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 of Invention II in the reply filed on 30 April 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 21-27 and 33-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 April 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 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.
Claim 29 recites that “the second plurality of electrodes comprises an electrode designed to function as a negative electrode”; it is unclear if this describes one of the sensing electrodes, or an additional electrode among the plurality. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 28-32 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilhuly (US 2010/0081963) in view of Phillips (Phillips S, Stewart PA, Freelander N, Heller G. Comparison of evoked electromyography in three muscles of the hand during recovery from non-depolarising neuromuscular blockade. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. 2012 Jul;40(4):690-696. DOI: 10.1177/0310057x1204000416. PMID: 22813498.).
Regarding claim 28, Gilhuly discloses a neuromuscular lead assembly, comprising:
a base (element 14, figure 9);
a first plurality of electrodes mechanically supported by the base and configured to be connected to a patient (paragraph [0142], elements 903); and
a second plurality of electrodes supported by the base and configured to detect muscle activity from the patient in response to a stimulation from at least one of the first plurality of electrodes (paragraph [0141]).
Gilhuly does not specify the locations of the second plurality of electrodes on the base, particularly wherein the second plurality of electrodes comprises a first sensing electrode that is designed to be positioned on an adductor pollicis muscle and a second sensing electrode that is designed to be positioned on a first dorsal interossei muscle.
Phillips teaches a neuromuscular lead assembly comprising a plurality of electrodes configured to detect muscle activity from the patient, wherein the plurality of electrodes comprises a first sensing electrode that is designed to be positioned on an adductor pollicis muscle and a second sensing electrode that is designed to be positioned on a first dorsal interossei muscle (“MATERIALS AND METHODS” section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the assembly of Gilhuly with a first sensing electrode that is designed to be positioned on an adductor pollicis muscle and a second sensing electrode that is designed to be positioned on a first dorsal interossei muscle, as taught by Linderman, in order to allow sensing of key muscle groups, particularly as Phillips does not specify preferred locations for the sensing electrode locations.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Phillips further teaches that the plurality of electrodes comprises an electrode designed to function as a negative electrode which is “near” an end of a finger(“MATERIALS AND METHODS”; figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Gilhuly, as modified by Phillips, and further included an electrode designed to function as a negative electrode “near” an end of a finger, as further taught by Phillips, in order to allow EMG to be sensed.
Regarding claim 31, Ghilhuly’s assembly, as modified, is capable of communication with any monitor (paragraphs [0134], [0135]) such as one that is configured to select, from the sensing electrodes that are designed to be positioned on the adductor pollicis muscle or the first dorsal interossei muscle, an electrode for suppressing a common mode signal.
Regarding claim 32, Gilhuly further discloses that the monitor is configured to monitor light to medium neuromuscular blockade and deep neuromuscular blockade in the patient (paragraphs [0019], [0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Linderman (US 2012/0172682)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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 Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights