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 .
Status of Claims
In the response dated June 22nd, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1 and 18. Applicant added claim 21. Claim 12 is canceled. Claims 1-11, and 13-21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 29th, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/EP2023/053649, filed on February 14th, 2023.
Response to Arguments
In response to the argument put forward in the amendment, Examiner will address them in the order they were presented.
Regarding page 1, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant’s amendments necessitate a new ground of rejection to teach “simultaneously generate periodic stimulations of a user in several different ways”, as taught by Toong. Applicant argues that Connor fails to teach “simultaneously generating periodic stimulations of a user in several different ways.” Connor is not limited to paragraph [0116]’s limitations. Connor expressly teaches a system comprising a first type of modular energy-transducing member and a second type of modular-transducing member, including the “configuration in which the first and second types of modular energy transducing members are removably attached by the person to the clothing”, wherein the first and second members are different members selected from Set “B” ([0228-0229]). Set “B” includes “myostimulator, neurostimulator, gastric electric stimulator (GES)” ([0116]). Connor therefore teaches a single garment-based device in which plural different stimulation-generating members are concurrently mounted and operable. Furthermore, Connor teaches the individual stimulation modalities are periodic in nature: the tactile sensation member creates a sensation by vibrating (i.e., cyclically moving); the sound emitting members emit a frequency of white or pink noise ([0379] and [0248]); and the light-emitting members are driven in cyclical patterns based on body motions ([0143]). Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant's remaining remarks appear to be directed to whether the previous grounds for rejection teaches newly added elements by amendment and are therefore unpersuasive in light of the new grounds for rejection, below.
Regarding page 1, Applicant’s amendments regarding claim 11’s Subject Matter Eligibility overcome claim 11’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
Claim 1’s “module” is being interpreted as the eq1uivelant structures in the
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 limitations 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 limitations are: contacting unit in claim 1, local control unit in claim 1 and identification module in claim 9. This interpretation extends to the dependent claims for each respective claim. Contacting unit will be interpreted as a cable and any equivalents of the unit described in [0035]. Local control unit will be interpreted as a microcontroller and any equivalents of the unit described in [0036]. Identification module will be interpreted as an NFC chip and any equivalents of the unit described in [0025].
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 and 5 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 3 and 5 recite the limitation "the receiver" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because the receiver is first introduced in claim 2 and the claims do not depend on claim 2. For the purposes of examination, the receiver in line 1 of claims 3/5 will be interpreted as "a receiver. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1, as amended, recites “a local control unit comprising a module for data transfer between the control unit and a base station”. Claim 8 recites “wherein the control unit includes a module for data transfer between the control unit and a base station” which does not further limit amended claim 1.
Claim’s 13-15 and 17 are dependent upon claim 12, which is canceled. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10, 11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor et al. (US20150370320) in view of Toong et al. (US20200297992).
Regarding claim 1, Connor teaches a device for stimulating body regions of a user, the device comprising: an article of clothing ([0108] “smart clothing with external electromagnetic gastrointestinal stimulation”) made of an elastic textile structure ([0478]“elastic fibers”) with integrated electrodes ([0115] “electromagnetic conductivity sensor”) and integrated electrical supply lines connectable to the electrodes (0124] “electroconductive fibers, threads, or other members which are woven or otherwise integrated”); a local control unit comprising a module for data transfer between the local control unit and a base station ([0419] “wearable home control modular can control one or more home appliances and/or devices based on data from one or more wearable sensors.” see also [0418] “wireless network”); and a contacting unit ([0125] “electroconductive fibers, threads, or other members can be elastic, sinusoidal, and/or curved”) that is electrically connected to the supply lines and to the electrodes. ([0125] “transmission of electromagnetic energy through these fibers… are measured by one or more modular electromagnetic energy sensors.”).
Regarding claim 1, Toong teaches wherein the device is configured to simultaneously generate periodic stimulations of a user in several different ways. ([0100] “multiple electrodes of a TNSS can form an array to shape an electric field in the tissues (4) multiple TNSS devices can stimulate multiple structures, coordinated by a smartphone… [advantages of a wireless TNSS system include] mechanical, acoustic, or optical stimulation in addition to electrical stimulation” where optical stimulation in addition to electrical stimulation occurs simultaneously; see also [0154] “Regimens specify the parameters and patterns of pulses to be applied by the TNSS devices”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Connor’s system before the effective filing date to explicitly include simultaneously generating periodic stimulations of a user in several different ways, as taught and suggested by Toong, with a reasonable expectation of success. “This provides the opportunity to stimulate tissues such as nerves selectively” [0079]
Regarding claim 2, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the article of clothing has a closable receiver for accommodating the control unit. ([0121] “attaching modular energy-transducing members to… pouch… and zipper”)
Regarding claim 3, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the receiver is a pocket that is integrated into the article of clothing. ([0121] “attaching modular energy-transducing members to... pocket”)
Regarding claim 4, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the pocket is provided with a closure system in the form of a zipper. ([0121] “attaching modular energy-transducing members to... pocket… and zipper”)
Regarding claim 5, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the receiver is a watertight, ([0402] “smart clothing with adjustable water resistance”) closable container that is connected to the article of clothing. ([0121] “attaching modular energy-transducing members to... pouch… and zipper”)
Regarding claim 6, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the control unit is fixedly connected to the contacting unit. ([0121] “attaching modular energy-transducing members… comprise… electronic and/or electronic plug”)
Regarding claim 7, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the control unit is detachably connected to the contacting unit. ([0185] “energy-transducing member 2002 is a modular wireless communication device”)
Regarding claim 8, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 does not further limited teachings of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein at least one sensor is integrated into the article of clothing. ([0207] “optical sensors which are woven or otherwise integrated into the fabric”)
Regarding claim 11, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Connor also teaches wherein at least one actuator is integrated into the article of clothing via which a tactile stimulus is adapted to be applied to a skin of the user. ([0174] “a modular tactile-sensation-creating member can comprise one or more microscale actuators”)
Regarding claim 13, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the device is configured to generate periodic stimulations of a user by acoustic stimulation. ([0379] “sound-emitting member can emit white noise… which will optimally mask a particular type of ambient sound”)
Regarding claim 14, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the device is configured to generate periodic stimulations of a user by optical stimulation. ([0457] “images from a wearable imaging device can be displayed to a person… when a person increases or decreases the relative power of electromagnetic signals”)
Regarding claim 15, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the device is configured to generate periodic stimulations of a user by electrical stimulation. ([0469] “electromagnetic stimulation triggered by food consumption”)
Regarding claim 16, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the device is configured to generate periodic stimulations of a user by magnetic stimulation. ([0469] “electromagnetic stimulation triggered by food consumption”)
Regarding claim 17, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the device is configured to generate periodic stimulations of a user by tactile stimulation. ([0388] “a pattern of tactile sensation”)
Regarding claim 18, Connor-Toong teaches a method for stimulating body regions of a user with the device according to claim 1, the method comprising: providing the user with an article of clothing ([0469] “a system of modular smart clothing … with external electromagnetic stimulation”) made of an elastic textile structure ([0478]“elastic fibers”) with integrated electrodes ([0115] “electromagnetic conductivity sensor”) and integrated sensors; ([0476] “electromagnetic sensors are woven or otherwise integrated into the fabric”) and connecting integrated electrodes and integrated sensors to the local control unit. ([0187] “wireless communication device can be in wireless communication with… electromagnetic brain activity monitor”)
Regarding claim 19, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 18. Connor also teaches wherein measured values of the user are detected by integrated the sensors and evaluated with the aid of the control unit, and wherein an excitation of the electrodes takes place using these measured values. ([0285] “modular electromagnetic energy sensor can detect, monitor, and/or measure a person's consumption of… food” and [0472] “external electromagnetic energy emitters (which are triggered by food consumption) … discourages over-eating via a selected pattern of external electromagnetic stimulation.”)
Regarding claim 20, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 18. Connor also teaches wherein periodic stimulations of a user are generated, ([0469] “electromagnetic stimulation triggered by food consumption”) wherein the periodic stimulations of the user are generated by acoustic stimulation, ([0379] “sound-emitting member can emit white noise… which will optimally mask a particular type of ambient sound”) wherein the periodic stimulations of the user are generated by optical stimulation, ([0457] “images from a wearable imaging device can be displayed to a person… when a person increases or decreases the relative power of electromagnetic signals”) wherein the periodic stimulations of the user are generated by electrical stimulation, wherein periodic stimulations of the user are generated by magnetic stimulation, ([0469] “electromagnetic stimulation triggered by food consumption”) and/or wherein periodic stimulations of the user are generated by tactile stimulation. ([0388] “a pattern of tactile sensation”)
Regarding claim 21, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Connor also teaches wherein the base station is configured to simultaneously transmit signals for generating acoustic and optical stimuli which are coordinated with the activation of the electrodes, in conjunction with the simultaneously activated electrodes of the article of clothing, ([0100] “(4) multiple TNSS devices can stimulate multiple structures, coordinated by a smartphone… [wireless TNSS stimulation include] mechanical, acoustic, or optical stimulation in addition to electrical stimulation” where optical stimulation in addition to electrical stimulation occurs simultaneously; see also [0154] “Regimens specify the parameters and patterns of pulses to be applied by the TNSS devices”) and wherein the device is configured to coordinate the frequencies of the particular stimulations with one another or with the frequencies being similar or identical or integer multiples of one another and adapted to one another with regard to their phase position so that a synchronous and in-phase operation is achieved. ([0076] “For all configurations of electrodes, the applied signals can vary over time and spatial dimensions”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Connor’s garment system before the effective filing date to explicitly include simultaneously generating periodic stimulations of a user using different stimulation modalities that are synchronized with one another based on time and intensity, as taught and suggested by Toong, with a reasonable expectation of success. “This provides the opportunity to stimulate tissues such as nerves selectively” [0079]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor et al. (US20150370320) in view of Toong et al. (US20200297992) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Stanfield et al. (US20160317383).
Regarding claim 9, Connor-Toong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Connor-Toong does not explicitly teach, as taught by Stanfield wherein an identification module is integrated into the article of clothing. ([0112] “Any form of connection that allows for communication between the components is allowable. This includes… near field communication” and [0140] “transmitter/receiver 42 affixed to the garment”; see also [0109]). Connor and Stanfield’s invention related to sensory stimulating devices integrated in wearable clothing, and more particularly to communication systems within the articles of clothing. By authenticating users (using a login, unique identifier, and password for example) prior to providing access to network security devices, devices may serve one user or multiple users (paragraph [0109]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Connor’s stimulation system, with a reasonable expectation of success, by identifying the wearable devices with NFC tags in the wearable device, as taught and suggested by Stanfield. This provides safe and secure data handling for these network devices (paragraph [011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found on PTO-892 of the prior office action. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van de Zande et al (US20200253294) describes a wearable “haptic garment” or haptic fabric that lets a user communicate with an external device through touches, gestures, and movement sensed on the garment surface
Zeleny (US 20110148607) uses an electronic interactive device with an array of very small “micro-step” motors placed against a skin-contacting surface to make a person feel haptic feedback on the skin.
Volpe et al. (US 20160270738) discloses an electrical stimulation garment.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST.
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.
/R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights