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 .
Applicant’s reply of 8/14/26 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 14 is new. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant has provided a statement of common ownership as it relates to US 2020/0406035 by Sharma (Remarks, page 7), successfully invoking the 35 USC 102 (b)(2)(C) exception. Thus, the reference of Sharma is no longer available as prior art. See MPEP 717.02(a).
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., “the EMG signals are mapped to muscle anatomy (e.g. an(sic) three illustrative muscles 222, 224, 226) to determine which muscles are responsible for which movements. Knowledge of the mapping of electrodes to the underlying musculature anatomy improves accuracy] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims do not require what is described in the specification (e.g. ¶ 94-95). Claim 1 requires “mapping …measured EMG signals to a musculature anatomy to determine muscles activated”, the signals measured “using the array of electrodes of the garment”. Any two-dimensional array of EMG electrodes (of a garment) that produces a 2D map of the signals arriving at the array from musculature under the array, is sufficient to meet the limitations of Claim 1. The terms “musculature anatomy” and “muscles” do not require anything specific, or even distinction between anything in the musculature anatomy or the muscles. The mapping requires no particular correspondence of a specific muscle group or type to an electrode or location, and no particular directionality or type of correspondence. It is recited at a level of generality akin to “that’s a signal from muscles”. ElectroMyoGraphy is by definition the electrical recording of muscle activity. Furthermore, “To determine” is not a step in this method claim. So, the position that a 2-dimensional EMG map from an array of electrodes placed over a body part, such as disclosed by Strohmeier in Fig. 4, does not meet the claimed mapping of EMG signals to a musculature anatomy to determine muscles activated, is not reasonable or persuasive.
Strohmeier teaches an electric muscle stimulation (EMS/FES) wearable garment fabric with a multi-channel electrode array that records EMGs “when the fabric wearer makes a muscle(s) pose” and is configured to produce pulses with the array to “replay the muscle(s) pose” (abstract). The device calibrates EMS to reproduce the recorded muscle pose, including spatial calibration, via the EMG array. The array includes 60 electrodes arranged in a 10 by 6 grid (6:10-11). The calibration is performed by the user wearing a sleeve with the electrode array on their forearm, performing specific motions, and the device measuring the resulting EMGs on the 10 by 6 grid of the sleeve (6:24-32).
Per Strohmeier, 7:10-24:
“Figure 4 shows embodiments of collected EMG data using a sleeve comprising an array of 10 x 6 electrodes, while the user performs three different example gestures: point index finger (top row), flex wrist down (middle row), and rotate wrist left (bottom row). The row with 10 electrodes extends from the wrist towards the elbow, and patterns for three different users are shown. Different EMG patterns are seen between different gestures as expected, and individual differences for the same gesture between different users are also seen. The signal strength for each electrode is indicated by grey scale. An embodiment of the EMG electrode reading pattern, or collection of EMG data within or across the electrode array, is illustrated in Figure 4 bottom left, for user 1 and the gesture rotate wrist left. For a designated anode (indicated with red), EMG data is read bipolarly between the anode and six neighbouring electrodes, such as the three closest electrodes, or cathodes, in the two adjacent rows (indicated with green). Figure 5 shows the exemplary gestures used in the test detailed in Example 1. The gestures include: a) wrist flexion, b) wrist extension, c) radial deviation, d) ulnar deviation, e) squeeze fingers, f) lift index finger.”
9:1-6: “For a given gesture, the read EMG signal across or within the array may be considered as an EMG map. The read EMG map is processed, or calibrated, into an EMS signal or EMS map that can produce or replay the same given gesture. The EMS map required to produce or replay the same given gesture may be the same or different from the EMG map read.”
These maps are based on the sleeve placed on the forearm (see Fig. 1), much like in Applicant’s specification. How exactly does this two dimensional 10x6 ElectroMyoGraphy map of muscle signals colored by signal strength not meet mapping of EMG signals to a musculature anatomy? At the very least, each square of the grid corresponds to a muscle signal or no muscle signal, and square of the grid corresponds to a different position of the sleeve over the forearm and over the musculatory anatomy of the forearm. There is no requirement in the claim to distinguish between different muscles groups, or what that would require according to the specification. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are based on importing the specification into the claims, which is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Figure 4 of Strohmeier
After careful review of the claims, it has been determined that all claims, except Claim 9, are ineligible under 35 USC 101. New Claim 14 is only rejected under 101. Also note that the proposal for allowable subject matter presented during the interview of 9/8/26, and not accepted by Applicant, no longer applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1)
Claim 1 recites a method, thus the Claims belong in one of the four statutory categories. All dependent Claims meet this step.
Step 2a, prong one)
The claims recite “measuring…signals…while the user is triggering the …signals to perform a movement of the body part; and mapping … signals to a musculature anatomy to determine muscles activated by the triggering of the … signals”, which is directed to an ineligible concept, namely an abstract idea. In terms of abstract ideas, these limitations cover: i) a physician or a trainer observing, recording or testing the muscle activation of a moving body part of patient, which would fall under the abstract idea- methods of organizing human activity [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.C.iii], and ii) a mental process performed in the human mind or by mere use of pen and paper, such as observing and/or evaluating, the muscle activation of a subject. For example, this would cover observing that the right leg moved, and concluding or recording with pen and paper that the musculature anatomy of the right leg was activated. The idea could also include reading an EMG output from a known location (e.g. right leg), and concluding or recording with pen and paper that a general musculature anatomy was activated. All dependent claims include this ineligible concept.
Step 2a, prong two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: the claims do not recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims merely add: a) disposing a garment with an electrode array on the body part, and b) measuring EMG signals with the electrode array. These are generically drawn to data gathering, which is an extra solution activity. They generally link the use of the exception to a generic technological environment or field of use, and merely use electrodes to collect data (EMG) for performing the ineligible concept. None of these limitations add to the claims: a) improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, b) use of the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, c) a particular machine or a transformation, or d) use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The independent claims do not even provide an output that is required to be perceptible by a user (e.g. displaying the mapping), something which is indicative of the generality of the scope of the claims and the lack of integration to a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-6 further limit that the movement is actually absent, yet still this would be part of the abstract idea itself, not additional to it. As part of the abstract idea, this would still cover a physician reading an EMG chart from a known location and concluding that neurons were fired, based on a priori knowledge of what those signals would look like.
Dependent claims 7-8, add a determination of electrodes “for performing…FES”, without any particularity as to what this entails. A general determination of an electrode that could potentially be used in FES, is also part of the abstract idea, not additional to it.
Dependent Claim 14 is also part of the abstract idea, rather than an additional step or element. As noted above, the abstract idea would include a physician drawing conclusions regarding which specific muscles were activated based on a priori knowledge of the location of the sensor relative to a specific muscle.
In contrast, Claim 9, which depends on Claim 7, adds the step of “performing FES to evoke the movement of the body part by applying stimulation to the determined electrodes of the array of electrodes”, thus integrating the abstract idea into the practical application of FES.
Thus, only Claim 9 meets the requirements of step 2a, prong two. Claim 9 is eligible.
Step 2b)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of all the reasons explained in Step 2a, prong two, and in addition, all of those additional elements individually or in combination are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Garments with electrode arrays for EMG signal acquisition, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (e.g. WO 2019/043147 by Strohmeier, as discussed in detail in the subject matter rejections). These are recited with a high level of generality, that merely append the exception to the bare minimum of any type of monitoring in the art. This conclusion is further supported by the subject matter rejections below. Thus, no claim meets the requirements of Step 2b. As noted in step 2a), Claim 9 is the only claim eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/043147 by Strohmeier.
Regarding Claim 1, Strohmeier teaches a method of musculature stimulation mapping (e.g. abstract, 9:1-23, 15:19-32: EMG mapping for stimulation), the method comprising:
disposing a garment on a body part of a user with an array of electrodes of the garment contacting skin of the body part (e.g. abstract, 6:9-22, 10:4-25, Fig. 1: sleeve garment with array of electrodes);
measuring electromyography (EMG) signals using the array of electrodes of the garment disposed on the body part while the user is triggering the EMG signals to perform a movement of the body part (e.g. 6:9-34, 28:34-35, Fig. 1B, Fig. 5: performing gestures, such as wrist extension, and mapping EMG from the sleeve electrodes); and
mapping the measured EMG signals to a musculature anatomy to determine muscles activated by the triggering of the EMG signals (e.g. abstract, 9:1-23, 15:19-32, 7:10-16, 32:20-21, Fig. 4: different gestures produce different EMG signal patterns from the array, the patterns corresponding to musculature anatomy under the electrode array; Also see response to arguments, above).
Regarding Claim 7, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: based on the mapping of the measured EMG signals to the musculature anatomy, determining electrodes of the array of electrodes for performing functional electrical stimulation (e.g. abstract, 1:11-16: calibrating FES based on EMG patterns from the garment array).
Regarding Claim 8, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the determined electrodes of the array of electrodes for performing the FES comprises cathode and anode regions of interest (ROI) of the array of electrodes (e.g. 7:18-24: bipolar stimulation).
Regarding Claim 9, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: performing FES to evoke the movement of the body part by applying electrical stimulation to the determined electrodes of the array of electrodes (e.g. 4:13-15, 27:6—28:9, 30:26-35: the EMS is used to evoke movement to reproduce the gesture).
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmeier, as applied to Claim 1, in view of CN 106693178 A by Li (machine translation) and US 2021/0016079 by Ekelem.
Regarding Claim 2, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the triggering of the EMG signals does not produce movement of the body part. However, Li teaches an analogous FES method of paralyzed limb muscles based on volitional EMG feedback (e.g. page 2, background technology; step A1, collecting the biceps muscle and triceps brachii muscle of the electromyographic signal; page 2-3: collecting volitional EMG signals from the paralyzed muscle, e.g. VEMG2 and VEMG3, “wherein the VEMG is autonomous desire electromyography signal” and stimulating the muscles based on the VEMGs, for example “stimulating elbow joint movement… so that the patient can determine position of the elbow joint motion according to the desire of the user”; page 5: “The invention is mainly used for upper limb rehabilitation training of stroke and spinal cord injury patients. l-NBP in survivors with 30% to 36% of stroke patients with limb dysfunction after the onset for 6 months, when the damaged part is C5 or C6 position for spinal cord injury patients, patients will lose the shoulder, elbow and wrist limb movement function. Elbow joint control of functional electrical stimulation system is designed for rehabilitation training for hemiplegia or paralytic upper limb dysfunction.”). Ekelem also teaches an analogous FES method of paralyzed limb muscles based on intended movement EMG feedback, without requiring limb movement (e.g. ¶¶ 9, 45, 63-64, 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of FES by Strohmeier in paralyzed muscles via volitional EMG feedback control from paralyzed muscles, as taught by Li and Ekelem, in order to predictably provide FES and thus rehabilitate and maintain muscle strength in patients suffering from paralysis, as suggested by Li (e.g. section background technology; page 5, paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the body part of the user is a paralyzed body part of the user. However, Li teaches an analogous FES method of paralyzed limb muscles based on volitional EMG feedback (e.g. page 2, background technology; step A1, collecting the biceps muscle and triceps brachii muscle of the electromyographic signal; page 2-3: collecting volitional EMG signals from the paralyzed muscle, e.g. VEMG2 and VEMG3, “wherein the VEMG is autonomous desire electromyography signal” and stimulating the muscles based on the VEMGs, for example “stimulating elbow joint movement… so that the patient can determine position of the elbow joint motion according to the desire of the user”; page 5: “The invention is mainly used for upper limb rehabilitation training of stroke and spinal cord injury patients. l-NBP in survivors with 30% to 36% of stroke patients with limb dysfunction after the onset for 6 months, when the damaged part is C5 or C6 position for spinal cord injury patients, patients will lose the shoulder, elbow and wrist limb movement function. Elbow joint control of functional electrical stimulation system is designed for rehabilitation training for hemiplegia or paralytic upper limb dysfunction.”). Ekelem also teaches an analogous FES method of paralyzed limb muscles based on intended movement EMG feedback, without requiring limb movement (e.g. ¶¶ 9, 45, 63-64, 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of FES by Strohmeier in paralyzed muscles via volitional EMG feedback control from paralyzed muscles, as taught by Li and Ekelem, in order to predictably provide FES and thus rehabilitate and maintain muscle strength in patients suffering from paralysis, as suggested by Li (e.g. section background technology; page 5, paragraph 5)
Regarding Claim 4, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the user has a spinal cord injury and the body part of the user is a paralyzed body part due to the spinal cord injury. However, Li teaches an analogous FES method of SCI paralyzed limb muscles based on volitional EMG feedback (e.g. page 2, background technology; step A1, collecting the biceps muscle and triceps brachii muscle of the electromyographic signal; page 2-3: collecting volitional EMG signals from the paralyzed muscle, e.g. VEMG2 and VEMG3, “wherein the VEMG is autonomous desire electromyography signal” and stimulating the muscles based on the VEMGs, for example “stimulating elbow joint movement… so that the patient can determine position of the elbow joint motion according to the desire of the user”; page 5: “The invention is mainly used for upper limb rehabilitation training of stroke and spinal cord injury patients. l-NBP in survivors with 30% to 36% of stroke patients with limb dysfunction after the onset for 6 months, when the damaged part is C5 or C6 position for spinal cord injury patients, patients will lose the shoulder, elbow and wrist limb movement function. Elbow joint control of functional electrical stimulation system is designed for rehabilitation training for hemiplegia or paralytic upper limb dysfunction.”). Ekelem also teaches an analogous FES method of paralyzed limb muscles based on intended movement EMG feedback, without requiring limb movement (e.g. ¶¶ 9, 45, 63-64, 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of FES by Strohmeier in SCI paralyzed muscles via volitional EMG feedback control from paralyzed muscles, as taught by Li and Ekelem, in order to predictably provide FES and thus rehabilitate and maintain muscle strength in patients suffering from paralysis, as suggested by Li (e.g. section background technology; page 5, paragraph 5)
Regarding Claim 5, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 4, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the spinal cord injury is a clinically determined complete spinal cord injury. However, Li teaches an analogous FES method of SCI paralyzed limb muscles based on volitional EMG feedback (e.g. page 2, background technology; step A1, collecting the biceps muscle and triceps brachii muscle of the electromyographic signal; page 2-3: collecting volitional EMG signals from the paralyzed muscle, e.g. VEMG2 and VEMG3, “wherein the VEMG is autonomous desire electromyography signal” and stimulating the muscles based on the VEMGs, for example “stimulating elbow joint movement… so that the patient can determine position of the elbow joint motion according to the desire of the user”; page 5: “The invention is mainly used for upper limb rehabilitation training of stroke and spinal cord injury patients. l-NBP in survivors with 30% to 36% of stroke patients with limb dysfunction after the onset for 6 months, when the damaged part is C5 or C6 position for spinal cord injury patients, patients will lose the shoulder, elbow and wrist limb movement function. Elbow joint control of functional electrical stimulation system is designed for rehabilitation training for hemiplegia or paralytic upper limb dysfunction.”). Ekelem also teaches an analogous FES method of paralyzed limb muscles based on intended movement EMG feedback, without requiring limb movement (e.g. ¶¶ 9, 45, 63-64, 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of FES by Strohmeier in SCI paralyzed muscles via volitional EMG feedback control from paralyzed muscles, as taught by Li and Ekelem, in order to predictably provide FES and thus rehabilitate and maintain muscle strength in patients suffering from paralysis, as suggested by Li (e.g. section background technology; page 5, paragraph 5)
Regarding Claim 6, Strohmeier teaches the method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the user has had a stroke and the body part of the user is a paralyzed body part due to the stroke. However, Li teaches an analogous FES method of stroke paralyzed limb muscles based on volitional EMG feedback (e.g. page 2, background technology; step A1, collecting the biceps muscle and triceps brachii muscle of the electromyographic signal; page 2-3: collecting volitional EMG signals from the paralyzed muscle, e.g. VEMG2 and VEMG3, “wherein the VEMG is autonomous desire electromyography signal” and stimulating the muscles based on the VEMGs, for example “stimulating elbow joint movement… so that the patient can determine position of the elbow joint motion according to the desire of the user”; page 5: “The invention is mainly used for upper limb rehabilitation training of stroke and spinal cord injury patients. l-NBP in survivors with 30% to 36% of stroke patients with limb dysfunction after the onset for 6 months, when the damaged part is C5 or C6 position for spinal cord injury patients, patients will lose the shoulder, elbow and wrist limb movement function. Elbow joint control of functional electrical stimulation system is designed for rehabilitation training for hemiplegia or paralytic upper limb dysfunction.”). Ekelem also teaches an analogous FES method of paralyzed limb muscles based on intended movement EMG feedback, without requiring limb movement (e.g. ¶¶ 9, 45, 63-64, 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of FES by Strohmeier in stroke paralyzed muscles via volitional EMG feedback control from paralyzed muscles, as taught by Li and Ekelem, in order to predictably provide FES and thus rehabilitate and maintain muscle strength in patients suffering from paralysis, as suggested by Li (e.g. section background technology; page 5, paragraph 5)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,266,833 in view of WO 2019/043147 by Strohmeier.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 24 of the issued patent discloses a method of musculature stimulation mapping, the method comprising: disposing on a body part of a user an array of electrodes of the garment contacting skin of the body part; measuring electromyography (EMG) signals using the array of electrodes disposed on the body part while the user is triggering the EMG signals to perform a movement of the body part; and mapping the measured EMG signals to a musculature anatomy to determine muscles activated by the triggering of the EMG signals (e.g. Claim 23: A functional electrical stimulation (FES) system comprising: an FES device configured for connection with an associated body part of a user and including electrodes arranged to apply functional electrical stimulation to the associated body part of the user and to perform electromyography (EMG) measurements of the associated body part of the user; Claim 24: applying an EMG map-to-electrode energization transform to the acquired EMG measurements of the associated body part of the user; wherein the EMG map-to-electrode energization transform includes at least a scaling transform to convert EMG signals of the acquired EMG measurements to FES energization levels.).
Claim 24 of the issued patent does not disclose a garment with the array of electrodes.
However, Strohmeier teaches an analogous FES method of musculature stimulation mapping (e.g. abstract, 9:1-23, 15:19-32: EMG mapping for stimulation), comprising disposing a garment on a body part of a user with an array of electrodes of the garment contacting skin of the body part (e.g. abstract, 6:9-22, 10:4-25, Fig. 1: sleeve garment with array of electrodes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a garment with the array of electrodes in a method as taught by Claim 24 of the issued patent, as taught by Strohmeier, in order to predictably secure the electrodes on the body and acquire reliable EMGs.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/215481 in view of WO 2019/043147 by Strohmeier.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 14 of the issued patent discloses a method of musculature stimulation mapping, the method comprising: disposing on a body part of a user an array of electrodes of the garment contacting skin of the body part; measuring electromyography (EMG) signals using the array of electrodes disposed on the body part while the user is triggering the EMG signals to perform a movement of the body part; and mapping the measured EMG signals to a musculature anatomy to determine muscles activated by the triggering of the EMG signals (e.g. Claim 14: performing spatial muscle mapping to determine a sleeve shift and automatically updating NMES stimulation patterns based on the sleeve shift; and delivering neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) to the target muscle or muscle group based on the derived contribution of the spatial muscle activity of the target muscle or muscle group to the measured EMG data).
Claim 14 of the issued patent does not disclose a garment with the array of electrodes.
However, Strohmeier teaches an analogous FES method of musculature stimulation mapping (e.g. abstract, 9:1-23, 15:19-32: EMG mapping for stimulation), comprising disposing a garment on a body part of a user with an array of electrodes of the garment contacting skin of the body part (e.g. abstract, 6:9-22, 10:4-25, Fig. 1: sleeve garment with array of electrodes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a garment with the array of electrodes in a method as taught by Claim 24 of the issued patent, as taught by Strohmeier, in order to predictably secure the electrodes on the body and acquire reliable EMGs.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached at (571) 270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANOLIS PAHAKIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights