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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Reply to Office Action filed 10 February 2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claim 9. Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are currently pending, with claims 1-8 and 16-20 being withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see remarks, filed 10 February 2026, with respect to the previous objection of claim 9 for containing a minor informality has been fully considered and is persuasive. The previous objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Smyser in view of Kim, Vimegnon and Bond have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Bond fails to teach the claim features related to the servomotor, specifically maintaining a net zero torque and preventing the handgrip device from assisting and impeding the user with the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation, that Bond teaches away from the claimed approach because Bond provides modes for providing an impeding force against the user’s actions, and further that the invention of Bond is explicitly designed to provide an impeding force to impede the user using the exercise accessory, and as such does not disclose or suggest providing a dynamic, variable force that is adjustable to maintain a transparent net zero torque during the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation, as recited in claim 9, the Examiner respectfully finds these arguments to be unpersuasive. Bond teaches a physiological evaluation and exercise system comprising a device that senses torque applied to a rotational element of the device by a test subject (see Bond, Col. 5, lines 62-67, Col. 6, lines 1 – 23), comprising a servo loop that directs resistance to a user’s movement of a limb/muscle group by feeding a variable current to a DC servo motor that provides the resistance to the user such that the associated contracting muscle group/moving limb of a user moves at a constant speed (see Bond, Col. 2, lines 36-46). This demonstrates that the DC servo motor provides a resistance force equal to that of the user’s movement, that results in a net zero torque on the device, since the speed at which the user moves is made to be constant, which further ensures the user maintains contact with the device without assisting or impeding the user. Additionally, the servo motor is configured to work in several different modes, such as an isokinetic exercise mode wherein the servo motor provides a variable force against the particular motion undertaken by the user so as to maintain a constant velocity of the user’s actions (see Bond, Col. 3, lines 36-61, Col. 9, lines 49-67, Col. 10, lines 1-14). Furthermore, in the different exercise modes, torque is measured as the user moves rotating and stationary elements of the device, while the servo motor applies resistance to the rotating and stationary elements that does not exceed the force that the user has selected in the given exercise mode, which therefore demonstrates the device does not assist or impede the user in their movements and instead applies a force that is either constant or variable in comparison to the user’s applied force (see Bond, Col. 1, lines 25-50, Col. 2, 47-50, Col. 9, lines 49-67, Col. 10, lines 1-14). Therefore, Smyser in view of Kim, Vimegnon and Bond does teach the claim features related to the servomotor, specifically maintaining a net zero torque and preventing the handgrip device from assisting and impeding the user with the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation. See 35 USC 103 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 recites "wherein the servomotor is adapted to maintain contact between the grip bar and the one or more fingers of the user through closed loop adjustment of servomotor output to changes in the load impedance to maintain a net zero torque during the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation and to prevent the handgrip device from assisting . Applicant has not disclosed where in the specification of the instant application it is disclosed the handgrip device prevents the impeding of the user with their muscle contraction and/or their muscle relaxation, as paragraphs 0056, 0058, and 0063-0064 of the specification of the instant application, as noted in Applicant’s remarks, only disclose the handgrip device maintains a net zero torque and prevents assistance of the user during muscle contraction and/or muscle relaxation. Therefore, the scope of the handgrip device is beyond that provided in the original disclosure such that it does not appear that applicants were in possession of the claimed handgrip system at the time of filing.
Dependent claims are similarly rejected as their base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20060035762 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Smyser" in view of US Patent Application Publication 20180125408 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Kim", US Patent Application Publication 20160120446 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Vimegnon", and in further view of US Patent 5597373 –as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as “Bond”.
With respect to claim 9, Smyser teaches a handgrip system comprising:
a handgrip device 10 (see Smyser, par 0074-0075, figs. 1 & 2);
and an electronic device 10 (i.e., the handgrip device is an electronic device) (see Smyser, par 0074-0075 figs. 1 & 2);
wherein the handgrip device comprises:
a palm rest 34 operable to engage with a palm of a user (see Smyser, par 0079, fig. 4);
a grip bar 36 linearly coupled with the palm rest, the grip bar operable to engage with one or more fingers of a user (see Smyser, par 0081, fig. 4);
one or more force transducers 102, 118, 120 (i.e., load cells in a load cell assembly) disposed between the palm rest and the grip bar, the one or more force transducers operable to measure a compression rate and the return rate of the grip bar relative to the palm rest (see Smyser, par 0077-0079, par 0086-0087, fig. 3 & 10);
and a data connection 40 (i.e., a serial communications port/connector) operable to communicate the compression rate and the return rate to the electronic device (see Smyser, par 0043, 0046, 0074-0075, 0085, fig. 2-4 & 10),
wherein the electronic device comprises one or more processors and a memory coupled with the one or more processors (see Smyser, par 0071-0072, 0085-0086, 0088, fig. 10 & 11),
the one or more processors operable to execute instructions stored on the memory that cause the handgrip system to (see Smyser, fig. 11, 12A-B, 13, 14A-C, 15):
generate a first cue 322, 348 operable to request the user contract muscles (see Smyser, par 0095-0096, fig. 12A-B);
measure a muscle contraction (see Smyser, par 0095-0096, fig. 12A-B);
generate a second cue 326, 352 operable to request the user relax muscles (see Smyser, par 0095-0096, fig. 12A-B);
measure a muscle relaxation (see Smyser, par 0095-0096, fig. 12A-B);
and generate a force chart including an indication of the first cue, an indication of the second cue, and data corresponding to the muscle contraction and the muscle relaxation (see Smyser, par 0046, 0106-0107, figs. 16A-E).
Smyser fails to teach a position sensor that is coupled with the palm rest and the grip bar, wherein the position sensor is operable to determine a position of the grip bar relative to the palm rest, and Smyser further fails to teach the grip bar is pivotally coupled to the palm rest and that the one or more force transducers measures a compression rate and a return rate of the grip bar relative to the palm rest in response to the grip bad rotating relative to the palm rest.
Kim teaches a motor function assessment system that uses a flexion sensor 213 (i.e., a position sensor comprising a wire extending from a palm part of a user to a finger part of a user) to determine a position of a user’s hand while the user grasps a force transducer (i.e., to determine a grasp state of a user) (see Kim, par 0059, 0061, 0071, 0080, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smyser such that it comprises a position sensor that is operable to determine a position of a grip bar relative to a palm rest because that would improve the system of Smyser by providing additional data (i.e., the grasp state and thus a user’s intended grasp effort as they grip the device to measure their muscle contraction/relaxation) by which a user’s functioning can be assessed (see Kim, par 0080).
Smyser as modified by Kim fails to teach the grip bar is pivotally coupled to the palm rest and that the one or more force transducers measures a compression rate and a return rate of the grip bar relative to the palm rest in response to the grip bar rotating relative to the palm rest.
Vimegnon teaches a hand function diagnostic and therapeutic system that comprises a proximal finger flexion surface 218 and a palm platform 204 (see Vimegnon, par 0054, fig. 2). In operation of the system, the proximal finger flexion surface 218 is rotatably coupled to a pivoting member, such that when a user applies a force to the proximal finger flexion surface 218 using their fingers, the proximal finger flexion surface 218 is rotated towards a second surface 208 of the palm platform 204 (see Vimegnon, par 0054-0055, figs. 2 & 3), which permits the measurement of measures such as spherical Volar grip torque, pinch torque, and transverse Volar grip torque (see Vimegnon, par 0007, 0023-0029, 0050, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smyser as modified by Kim such that the grip bar is pivotally coupled to the palm rest and that the one or more force transducers measures a compression rate and a return rate of the grip bar relative to the palm rest in response to the grip bar rotating relative to the palm rest because that permits the system to rotate a sensor that is used to obtain a plurality of measurements, such as force or torque (see Vimegnon, par 0007, 0023-0039, 0050, 0054-0056, 0069, fig. 1).
Smyser as modified by Kim and Vimegnon fails to teach the handgrip system comprises a servomotor, wherein the servomotor is operable to detect load impedance and/or a torque profile of the muscle contraction and the muscle relaxation, and wherein the servomotor is adapted to maintain contact between the grip bar and the one or more fingers of the user through closed loop adjustment of servomotor output to changes in the load impedance to maintain a net zero torque during muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation, and to prevent the handgrip device from assisting and to prevent the handgrip device from impeding the user with the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation while detecting the load impedance and/or the torque profile as the grip bar rotates relative to the palm rest during the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation.
Bond teaches a physiological evaluation and exercise system comprising a device that senses torque applied to a rotational element of the device by a test subject (see Bond, Col. 5, lines 62-67, Col. 6, lines 1 – 23), further comprising a servo loop that directs resistance to a user’s movement of a limb/muscle group by feeding a variable current to a DC servo motor that provides the resistance to the user such that the associated contracting muscle group/moving limb of a user moves at a constant speed (i.e., the DC servo motor provides a resistance force equal to that of the user’s movement, that results in a net zero torque on the device, since the speed at which the user moves is made to be constant, which further ensures the user maintains contact with the device without assisting or impeding the user) (see Bond, Col. 2, lines 36-46). Additionally, the servo motor is configured to work in several different modes, such as an isokinetic exercise mode wherein the servo motor provides a variable force against the particular motion undertaken by the user so as to maintain a constant velocity of the user’s actions, an isotonic exercise mode wherein the servo motor provides a constant force against the user’s action to allow the subject to move at varying speeds, and an isometric exercise mode wherein the servo motor provides a maximum resistance as to measure the static flexing and extension of particular muscles, including concentric and eccentric contractions (see Bond, Col. 3, lines 36-61, Col. 9, lines 49-67, Col. 10, lines 1-14). Furthermore, in the different exercise modes, torque is measured as the user moves rotating and stationary elements of the device, while the servo motor applies resistance to the rotating and stationary elements that does not exceed the force that the user has selected in the given exercise mode (i.e., the device does not assist or impede the user in their movements and instead applies a force that is either equal to or greater than the user’s applied force, so that throughout the range of motion of a user’s limb, the associated muscle groups are working at their utmost level while receiving an optimal overloading resistance, that can aid in strength training and rehabilitation of a user’s limb/muscle group) (see Bond, Col. 1, lines 25-50, Col. 2, 47-50, Col. 9, lines 49-67, Col. 10, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smyser as modified with Kim and Vimegnon such that the handgrip system comprises a servomotor, wherein the servomotor is operable to detect load impedance and/or a torque profile of the muscle contraction and the muscle relaxation, and wherein the servomotor is adapted to maintain contact between the grip bar and the one or more fingers of the user through closed loop adjustment of servomotor output to changes in the load impedance to maintain a net zero torque during muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation, and to prevent the handgrip device from assisting the user and to prevent the handgrip device from impeding the user with the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation while detecting the load impedance and/or the torque profile as the grip bar rotates relative to the palm rest during the muscle contraction and/or the muscle relaxation, because such a system provides an optimal overloading resistance to a user’s muscle groups/moving limbs that permit strength training and rehabilitation of a user’s limb/muscle group(s) (see Bond, Col. 1, lines 25-50, Col. 2, 47-50, Col. 9, lines 49-65).
With respect to claim 10, Smyser in view of Kim and in further view of Vimegnon and Bond teaches the handgrip system of claim 9. Smyser further teaches the first cue and the second cue are audio signals (see Smyser, abstract, par 0104, 0113, blocks 456 & 472 of fig. 13, block 626 of fig. 14B).
Conclusion
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 Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights