased. The user can then be asked to indicate thresholds as the intensity decreases from pain towards sensation, or patient input is only prompted for by the user device 32 on the upward slope). Note the downward slope, particularly if linear ([0180]), would eventually reach zero after a particular time period.
Therefore, Claim 13 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 13, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the predetermined condition comprises the stimulus intensity parameter reaching a hard ceiling ([0068] – a maximum value which cannot be exceeded is programmed into the system: “For example, only a doctor may be allowed permission to increase the maximum allowed amplitude of stimulation or the amount of stimulation provided within a specified amount of time).
Therefore, Claim 14 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 15, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 12, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the down- ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter follows a linear profile with a predetermined rate of decrease ([0180] – the downward slope would have the same features as the upward slope (linear, predetermined slopes)).
Therefore, Claim 15 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 16, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein a rate of the linear profile is chosen such that the stimulus intensity parameter reaches zero after a predetermined interval ([0180] – the downward slope, particularly if linear, would eventually reach zero after a particular time period).
Therefore, Claim 16 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 17, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 12, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the down- ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter follows a threshold ramp parametrised by an ECAP threshold (Figure 10A, [0180] – the linear ramp function demonstrates the ramp parameters change after reaching one of four thresholds 502a-d where the reverse process would occur for the down-ramping; [0179] – these four thresholds are sensation, recruitment, discomfort, and pain).
Therefore, Claim 17 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 18, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the ramp is linear with time ([0180] – “the system operates to provide an assessment protocol that automatically adjusts stimulus intensity by using a ramping stimuli intensity function 500 (which is sinusoidal, but which can also be linear or exponential) … for example, intensity adjustment varies as a function of time”).
Therefore, Claim 18 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 19, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 18, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein a ramp rate of the linear ramp is predetermined ([0180] – the intensity waveform, including the linear ramp waveform, is automatically adjusted as part of a function which is interpreted as predetermined).
Therefore, Claim 19 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 20, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the ramp is a threshold ramp parametrised by an ECAP threshold (Figure 10A, [0180] – the linear ramp function demonstrates the ramp parameters change after reaching one of four thresholds 502a-d; [0179] – these four thresholds are sensation, recruitment, discomfort, and pain).
Therefore, Claim 20 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 21, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses instructing, by the processor, upon receiving the de-activation, the neurostimulation device to cease delivering the neural stimuli ([0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “off” button).
Therefore, Claim 12 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 22, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses recording, upon receiving the de-activation, the value of the stimulus intensity parameter as a discomfort threshold for the selected electrodes of the plurality of implanted electrodes ([0180] – a ramp up waveform is implemented where the user provides feedback via the interface to identify thresholds). While reaching the pain threshold is given as an example of a trigger to implement the deactivation signal, the discomfort threshold could reasonably be used as the same trigger given Yoo considers both pain and discomfort undesirable upper limits ([0178] – “A therapeutic level used during an awake protocol should often be set between a minimum effective level (recruitment threshold) and a maximum level that is less than the level at which a subject experiences pain or discomfort”).
Therefore, Claim 22 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 23, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses repeating, by the processor, the ramping and instructing and ceasing for further selected electrodes of the plurality of implanted electrodes ([0185] – different electrodes can be assessed using the procedure in [0179-0184]).
Therefore, Claim 23 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 24, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the stimulus intensity parameter is an amplitude of a stimulus current pulse ([0181] – amplitude is used as a measure of intensity).
Therefore, Claim 24 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 25, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses animating the stimulation control to indicate elapsed time since the activation of the control ([0076] – “The device may provide a timed stimulation session where the timer automatically starts counting down when the stimulation intensity is greater than zero, or exceeds a minimum defined amplitude. The timer value can be displayed on the display 120”).
Therefore, Claim 25 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 26, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 25, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the animating ([0058] – graphs of stimulation control are a part of the display) indicates that the stimulus intensity has reached a neural response threshold ([0186] – warnings are provided when an intensity reaches a neural response threshold: “During patient adjustment 518 due to user input 522, the system 8 will warn a patient if they decrease the intensity of stimulation below the level defined as recruitment threshold”).
Therefore, Claim 26 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 27, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 11, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses ceasing ramping the value of the stimulus intensity parameter ([0180] – the up-ramping feature stops when reaching a pain threshold; [0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “off” button) upon expiry of a first timeout period since receipt of a communication from the neurostimulation device ([0180] – for one cycle, the timing of the ramping waveform is preprogrammed and would either stop ramping due to a user input or reaching the end of the waveform; [0198] – for the calibration process, if a user response is not received in a defined time period then an automatic protocol takes effect: “In step 528 the stimulus is presented to the user and in step 530 the response of the user is sensed or otherwise obtained. If the response is not detected the method returns to step 526 and the stimulus is adjusted according to the assessment protocol in the absence of a user response”).
Therefore, Claim 27 is anticipated by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 28, Yoo anticipates the automated method of controlling a neurostimulation device according to Claim 27, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses ramping down ([0180] – once a user-indicated pain threshold is met, a ramp down feature is implemented toward a sensation level: “stimulation intensity is then decreased. The user can then be asked to indicate thresholds as the intensity decreases from pain towards sensation, or patient input is only prompted for by the user device 32 on the upward slope”), upon expiry of a second timeout period since the expiry of the first timeout period without receiving a communication from the neurostimulation device, the value of the stimulus intensity parameter, while instructing, by the processor, the neurostimulation device to deliver the neural stimuli according to the down-ramping value of the stimulus intensity parameter ([0180] – for one cycle, the timing of the ramping waveform is preprogrammed and would either down-ramp due to a user input or the programmed waveform; [0198] – for the calibration process, if a user response is not received in a defined time period then an automatic protocol takes effect: “In step 528 the stimulus is presented to the user and in step 530 the response of the user is sensed or otherwise obtained. If the response is not detected the method returns to step 526 and the stimulus is adjusted according to the assessment protocol in the absence of a user response”).
Therefore, Claim 28 is anticipated by Yoo.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US PG Pub 2019/0001135 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Thacker (US 9,295,840 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoo anticipates the a neurostimulation system according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Yoo further discloses wherein the stimulation control is configured to:
• become activated upon the user interacting with the stimulation control ([0065] – this limitation could simply be pushing the “on” button). Yoo discloses a ramping protocol to discover different thresholds of stimulation for producing sensation, recruitment, discomfort, and pain as determined by the user with a button push where ramping stops when the user indicates a pain threshold is reached (Fig. 10A, [0180]). However, Yoo does not disclose remain activated as long as the user continues to interact with the stimulation control; and become de-activated as soon as the user ceases to interact with the stimulation control. Note the continued interaction is interpreted as a constant interaction (such as holding a button) necessary to prevent deactivation, such as discussed in the instant specification ([0088]).
Thacker, in the same field of endeavor of controlling an implantable electrical stimulation (Col 1, Lines 20-25), teaches a technique where the user holds a button until a sensation/tolerance is reached (Col 10, Lines 46-54: “In the clinic and/or during a trial period, many or all of the expected locations/ amplitudes to be used can be tested for sensation thresholds and patient tolerance. This can be done with an automated 50 system that is directed by the patient, where the patient holds a button to let the test proceed and then releases the button if they feel any sensation (stopping the test for that location). The test cycles through the amplitudes/frequency/pulse width as needed for each location”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Yoo’s button push to signify a threshold has been reached with the button hold until a threshold is reached in Thacker. At the time, there would have been a recognized need to determine a sensation threshold based on user-supplied feedback via a button, such as that used in Yoo. Given the limited options for manipulating a button, the button hold until a threshold is reached in Thacker would have been a known calibration option and obvious to try. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the button hold until reaching a threshold calibration in Thacker as part of the control mechanism in Yoo.
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Yoo in view of Thacker.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796