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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Restriction between claims 1, 25, 26, 27 in the reply filed on 4/22/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that inventions I-II cannot be practiced separately. This is not found persuasive because for the Example argued invention I is directed to a device the device, the intended use of the device is for the vagus nerve but it can be used to stimulate other portions of the body which are not the vagus nerve. Additionally a materially different device could provide the stimulation. Examiner notes that there is a possibility of rejoinder after the determination of allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/22/26.
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, 4-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a predetermined height” however it is unclear what the scope of this is. The particular issue is what is needed to be shown for it to be “predetermined” does any device with a set distance between electrodes meet this claim element? Turning the to the specification, the term is only mentioned once in the specification and that is identical to the claim as such, there is limited if any additional discussion specifically to this element. Based on the context of the specification Examiner believes this predetermined height to be a distance which his relative to the particular user of the device. Phrased differently the distance is “predetermined” based on determining the particular spacing on the user. This interpretation if correct makes it relative because all users are different and the “height” of the carotid triangle on a toddler for example would be different from that of an adult the same would be true among adults. For the above reasons of lack of clarity of the scope and separately, the seemingly relative meaning of the term the claim does not clearly define the mete and bounds of the claim and the claim is indefinite. The claims depending from this claim share this issue and are likewise rejected for the same reasons, except claims 2-3 because claim 2 removes the lack of clarity by defining the distance.
Claim 21 recites “centerline” however this lacks clarity. Centerline is relative because a centerline of the member, could be any of a series of alternative lines which are drawn through the center. Thus while one set of centerlines may have the desired distance others do not. As such the claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim and the claim is indefinite.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022061070 to Rodenkirch et al. (WO 2022061070 is recited in the IDS dated 7/8/26) using the related PG Pub US 20230218889 for paragraph numbers (hereinafter Rodenkirch) in view of US 20150005852 to Hershey et al. (hereinafter Hershey).
Regarding Claim 1, an interpretation of Rodenkirch discloses a device ([0054], Fig. 1), comprising:
a pair of electrodes ([0053]-[0054] including “In some instances, a stimulation device utilizes at least two contact points—one positive electrode and one negative electrode.”), wherein the pair of electrodes is adapted to apply a current to stimulate a vagus nerve of a subject ([0053] including “to generate current to run into the body”, [0054] including “transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulators (nVNS)” see also [0096]; Examiner notes to the extent “to stimulate . . .” is an intended use of the device the device recited in the prior art is structurally capable of performing the intended use), wherein an interelectrode distance between the pair of electrodes is defined based on a predetermined height of a carotid triangle ([0064] including “the first target location and the second target location is about 1 to about 10 cm. Alternatively, the distance between the first target location and the second target location is about 2 to about 8 cm, about 3 to about 7 cm, about 4 to about 6 cm, or about 5 cm.”, [0096] including “For example, transcutaneous cervical vagus nerve stimulation (tcVNS) is targeted where the vagus nerve runs parallel and proximal to the carotid artery. On the neck (i.e., cervical location), there is an area known as the carotid triangle”, Figs. 1 see also [0053], [0063]; with the target locations being the electrodes location relative to the users carotid triangle and the distance between them being the “interelectrode” distance. Further, this element is defined more by claims 2-3 and those distances are disclosed by the reference).
While Rodenkirch discloses a stimulator device driving a current through electrodes, an interpretation of Rodenkirch may not explicitly disclose stimulator device having a power source, wherein the pair of electrodes is electrically connected to the power source and apply current delivered from the power source, a controller, wherein the controller is communicatively connected to the power source, wherein the controller is configured to send control signals in order to control the current delivered from the power source to the pair of electrodes in a continuous stimulation pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Hershey teaches a power source ([0014], [0019], 22 Fig. 1), wherein the pair of electrodes is electrically connected to the power source and apply current delivered from the power source ([0014], [0019], 22 Fig. 1), a controller ([0018], 20 Fig. 1), wherein the controller is communicatively connected to the power source ([0018]-[0019], Fig. 1), wherein the controller is configured to send control signals in order to control the current delivered from the power source to the pair of electrodes in a continuous stimulation pattern ([0014] including “continuous stimulation waveform”, [0018]-[0020], Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recited stimulation device as disclosed by Rodenkirch to include the power source and controller for controlling the stimulation applied as recited by Hershey because it is merely use of known technique (having a power source and controller for controlling stimulation as recited by Hershey) to improve similar devices (stimulator of Rodenkirch) in the same way.
Regarding Claim 2, an interpretation of Rodenkirch further discloses wherein the interelectrode distance is between 4 and 5 centimeters ([0064] including “the first target location and the second target location is about 1 to about 10 cm. Alternatively, the distance between the first target location and the second target location is about 2 to about 8 cm, about 3 to about 7 cm, about 4 to about 6 cm, or about 5 cm.”, [0096] including “For example, transcutaneous cervical vagus nerve stimulation (tcVNS) is targeted where the vagus nerve runs parallel and proximal to the carotid artery. On the neck (i.e., cervical location), there is an area known as the carotid triangle”, Figs. 1 see also [0053], [0063]).
Regarding Claim 3, an interpretation of Rodenkirch further discloses wherein the interelectrode distance is 4 centimeters ([0064] including “the first target location and the second target location is about 1 to about 10 cm. Alternatively, the distance between the first target location and the second target location is about 2 to about 8 cm, about 3 to about 7 cm, about 4 to about 6 cm, or about 5 cm.”, [0096] including “For example, transcutaneous cervical vagus nerve stimulation (tcVNS) is targeted where the vagus nerve runs parallel and proximal to the carotid artery. On the neck (i.e., cervical location), there is an area known as the carotid triangle”, Figs. 1 see also [0053], [0063]).
Regarding Claim 20, an interpretation of Rodenkirch further discloses an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is adapted to adhere to a surface of skin of the subject ([0026] including “the adhesive electrode patch can be optimally positioned and the adhesive portion can be adhered to the location by, for example, applying pressure”, Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of US 20040015205 to Whitehurst et al. (hereinafter Whitehurst).
Regarding Claim 4, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey a continuous stimulation waveform.
An interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey may not explicitly disclose wherein the continuous stimulation pattern utilizes a plurality of pulses, wherein each pulse is less than one millisecond in length.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Whitehurst teaches wherein the continuous stimulation pattern utilizes a plurality of pulses ([0067]-[0068] including “generating stimulation pulses (either intermittent or continuous)” ), wherein each pulse is less than one millisecond in length ([0082]-[0084] including “biphasic stimulation periodic pulse waveform with a programmable stimulation phase pulsewidth in the range of about 50 μsec to about 5 msec and a charge recovery phase having a programmable pulsewidth in the range of about 50 μsec to about 5 msec.”; Examiner notes that a frequency for a pulse every 1 ms is: 1/0.001s = 1,000 Hz or 1khz).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Whitehurst because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Whitehurst) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Regarding Claim 5, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey may not explicitly disclose wherein the continuous stimulation pattern is a continuous biphasic stimulation pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Whitehurst teaches wherein the continuous stimulation pattern is a continuous biphasic stimulation pattern ([0067]-[0068] including “generating stimulation pulses (either intermittent or continuous)”, [0082]-[0084] including “biphasic stimulation periodic pulse waveform with a programmable stimulation phase pulsewidth in the range of about 50 μsec to about 5 msec and a charge recovery phase having a programmable pulsewidth in the range of about 50 μsec to about 5 msec.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Whitehurst because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Whitehurst) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Regarding Claim 6, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey may not explicitly disclose wherein the continuous stimulation pattern includes energy pulses with a square biphasic waveform having two phases.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Whitehurst teaches wherein the continuous stimulation pattern includes energy pulses with a square biphasic waveform having two phases ([0067]-[0068] including “generating stimulation pulses (either intermittent or continuous)”, [0082]-[0084] including “biphasic stimulation periodic pulse waveform with a programmable stimulation phase pulsewidth in the range of about 50 μsec to about 5 msec and a charge recovery phase having a programmable pulsewidth in the range of about 50 μsec to about 5 msec.”; Examiner notes that biphasic means two phases).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Whitehurst because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Whitehurst) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Regarding Claim 11, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey may not explicitly disclose wherein the continuous stimulation pattern includes a square biphasic waveform.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Whitehurst teaches wherein the continuous stimulation pattern includes energy pulses with a square biphasic waveform having two phases ([0067]-[0068], [0082]-[0084] including “The biphasic stimulation periodic pulse waveform may be . . . . For example, the stimulation pulse may be a square pulse, and the charge recovery pulse may be a square pulse”; Examiner notes that biphasic means two phases).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Whitehurst because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Whitehurst) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Regarding Claim 12, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey may not explicitly disclose wherein the continuous stimulation pattern includes an asymmetric biphasic waveform.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Whitehurst teaches wherein the continuous stimulation pattern includes an asymmetric biphasic waveform ([0067]-[0068], [0082]-[0084] including “The biphasic stimulation periodic pulse waveform may be symmetric or asymmetric.”; Examiner notes that biphasic means two phases).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Whitehurst because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Whitehurst) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of Whitehurst in further view of US 20170021171 to Perez et al. (hereinafter Goode – which is being used because Perez is used for another reference below).
Regarding Claim 7, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in view of Whitehurst discloses a symmetric square wave biphasic pulses.
An interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in view of Whitehurst may not explicitly disclose wherein each of the phases is 100 milliseconds in length.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Goldwasser teaches wherein each of the phases is 100 milliseconds in length ([0088], [0091], [0208]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation using the parameters as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of Whitehurst to include the specific parameters recited by Goode because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of Whitehurst with the specific setting parameters as recited by Goode) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of US 20230405306 to Simon et al. (hereinafter Simon).
Regarding Claim 8, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of may not explicitly disclose wherein the continuous stimulation pattern utilizes a plurality of pulses delivered at a frequency between 15 and 60 Hertz.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Simon teaches wherein the continuous stimulation pattern utilizes a plurality of pulses delivered at a frequency between 15 and 60 Hertz ([0124] including “For example, the frequency may be about 1 Hz or greater, such as between about 15 Hz to 100 Hz, preferably between about 15-50 Hz and more preferably between about 15-35 Hz.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Simon because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Simon) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Regarding Claim 9, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of may not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of pulses is delivered at a frequency of 30 Hertz.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Simon teaches wherein the plurality of pulses is delivered at a frequency of 30 Hertz ([0124] including “For example, the frequency may be about 1 Hz or greater, such as between about 15 Hz to 100 Hz, preferably between about 15-50 Hz and more preferably between about 15-35 Hz.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Simon because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Simon) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Regarding Claim 10, an interpretation of Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of may not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of pulses is delivered at a frequency of 45 Hertz.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Simon teaches wherein the plurality of pulses is delivered at a frequency of 45 Hertz ([0124] including “For example, the frequency may be about 1 Hz or greater, such as between about 15 Hz to 100 Hz, preferably between about 15-50 Hz and more preferably between about 15-35 Hz.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the specific parameters recited by Simon because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific setting parameters as recited by Simon) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with the parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13-14, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of US 20190321636 to Law et al. (hereinafter Law).
Regarding Claim 13, an interpretation of Rodenkirch may not explicitly disclose a resistive sensor adapted to measure resistance of the device; and a switch, wherein the switch is configured to turn on when the resistance measured by the resistive sensor is above a predetermined threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Law teaches a resistive sensor adapted to measure resistance of the device ([0013] including ” Skin contact may be detected by, for example, detecting an electrical property between the electrodes (e.g., anode and cathode) forming the apparatus. The electrical property may be (or may be related to or equivalent to) the impedance.”, [0258] including “until it detects that the electrodes are in contact with skin (e.g., via electrical measurement, e.g., impedance, resistance, etc.).”; Examiner notes that resistance is the real part of the impedance); and a switch, wherein the switch is configured to turn on when the resistance measured by the resistive sensor is above a predetermined threshold ([0013] including “Any of the apparatuses described herein may be configured so that the apparatus enters a standby/ready mode in which the waveform is not applied until the apparatus confirms that the electrodes (e.g., the hydrogel) is in contact with skin, meaning it is safe to apply the energy. . . . is within a range of values that indicate contact with skin.”; the device switches modes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include a resistance or impedance with a threshold to switch on the stimulation as recited by Law because when the resistance is in the set range it determines the device is being worn thus the device only turns on when worn ([0013]).
Regarding Claim 14, an interpretation of Rodenkirch may not explicitly disclose an impedance sensor adapted to measure impedance of the device; and a switch, wherein the switch is configured to turn on when the impedance measured by the impedance sensor is within a predetermined range.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Law an impedance sensor adapted to measure impedance of the device ([0013]); and a switch, wherein the switch is configured to turn on when the impedance measured by the impedance sensor is within a predetermined range ([0013] including ” Skin contact may be detected by, for example, detecting an electrical property between the electrodes (e.g., anode and cathode) forming the apparatus. The electrical property may be (or may be related to or equivalent to) the impedance.”; Examiner notes that resistance is the real part of the impedance); and a switch, wherein the switch is configured to turn on when the resistance measured by the resistive sensor is above a predetermined threshold ([0013] including “Any of the apparatuses described herein may be configured so that the apparatus enters a standby/ready mode in which the waveform is not applied until the apparatus confirms that the electrodes (e.g., the hydrogel) is in contact with skin, meaning it is safe to apply the energy. . . . is within a range of values that indicate contact with skin.”; the device switches modes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include a resistance or impedance with a threshold to switch on the stimulation as recited by Law because when the resistance is in the set range it determines the device is being worn thus the device only turns on when worn ([0013]).
Regarding Claim 21, an interpretation of Rodenkirch discloses the distance between the electrodes as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
an interpretation of Rodenkirch may not explicitly disclose a pair of members, wherein each member includes one of the pair of electrodes, wherein a distance between center lines of the pair of members is equal to the interelectrode distance between the pair of electrodes.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Law teaches a pair of members ([0010]-[0011] including “The apparatus may be any shape”, Fig. 1; the “member” or portion of the substrate the electrodes are resting on), wherein each member includes one of the pair of electrodes ([0010]-[0011], Fig. 1; the “member” or portion of the substrate the electrodes are resting on), wherein a distance between center lines of the pair of members is equal to the interelectrode distance between the pair of electrodes ([0010]-[0011], Fig. 1; the “member” or portion of the substrate the electrodes are resting on. The member being the portion of the substrate each electrode is individually resting on and the “centerline” is a line through that portions center where the electrode is at least on one point on the centerline the device have the interelectrode distance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the electrodes with the substrate/member as recited by Law because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the substrate members as recited by Law) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with an electrode.
Regarding Claim 22, an interpretation of Rodenkirch may not explicitly disclose wherein each electrode of the pair of electrodes has a surface area of at least 2 square centimeters.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Law teaches wherein each electrode of the pair of electrodes has a surface area of at least 2 square centimeters ([0167], Figs. 5A-B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey to include the electrodes having the specific size parameters recited by Law because it is combining prior art elements according to known methods (system as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey with the specific electrode size parameters as recited by Law) to yield predictable results of application of a stimulation with an electrode having the disclosed sizes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in further view of Law in further view of US 20170021172 to Perez et al. (hereinafter Perez).
Regarding Claim 15 an interpretation of Rodenkirch may not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined range is between 400 and 4000 Ohms.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Perez teaches ([0481] including “properly positioned on the user's body. In various embodiments, sufficient electrode and tissue contact or integrity is defined as achieving electrode impedance in a range of 200 ohms to 1000 ohms.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified recited stimulation device with continuous stimulation as disclosed and electrical sensing to activate a switch when the parameters meets the range as disclosed by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in view of Law to include the specific range for the parameter as recited by Perez because it is merely combining prior art elements (the use of a switch based on a range as recited by Rodenkirch in view of Hershey in view of Law to include the specific range as recited by Perez) according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200297999 – see [0018]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights