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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn. However, the objection to Fig. 6 remains (see below).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, seepage 7, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 4 has been withdrawn. However, a new objection to Claim 9 has been made.
The examiner notes “measurement unit” in Claim 1 is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), as “measurement unit” is now modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (“wherein the measurement unit comprises a force transducer…”).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to rejection of Claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 3 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the appropriate corrections needed to overcome the rejection have not been made.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the applicant has argued the acceleration sensor of Ghajar does not anticipate the claimed force transducer (see pages 8-10). While the Examiner agrees a force transducer and an acceleration sensor often perform different functions and can be fundamentally different devices, Ghajar clearly teaches their acceleration sensor to be capable of detecting external forces, wherein the acceleration is then determined from the sensed force ([0007], [0045], [0051], [0062], [0066], [0068]). Therefore, the acceleration sensor of Ghajar can also be considered a force transducer.
However, due to amendments made by the applicant, a new ground(s) of rejection of these claims is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Ghajar and O’Leary. All other rejections have been updated accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 6 of the drawings submitted on 08/25/2025 is low-resolution, fuzzy in appearance, and difficult to distinguish. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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: “rotational torque measuring unit” in Claim 4.
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 4 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “rotational torque measuring unit” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“rotational torque measuring unit” is linked with the transitional word “for” modified by the functional language “measuring the torque in response to rotation of the head”
“rotational torque measuring unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0071] as comprising a torque sensor (i.e. torque transducer or torque meter) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, “wherein the head mount being is displaceable in response to motions of the first portion or the head mount, includes front flexion, lateral flexion, extension, or a direction defined within a range of 0-360°.” should read “wherein the head mount being [[is]] displaceable in response to motions of the first portion or the head mount [[,]] includes front flexion, lateral flexion, extension, or a direction defined within a range of 0-360°.” for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 7-8 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 the limitation “the post is mounted on the turntable”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the vertical post recited in Claim 2, or a different post (in which case, a lack of antecedent basis exists). For the purposes of substantive examination, it is presumed this limitation is referring to any post (e.g. the vertical post recited in Claim 2, or a different post).
Claim 7 recites an element (the vertical post) that is mentioned in Claim 2, but not parent Claim 1.
Claim 8 recites an element (the vertical post) that are mentioned in Claim 2, but not parent Claim 1.
Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vertical post” in these claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ghajar et al (US 20140081180 A1, hereinafter Ghajar) in view of O’Leary et al (US 20070272010 A1, hereinafter O’Leary).
Regarding Claim 1, Ghajar discloses a portable neck strength testing device (See Figs. 2A-8), comprising:
a support member (Element 38, Fig. 2A) securable to a body of a subject (See Fig. 2A);
a measurement unit (“the outer circular member 50 can be controlled by an acceleration sensor arrangement comprising an acceleration threshold detector for detecting external forces experienced by the user's head to determine acceleration of the user's head and for providing an output signal”, [0045]) coupled to the support member (See Figs. 2A-2B; Element 50 is part of element 42a, Fig. 2B, which is coupled to the support member 38, see Fig. 2A);
a head mount (Element 22, Fig. 2A) adjustably connected to the measurement unit (See Figs. 4-5; the head mount adjustably relative to the acceleration measurement unit which is on element 28), wherein the head mount comprises a first portion (Element 26a, Fig. 2A) configured to engage a head of the subject (See Fig. 2A);
wherein the head mount is displaceable in response to motion of the first portion (See Figs. 4-5; the head mount moves position in response to the motion of the first portion, which moves with the subject’s head); and
wherein the measurement unit is configured to detect displacement of the head mount and measure therefrom at least a force or a torque exerted on the head mount (“the outer circular member 50 can be controlled by an acceleration sensor arrangement comprising an acceleration threshold detector for detecting external forces experienced by the user's head to determine acceleration of the user's head and for providing an output signal”, [0045]);
wherein the measurement unit comprises a force transducer (“the outer circular member 50 can be controlled by an acceleration sensor arrangement comprising an acceleration threshold detector for detecting external forces experienced by the user's head to determine acceleration of the user's head and for providing an output signal”, [0045]; also see [0007], [0051], [0062], [0066], and [0068]).
Ghajar discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the force transducer operable to generate an output voltage that is proportional to force applied to the transducer, the output voltage used to detect and measure the force or torque exerted on the head mount. However, O’Leary, which also discloses a neck strength testing device (“A method and apparatus are described for assessing function of the cranio-cervical muscles. The method includes assessment of torque produced during flexion/extension, axial rotation, lateral rotation or combination thereof”, Abstract), teaches the force transducer operable to generate an output voltage that is proportional to force applied to the transducer, the output voltage used to detect and measure the force or torque exerted on the head mount (“Before C-C torque is commenced the mass of the head is measured at rest. This is achieved by a load cell 32 under the head platform. The load cell is secured and suspended above the bench the patient is lying on, and at the other end is attached to the platform the head rests on. The weight of the head therefore vertically deflects one end of the load cell, causing a bending moment across the load cell and a change in the voltage across the load cell. This voltage change is amplified, and recorded in a data acquisition card 33 and is displayed 35 and recorded on a labview Virtual Instruments program as weight of the head in kilograms. When C-C torque is commenced any lifting or pushing back of the head is registered by the change in deflection of the load cell and corresponding weight output”, [0207]). 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 force transducer of Ghajar with the configuration of O’Leary, because determining torque in addition to range of motion and forces experiences creates a more robust data set and picture of neck function, as suggested by O’Leary (“A method and apparatus are described for assessing function of the cranio-cervical muscles”, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the support member comprises:
one or more front legs (Element 41, Fig. 2A) for mounting the support member over the chest of the subject (“the support harness 38 includes a vest or plate portion 40 and straps 41 sufficiently designed to secure to the user's torso”, [0041]);
a shoulder section connected to the one or more front legs (See Fig. 2A; a section of element 38 is clearly placed on the shoulders);
an adjustable back plate (Element 40, Fig. 2A; “the second apparatus is secured in some instances by donning a vest or tightening straps to attach it to the torso of the subject”, [0114])for mounting the support member over the back of the subject (“the support harness 38 includes a vest or plate portion 40 and straps 41 sufficiently designed to secure to the user's torso”, [0041]), wherein the back plate is connected to the shoulder section (See Fig. 2A);
a back plate adjustment fastener configured to adjust the back plate on the back of the subject to secure and stabilize the device on the upper body of the subject (“the second apparatus is secured in some instances by donning a vest or tightening straps to attach it to the torso of the subject”, [0114]; tightening straps to secure the chest-worn apparatus to the subject would also secure the back plate on the subject); and
a vertical post (Element 28, Fig. 4) connected to the shoulder section (See Figs. 2A and 4) and extending vertically away from the back plate (See Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the shoulder section comprises a turntable (Element 37, Fig. 3A) and a base (Element 36, Fig. 2A), the front legs and the back plate are mounted on the base (See Fig. 2A; elements 40 and 41 are at least indirectly attached to the base), the post is mounted on the turntable (See Fig. 2A), and the turntable is rotatable with respect to the base (“In an embodiment, the connector 37 and the second attachment member 36 form a ball and socket joint allowing three degrees of freedom, permitting rotary movement of the head 24 in all directions through the movement of the connector 37 in the second attachment member 36. In such embodiments, the connector 37 terminates in a ball, and the second attachment member 36 terminates in a spherical shell sized to snugly envelope the ball of the connector 37. When the ball of the connector 37 is within the socket of the second attachment member 36, the centers of the ball and socket are coincident, resulting in a spherical geometry that facilitates full three dimensional rotation of the connector 37 and the second attachment member 36 about the coincident centers, providing multi-axial and multi-directional positioning of the head 24”, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 2 further comprising an anchoring bracket (Element 37, Fig. 2A) mounted on the vertical post (“The telescoping member 28… includes a first engaging member or connector 34 for engaging the first attachment member 32 of the headpiece 22, and a second engaging member or connector 37 for engaging a second attachment member 36 of a support harness 38”, [0040]) to allow vertical adjustment of the measurement unit (“The connector 37 may be fabricated from a joint, a hinge, a socket or any other device for coupling the support harness 38 to the telescoping member 28 and allowing movement in more than one plane…this full three dimensional rotation allows the head 24 to move in any direction in coronal, sagittal and axial planes, producing no bending force on the telescoping member 28, allowing the telescoping member 28 to function only in compression and extension”, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to measure neck flexion motion (“In some embodiments, the first motion detection sensor 234 and/or second motion detection sensor 240 includes one or several of the following technologies to detect the relative positions of the head, neck, and torso”, [0084]) relative to the vertical post from motion of the head mount when the head mount engages the head of the subject (See Fig. 5, wherein neck flexion occurs relative to the vertical post from motion of the head mount when the head mount engages the head of the subject). Modified Ghajar discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the force transducer is configured to measure neck flexion strength relative to the vertical post from motion of the head mount when the head mount engages the head of the subject. However, O’Leary teaches wherein the force transducer is configured to measure neck flexion strength (“The apparatus may comprise two gauges, each connected to a corresponding piston arrangement which may be for flexion/extension in the sagittal plane and rotation in the transverse plane, respectively. The gauges may provide an indication of isometrically provided force”, [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the measurement of neck flexion strength taught by O’Leary to the measurement of next flexion motion of modified Ghajar (relative to the vertical post from motion of the head mount when the head mount engages the head of the subject, as already taught by modified Ghajar) because determining torque in addition to range of motion and forces experiences creates a more robust data set and picture of neck function, as suggested by O’Leary (“A method and apparatus are described for assessing function of the cranio-cervical muscles”, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the head mount being displaceable in response to motions of the first portion or the head mount (“FIGS. 4-8 show the device 20 of FIG. 2A during various head movements. The device 20 provides unencumbered head motion and range during normal circumstances…”, [0047]), includes front flexion (“FIG. 5 shows the head 24 and the neck 23 in full flexion with the telescoping member 28 in full extension”, ]0045]), lateral flexion, extension, or a direction defined within a range of 0-360⁰ (“FIG. 13 shows the axes and rotations used for describing relational motion up to 6 degrees of freedom. As shown in FIG. 13, the axes of measurement include translation in three dimensions axial, coronal, and sagittal … as well as relative orientation pitch, yaw, roll … The data from these measurements is used to monitor the usage, range of motion, or injury-related criteria”, [0075]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 1. Modified Ghajar discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the measurement unit is configured to measure a maximum rotational torque applied by neck muscles of a subject when the head is turned to the left or right directions. However, O’Leary teaches wherein the measurement unit (“Torque sensors”, [0203]-[0204]) is configured to measure a maximum rotational torque (“An individuals maximal torque producing capabilities can be assessed by asking the person to perform the contraction `as hard as they can`. Peak torque can be measured and this is considered the individuals maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and is considered by some a measure of strength”, [0151]) applied by neck muscles of a subject when the head is turned to the left or right directions (“Torque for example in the direction of right C-C axial rotation may be measured in the range of 40 degrees of left rotation to 40 degrees of right rotation”, [0210]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the measurement of maximum rotational torque to the measurement unit configuration of modified Ghajar, because determining torque in addition to range of motion and forces experiences creates a more robust data set and picture of neck function, as suggested by O’Leary (“A method and apparatus are described for assessing function of the cranio-cervical muscles”, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the support member comprises a material including aluminum, plastic (“The telescoping member 28 may be made out of plastic”, [0039] element 28 is part of the support member) or carbon fiber.
In addition to the above, Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghajar in view of O’Leary, and further in view of Chitwood (US 5569175 A, hereinafter Chitwood).
Regarding Claim 3, Ghajar discloses the device of claim 2. Modified Ghajar discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the shoulder section comprises a turntable and a base, the front legs and the back plate are mounted on the base, the post is mounted on the turntable, and the turntable is rotatable with respect to the base.
However, Chitwood teaches wherein the shoulder section (See all combined elements mounted on top of element 42, Fig. 2) comprises a turntable (Element 22, Figs. 1-5) and a base (Element 42, Figs. 3-5), the front legs (See the two identical legs of Element 53, Figs. 3-5) and the back plate (Element 44, Figs. 3-5) are mounted on the base (See Figs. 3-5), the post is mounted on the turntable (Elements 34 and 35, Figs. 3-5), and the turntable is rotatable with respect to the base (See Figs. 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Ghajar with the shoulder section of Chitwood, because this allows the subject to rotate and stretch their neck while lying down, as taught by Chitwood (See Fig. 1 and 1:12-24)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghajar in view of O’Leary, and further in view of Jones (US 4989859 A, hereinafter Jones).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 1. Modified Ghajar discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the device further comprising a removable torque measuring assembly for measuring neck rotation torque in either a left or right direction, wherein the removable torque measuring assembly comprises:
a pair of arms extending away from the shoulder section,
an overhead cross member mounted on the pair of arms, and
a rotational torque measuring unit mounted on the overhead cross member and configured to engage the head of the subject for measuring the torque in response to rotation of the head.
However, Jones, which also discloses a neck strength testing device (See Figs. 1-4; “Method For Testing And/or Exercising The Rotary Neck Muscles Of The Human Body”, Title), teaches disclosing the device further comprising a removable torque measuring assembly (See Figs. 1-4; pins and nuts are recited in 3:60-4:23, 5:22-35, and Figs. 1 and 4 show pins used for fastening together the assembly; therefore, the assembly can also be disassembled and is removable) for measuring neck rotation torque in either a left or right direction (“The strain gauge 104 measures the force of the rotary neck muscles in each position while a potentiometer measures the angle of the position”, 7:63-64), wherein the removable torque measuring assembly comprises:
a pair of arms (Elements 81, Fig. 1) extending away from the shoulder section (“plurality of front pads, preferably two pads 60, are mounted to the frame to be engageable with the chest and shoulders of the subject to immobilize the upper torso below the neck”, 3:60-63; elements 81 extend away from elements 60, see Figs. 1 and 2),
an overhead cross member mounted on the pair of arms (See all elements between top frame 13 and overly frame 80 in Fig. 1, including elements 34 and 80; all of these elements make a compound overhead cross member; “the head pad ass3embly includes a generally rectangular frame 34 and a secondary frame 80 suspended from frame 34 by vertical members 81 fixed to both frames 34, 80”, 4:26-29) , and
a rotational torque measuring unit (Element 104, Fig. 4) mounted on the overhead cross member (See Fig. 1) and configured to engage the head of the subject for measuring the torque in response to rotation of the head (“The strain gauge 104 measures the force of the rotary neck muscles in each position while a potentiometer measures the angle of the position”, 7:63-64; element 104 engages the head and neck muscles of the subject through linking structures, see Figs. 1, 4, and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the structure of Jones to the device of modified Ghajar, because determining torque in addition to range of motion and forces experiences creates a more robust data set and picture of neck function.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghajar in view of O’Leary, and further in view of the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) to Almosnino et al (“Reliability of Isometric Neck Strength and Electromyography Measures Relevant for Concussion Prevention in Athletes”, hereinafter Almosnino).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ghajar discloses the device of claim 1. Modified Ghajar discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the force transducer is adjustable on the vertical post such that the force transducer and the head mount are positionable to align with the occipital tuberosity of the head of the subject. However, Almosnino teaches wherein the force transducer is adjustable on the vertical post (See Figure 3.1; “Measures of exerted neck forces are recorded using a six degree of freedom load cell … mounted on a three-point base of support metal frame”, page 36; “The height of the load cell and the distance of the chair relative to the load cell are fully adjustable to accommodate subjects‟ of different dimensions”, page 37) such that the force transducer and the head mount are positionable (“The height of the load cell and the distance of the chair relative to the load cell are fully adjustable to accommodate subjects‟ of different dimensions”, page 37) to align with the occipital tuberosity of the head of the subject (See Fig. 3.1, wherein the force transducer and the ice hockey helmet head mount are aligned with the occipital tuberosity of the subject). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Ghajar such that the force transducer is adjustable on the vertical post, because this allows the device to be fitted for different subjects, as taught by Almosnino (page 37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Thomas (US 20030148863 A1), which discloses a portable neck strengthening device (Abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791