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 .
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on July 2nd, 2026, amended claim 6 is entered. Claims 1-11 are currently under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 2nd, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on July 2nd, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not established a serious search or examination burden because the alleged inventions here share sufficient common structure and function to warrant examination together. This is not found persuasive because Inventions I and II are directed to related inventions. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are mutually exclusive in that Invention I is not directed to circuitry configured to operatively couple a plurality of outputs of the plurality of amplifiers and a buffered output of at least one reference electrode to generate a common mode reference signal, wherein the common mode reference signal is provided to the inverting input of each amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers, and Invention Il is not directed to one or more buffers configured to tap a voltage at the inverting input of a respective amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers; and circuitry configured to operatively couple a plurality of outputs of the plurality of amplifiers to generate a common mode reference signal, wherein the common mode reference signal is provided to the inverting input of one or more amplifiers of the plurality of amplifiers. Furthermore, there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites “signals electrodes” in line 9, but should read “signal electrodes”.
Claims 12-20 are objected to because they have incorrect status identifiers. Currently, they are identified as “(Original)”. However, Claims 12-20 should be indicated as “(Withdrawn)”. The withdrawn claims may later have further identifiers to indicate that they have been amended, but the “(Withdrawn)” status identifier must be present.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wearable structure” in Claims 1 and 9-10: [0036] of the Applicant’s Specification recites wherein the wearable device may be “a wrist-worn device (e.g., a smart watch, a fitness tracker, etc.)”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-8 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 3 recites “a switch” in line 1. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a switch” from line 1 of Claim 2, or a separate element.
Claim 3 recites “switches” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a switch” from line 1 of Claim 2, or a separate element.
Claim 4 recites “coupled to output of the one or more buffers” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this “output” is referring to the previously introduced “output” from line 9 of Claim 1, or if the term “output” was meant to be used as a verb instead of a noun. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “the inverting input” in line 2. It is unclear as to which “inverting input” this limitation is referring to, as each of the amplifiers includes its own inverting input.
Claim 8 recites “switches” in line 1 then later recites “a given switch” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether the limitation “given switch” is referring to one specific switch from the “switches” previously recited in line 1 of Claim 8, or a separate element.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements et al (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0138313; cited by Applicant) in view of Do Valle et al (U.S. Publication No. 2021/259638; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Clements discloses a device for sensing neuromuscular signals (electrode-based systems and devices for interfacing with biological tissue and related methods; Abstract), the device comprising:
a wearable structure configured to be worn by a user (The compression pad 114 can be configured to wrap around a portion of the patient's anatomy; [0063]; Figure 6);
a plurality of signal electrodes (The electrode array 104 includes a plurality of electrodes 106; [0055]) aligned along an interior portion of the wearable structure configured to be proximate to a skin surface of the user when the device is donned by the user (A wrap or band can be provided to apply this pressure. The wrap or band may include the compression pad of FIGS. 8 and 9A. In some cases the wrap or band can incorporate a rigid member (e.g. flat, curved, or otherwise shaped to fit the underlying anatomy) overlying the electrode array designed to selectively apply pressure on the electrode array pushing it into the skin; [0113]), each signal electrode of the plurality of signal electrodes being configured to detect neuromuscular signals of the user (the systems and methods described herein can be used for fine assessment of the degree of neuromuscular function, e.g. as a measure of reinnervation be regenerating axons. Signals from nerve, muscles, and reflex pathways can all be used for these assessments, which can also inform the progression of a disease or other pathology or amelioration via treatment, therapy, or natural healing. Enhanced characterization of neuromuscular function in this way can provide more sensitive and discriminating quantitative measures to better inform intervention; [0204]);
a plurality of amplifiers (“DA1”, “DA2”…“DAn” in Figure 10A) corresponding to the plurality of signal electrodes (The electronics module 150 can include stimulating electronics for stimulating nerves and/or recording electronics such as filters, amplifiers, and/or analog-to-digital converters; [0066-0070]; Figure 10A shows n number of signal electrodes, each of which is connected to an amplifier: “DA1”, “DA2”…“DAn”), wherein each amplifier includes (i) a first input operatively coupled to a corresponding signal electrode of the plurality of signals electrodes (Examiner’s Note: Figure 10A shows that each of the signal electrodes are operatively coupled to each of the amplifiers: “DA1”, “DA2”…“DAn”), (ii) a second input (Examiner’s Note: Figure 10A shows that each amplifier (“DA1”, “DA2”…“DAn”) comprises two inputs), and (iii) an output corresponding to a neuromuscular signal (In some implementations, the electronics module 150 is further configured for functional nerve imaging. FIG. 16A. illustrates spatial activity mapping. For example, the electronics unit 150 is configured to automatically manipulate and monitor nerves, and the electronics unit 150 can be configured to identify the electrodes in the electrode array that acquire signals with the highest amplitudes. The results can be displayed as a heat map. In some implementations, the electronics module 150 is further configured for a nerve conduction study. FIG. 16B is a still frame of signal propagation through the patient's median nerve, displayed as an animation or video. Different electrodes in the electrode array acquire the signal as it propagates along the nerve; [0071-0072]; The sensitivity, robust nature of an array-based system, and capabilities for automation or feedback to the operator allows clinicians or other health care providers with less specialized training or experience to administer screenings, diagnostics or therapies. For example, various types of stimulation or operant conditioning protocols can help patients overcome effects after neuromuscular injuries or disease; [0199]; the systems and methods described herein can be used for fine assessment of the degree of neuromuscular function, e.g. as a measure of reinnervation be regenerating axons. Signals from nerve, muscles, and reflex pathways can all be used for these assessments, which can also inform the progression of a disease or other pathology or amelioration via treatment, therapy, or natural healing. Enhanced characterization of neuromuscular function in this way can provide more sensitive and discriminating quantitative measures to better inform intervention; [0204]);
circuitry configured to operatively generate a common mode reference signal (as shown in FIG. 10A, the electronics module 150 includes a driven right leg circuit 155. The driven right leg circuit 155 is configured to measure the subject's common-mode, and force a ground of the electronics module 150 to the subject's common-mode. FIG. 10B illustrates the significant reduction in observed stimulation artifact achieved using the driven right leg circuit 155; [0070]).
Clements fails to specifically teach an inverting input; one or more buffers configured to tap a voltage at the inverting input of a respective amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers; and circuitry configured to operatively couple a plurality of outputs of the plurality of amplifiers to generate a common mode reference signal, wherein the common mode reference signal is provided to the inverting input of one or more amplifiers of the plurality of amplifiers.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), comprising an inverting input ([0115]); one or more buffers configured to tap a voltage at the inverting input of a respective amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers (an amplifier may be placed on top of the electrode to serve as a buffer. The buffer drives the long cable. Since the buffer has a low output impedance, the amount of noise picked up from the long cable is reduced; [0100]); and circuitry configured to operatively couple a plurality of outputs of the plurality of amplifiers to generate a common mode reference signal, wherein the common mode reference signal is provided to the inverting input of one or more amplifiers of the plurality of amplifiers (FIG. 14 shows an exemplary configuration 1400 in which a common-mode feedback circuit 1402 is used to reduce the impact of common-mode noise on biopotential recordings made by electrodes 1202. As shown, the signals output by amplifiers 1204-1 and 1204-2 are labeled Vn1 and Vn2, respectively. These signals are provided as inputs to common-mode feedback circuit 1402. Signals Vn1 and Vn2 are summed (e.g., combined) by virtue of resistors R5 and R6 being in parallel. The summed signal is provided as an input to the inverting input of an operational amplifier 1404, which has a non-inverting input connected to circuit ground. A resistor-capacitor network (R7 and C1) is configured to invert the summed signal such that the output of amplifier 1404 is an inverse signal of the summed signal; [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the amplifier output teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements as the output is representative of the biopotential measurement signals (Do Valle [0107]).
Regarding Claim 2, Clements fails to disclose a switch disposed across each buffer of the one or more buffers.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), further comprising a switch disposed across each buffer of the one or more buffers (Each switch 1802 is in series between a different one of resistors R1 through RN and is operable to exclude a select one or more of signals Vn1 through VnN from being included in the measurement (e.g., generation) of Vcm. For example, switch 1802-1 may be in a first state (e.g., closed) to allow Vn1 to be included in the measurement of Vcm. Alternatively, switch 1802-1 may be in a second state (e.g., open) to exclude Vn1 from being included in the measurement of Vcm; [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the switch teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements in order to enable the inclusion and exclusion of a select signal for the measurement (Do Valle [0125]).
Regarding Claim 3, Clements fails to disclose wherein a switch associated with a first buffer of the one or more buffers causes the first buffer to be enabled, and wherein switches associated with the remaining buffers of the one or more buffers cause the remaining buffers to be disabled.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), wherein a switch associated with a first buffer of the one or more buffers causes the first buffer to be enabled, and wherein switches associated with the remaining buffers of the one or more buffers cause the remaining buffers to be disabled (Each switch 1802 is in series between a different one of resistors R1 through RN and is operable to exclude a select one or more of signals Vn1 through VnN from being included in the measurement (e.g., generation) of Vcm. For example, switch 1802-1 may be in a first state (e.g., closed) to allow Vn1 to be included in the measurement of Vcm. Alternatively, switch 1802-1 may be in a second state (e.g., open) to exclude Vn1 from being included in the measurement of Vcm; [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the switch teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements in order to enable the inclusion and exclusion of a select signal for the measurement (Do Valle [0125]).
Regarding Claim 4, Clements fails to disclose wherein the circuitry comprises a set of resistors operatively coupled to output of the one or more buffers configured to generate an average of the outputs of the one or more buffers.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), wherein the circuitry comprises a set of resistors (resistors R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) operatively coupled to output of the one or more buffers configured to generate an average of the outputs of the one or more buffers (To illustrate, as shown, common-mode feedback circuit 1502 is configured to receive signals Vn1 and Vn2 as inputs. Signals Vn1 and Vn2 are summed (e.g., combined) by virtue of resistors R5 and R6 being in parallel. The summed signal is provided as an input to the non-inverting input of amplifier 1504 (as opposed to the inverting input as described in connection with common-mode feedback circuit 1402 shown in FIG. 14). In configuration 1500, each resistor branch includes a capacitor (e.g., capacitors C1 and C2) connected to circuit ground and to a second node of each resistor. These capacitors are configured to set the loop bandwidth of common-mode feedback circuit 1502 and may be of any suitable value; [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the resistor teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements in order to provide a voltage-divided feedback signal to the inverting input of amplifier. Likewise, resistor network is configured to provide a voltage-divided feedback signal to the inverting input of amplifier (Do Valle [0111]).
Regarding Claim 5, Clements fails to disclose a switch disposed across each resistor of the set of resistors.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), further comprising a switch disposed across each resistor of the set of resistors (Each switch 1802 is in series between a different one of resistors R1 through RN and is operable to exclude a select one or more of signals Vn1 through VnN from being included in the measurement (e.g., generation) of Vcm. For example, switch 1802-1 may be in a first state (e.g., closed) to allow Vn1 to be included in the measurement of Vcm. Alternatively, switch 1802-1 may be in a second state (e.g., open) to exclude Vn1 from being included in the measurement of Vcm; [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the switch teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements in order to enable the inclusion and exclusion of a select signal for the measurement (Do Valle [0125]).
Regarding Claim 6, Clements fails to disclose wherein the switch is utilized to short each resistor of the set of resistors.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), wherein the switch is utilized to short each resistor of the set of resistors (Each switch 1802 is in series between a different one of resistors R1 through RN and is operable to exclude a select one or more of signals Vn1 through VnN from being included in the measurement (e.g., generation) of Vcm. For example, switch 1802-1 may be in a first state (e.g., closed) to allow Vn1 to be included in the measurement of Vcm. Alternatively, switch 1802-1 may be in a second state (e.g., open) to exclude Vn1 from being included in the measurement of Vcm; [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the switch teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements in order to enable the inclusion and exclusion of a select signal for the measurement (Do Valle [0125]).
Regarding Claim 7, Clements fails to disclose wherein a given output of a given amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers is operatively coupled to the inverting input via one or more resistors.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), wherein a given output of a given amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers is operatively coupled to the inverting input via one or more resistors (Signals Vn1 and Vn2 are summed (e.g., combined) by virtue of resistors R5 and R6 being in parallel. The summed signal is provided as an input to the inverting input of an operational amplifier 1404, which has a non-inverting input connected to circuit ground. A resistor-capacitor network (R7 and C1) is configured to invert the summed signal such that the output of amplifier 1404 is an inverse signal of the summed signal; [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the configuration teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements in order to provide a voltage-divided feedback signal to the inverting input of amplifier. Likewise, resistor network is configured to provide a voltage-divided feedback signal to the inverting input of amplifier (Do Valle [0111]).
Regarding Claim 8, Clements fails to disclose switches disposed across at least one of the one or more resistors, wherein a given switch is configured to cause the at least one of the one or more resistors to be shorted.
In a similar technical field, Do Valle teaches a biopotential measurement system including a plurality of electrodes each configured to record a different signal included in a plurality of signals representative of electrical activity of a target within a user (Abstract), further comprising switches disposed across at least one of the one or more resistors, wherein a given switch is configured to cause the at least one of the one or more resistors to be shorted (Each switch 1802 is in series between a different one of resistors R1 through RN and is operable to exclude a select one or more of signals Vn1 through VnN from being included in the measurement (e.g., generation) of Vcm. For example, switch 1802-1 may be in a first state (e.g., closed) to allow Vn1 to be included in the measurement of Vcm. Alternatively, switch 1802-1 may be in a second state (e.g., open) to exclude Vn1 from being included in the measurement of Vcm; [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the switch teachings of Do Valle into the invention of Clements in order to enable the inclusion and exclusion of a select one or more of signals for the measurement (Do Valle [0125]).
Regarding Claim 9, Clements discloses wherein the wearable structure comprises a wrist-worn structure (FIG. 6 illustrates an electrode patch applied to a patient's lower arm according to implementations described herein; [0042]; A wrap or band can be provided to apply this pressure. The wrap or band may include the compression pad of FIGS. 8 and 9A. In some cases the wrap or band can incorporate a rigid member (e.g. flat, curved, or otherwise shaped to fit the underlying anatomy) overlying the electrode array designed to selectively apply pressure on the electrode array pushing it into the skin; [0113]; Figures 6 and 9A-9B).
Regarding Claim 10, Clements discloses wherein the plurality of signal electrodes are disposed circumferentially around the interior portion of the wearable structure (A wrap or band can be provided to apply this pressure. The wrap or band may include the compression pad of FIGS. 8 and 9A. In some cases the wrap or band can incorporate a rigid member (e.g. flat, curved, or otherwise shaped to fit the underlying anatomy) overlying the electrode array designed to selectively apply pressure on the electrode array pushing it into the skin; [0113]; Figures 6 and 9A-9B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements and Do Valle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strohmeier et al (WO 2019/043147 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 11, although Clements discloses wherein the same muscle group comprises wrist muscles (a short region of conduction velocity slowing (e.g., the median nerve at the wrist, as in carpal tunnel syndrome) can be clearly seen when the stimulus and recording electrodes lie directly on either side of that region; [0088]; [0113]; Figures 6 and 9A-9B), Clements and Do Valle fail to specifically teach wherein the neuromuscular signals are associated with wrist extensor muscles and/or wrist flexor muscles.
In a similar technical field, Strohmeier teaches a garment fabric for reading and writing muscle activity (Abstract), comprising electrodes for collecting EMG data of a user (array of 60 skin electrodes are sewn into the inner surface of sleeve…around the forearm of a user; Page 10 Lines 11-19; Figures 1-3) wherein the neuromuscular signals are associated with wrist extensor muscles and/or wrist flexor muscles (The target gestures were grouped into pairs based on shared muscle compartments: wrist-up and wrist-down, hand-left and hand-right, squeeze-fingers and index-point. For example, the extensor carpi ulnaris (on the top of the forearm), among other muscles, contracts to extend the wrist. In this case, it is an agonist muscle. The antagonist muscles, such as the flexor carpi ulnaris (on the bottom of the forearm), relax to enable wrist extension. When flexing the wrist, however, the role of these muscles is reversed. When holding a pose, co-activation of both agonist and antagonist muscles can occur, producing discernible signals for our EMG devices; Page 30 Lines 5-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the wrist extensor and/or flexor muscles teachings of Strohmeier into those of Clements and Do Valle in order to measure activity from muscles that actively work together (Strohmeier Page 30 Lines 5-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights