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 Amendment
The amendment submitted 08/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 16 and 20 have been amended. Claims 16-29 are pending on the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claim 16 to include the limitation “the user shoulder diagnosis configured to identify a probable medical outcome for the user’s shoulder”. Applicant claims that Hughes (US 20170055918 A1) fails to explicitly disclose identifying medical outcomes for the user’s shoulder. However, Hughes discloses wherein the user shoulder diagnosis is configured to identify a probable medical outcome, such as potential injury (Hughes par [0076] “The motion monitoring system can identify asymmetrical user movements that might indicate a loss of motor skill, a loss of range of motion, or other injury. The motion monitoring system can compare the patient's user motion model with the reference model to determine if an injury has occurred or if an injury is likely to occur”). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 16, although consisting only of high-level-of-generality components that are well-known in the art, “provides an inventive concept” as considered under Prong 2, Step 2A. Applicant argues that claim 16 “adds a combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field”. Applicant further states that “conventional patient shoulder assessment, require[sic] human examination which can be inaccurate”, and that the use of a computerized model to perform the assessment is to be considered a novel inventive concept. However, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. Replacing the diagnosis of a medical professional with an automated process to do the same thing, using the same provided information, may be considered merely automating a well-known process in the art (by Applicant’s own admission). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 27, line 2 of the claim recites “an accelerometer-gyroscope”. Applicant has stated in the reply dated 08/29/2025 that this refers to “a combination accelerator[sic] and gyroscope”. This is interpreted to mean “a combination accelerometer and gyroscope”.
Regarding claim 20, line 5 of the claim recites “a user computerized device”. This limitation is being interpreted in light of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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), 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), 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), 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:
Claim 20: “user computerized device” in line 5 of the claim is being interpreted in light of par [00032] of the Specification as “a computerized device, such as a smart phone, tablet, or Personal Data Assistant”.
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):
(A) the claim limitation uses 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: “device”
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language: performing functions of electrical connection and data transfer “disposed in electrical communication with the augmented reality display”, “a user image received from the user device” 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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 16-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “the controller configured to: receive shoulder activity data from the set of sensors of the shoulder activity detection device (mere transfer of data), the shoulder activity data identifying shoulder range of motion and shoulder muscle activity of a user, apply the shoulder activity data to a shoulder activity analysis model to identify a user shoulder outcome diagnosis (mere manipulation of data and decision making), the user shoulder outcome diagnosis configured to identify a probable medical outcome for the user's shoulder (decision making), and based upon the user shoulder outcome diagnosis, output a diagnosis notification to at least one of a user device and a clinician device, the diagnosis notification identifying the user shoulder outcome diagnosis (mere display of data)”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the analyzed and manipulated data is merely presented to a user, with no practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a support material…, a spatial positioning sensor…, and a set of shoulder muscle activity sensors…; and… a controller having a processor and memory” are all components well-known in the art and recited at an extremely high level of generality with no associated structure.
Regarding claim 17, the claim inherits the deficiencies of claim 16, and merely recites more highly generic sensors known in the art with no practical application.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 23-25, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 16, and merely recite more data transfer, manipulation, and display with no practical application.
Regarding claim 20, the claim inherits the deficiencies of claim 16. The claim further recites “the augmented reality display configured to display a user image received from the user device, the user image configured to guide a user through a shoulder exercise regimen (mere display of data); the set of shoulder muscle activity sensors of the shoulder activity detection device configured to generate shoulder activity data in response to the shoulder exercise regimen (mere transfer of data)”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the analyzed and manipulated data is merely presented to a user, with no practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “an augmented reality display; and a user device” are all components well-known in the art and recited at an extremely high level of generality with no associated structure.
Regarding claims 21-22, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 17, and merely recite more data transfer and data manipulation.
Regarding claim 26, the claim inherits the deficiencies of claim 16, and merely recites a highly generic tubular sleeve.
Regarding claims 27-29, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 16, and merely recite more generic sensors known in the art with no practical application of the gathered data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 16, 18-19, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hughes (US 20170055918 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hughes discloses
A shoulder activity monitoring system (Hughes Fig 1 par [0029] activity monitoring system; par[0059] area of interest may be shoulder), comprising:
a shoulder activity detection device (Hughes Fig 1 (100) par [0030]), comprising:
a support material configured to be disposed in proximity to a user shoulder (Hughes Fig 1 (100) par [0030] wearable device),
a spatial positioning sensor coupled to the support material and configured to generate a shoulder range of motion signal (Hughes par [0030] sensors coupled to wearable device generate range of motion data), and
a set of shoulder muscle activity sensors coupled to the support material and configured to generate shoulder activity data (Hughes par [0030] electromyograph); and
a shoulder activity analysis device, comprising a controller having a processor and memory (Hughes Fig 1 (120) par [0032]; par [0099] processor and memory), the controller configured to:
receive shoulder activity data from the set of sensors of the shoulder activity detection device, the shoulder activity data identifying shoulder range of motion and shoulder muscle activity of a user (Hughes Fig 2 (200) par [0034]),
apply the shoulder activity data to a shoulder activity analysis model to identify a user shoulder outcome diagnosis (Hughes Fig 2 (280,290) par [0051]),
the user shoulder diagnosis configured to identify a probable medical outcome for the user’s shoulder (Hughes par [0076] “The motion monitoring system can identify asymmetrical user movements that might indicate a loss of motor skill, a loss of range of motion, or other injury. The motion monitoring system can compare the patient's user motion model with the reference model to determine if an injury has occurred or if an injury is likely to occur”)
and
based upon the user shoulder outcome diagnosis, output a diagnosis notification to at least one of a user device and a clinician device, the diagnosis notification identifying the user shoulder outcome diagnosis (Hughes Fig 12 (1212) par [0070]).
Regarding claim 18, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to receive at least one of user medical history data (Hughes par [0078]), user rehabilitation progress data (Hughes par [0060]), shoulder exercise regimen data (Hughes par [0065]), and three- dimensional magnetic resonance imaging data; and
when applying the shoulder activity data to the shoulder activity analysis model, the controller is configured to apply the at least one of the user medical history data (Hughes par [0078]), the user rehabilitation progress data (Hughes par [0060]), the shoulder exercise regimen data (Hughes par [0065]), and the three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging data to the shoulder activity analysis model to identify the user shoulder outcome diagnosis.
Regarding claim 19, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to: apply the shoulder activity data to the shoulder activity analysis model to identify a user shoulder improvement diagnosis (Hughes Fig 12 (1214) par [0074]); and
based upon the user shoulder improvement diagnosis, output a recovery improvement notification to at least one of the user device and the clinician device (Hughes Fig 12 (1220) par [0074]).
Regarding claim 25, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 19, wherein the recovery improvement notification comprises at least one of a pain control notification, a recovery time reduction notification, and an advisor consultation notification (Hughes par [0083] advisor consultation notification).
Regarding claim 27, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16, wherein the spatial positioning sensor comprises an accelerometer-gyroscope (Hughes par [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17, 21, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20170055918 A1) in view of Hiromoto (US 20190365322 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16.
Hughes fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of shoulder muscle activity sensors comprises:
a trapezius sensor coupled to the support material in a trapezius muscle area of the support material;
an infraspinatus sensor coupled to the support material in an infraspinatus muscle area of the support material;
a deltoid sensor coupled to the support material in a deltoid muscle area of the support material; and
one of a biceps sensor coupled to the support material in a biceps muscle area of the support material and a pectoralis major sensor coupled to the support material in a pectoralis major muscle area of the support material.
However, Hiromoto discloses a support garment for biological sensors (Hiromoto Fig 1-2 par [0023]) comprising
a trapezius sensor coupled to the support material in a trapezius muscle area of the support material (Hiromoto Fig 2 (230rf) par [0030]);
an infraspinatus sensor coupled to the support material in an infraspinatus muscle area of the support material (Hiromoto Fig 2 (230re) par [0030]);
a deltoid sensor coupled to the support material in a deltoid muscle area of the support material (Hiromoto Fig 2 (230rb) par [0030]); and
one of a biceps sensor coupled to the support material in a biceps muscle area of the support material and a pectoralis major sensor coupled to the support material in a pectoralis major muscle area of the support material (Hiromoto Fig 2 biceps (230rh) pectoralis major (230ra) par [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a muscle sensing garment such as disclosed by Hiromoto with the invention of Hughes, as this allows for the collection of data from many important muscle groups (Hiromoto par [0029]).
Regarding claim 21, Hughes in view of Hiromoto discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 17, wherein when receiving shoulder activity data from a set of sensors of a shoulder activity monitoring sleeve, the controller is configured to: receive a shoulder range of motion signal from a spatial positioning sensor of the shoulder activity detection device (Hughes par [0076]).
Hiromoto discloses
a controller (Hiromoto Fig 1 (300) par [0026]) configured to:
receive (Hiromoto par [0025] receive data from biometric sensors) a trapezius sensor signal from a trapezius sensor of the shoulder activity detection device; receive an infraspinatus sensor signal from an infraspinatus sensor of the shoulder activity detection device; receive a deltoid sensor signal from a deltoid sensor of the shoulder activity detection device; receive one of a biceps sensor signal from a biceps sensor of the shoulder activity detection device and a pectoralis major sensor signal from a pectoralis major sensor (Hiromoto Fig 2 muscle group sensors (230) par [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a muscle sensing garment such as disclosed by Hiromoto with the invention of Hughes, as this allows for the collection of data from many important muscle groups (Hiromoto par [0029]).
Regarding claim 28, Hughes in view of Hiromoto discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 17, wherein at least one of the trapezius sensor, the infraspinatus sensor, the deltoid sensor, and the one of the biceps sensor and pectoralis major sensor is configured as a surface electromyography sensor (Hughes par [0085] surface electromyography sensors; see also Hiromoto par [0023]).
Regarding claim 29, Hughes in view of Hiromoto discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 17, wherein at least one of the trapezius sensor, the infraspinatus sensor, the deltoid sensor, and the one of the biceps sensor and pectoralis major sensor is configured as a flexible surface electromyography sensor (Hiromoto par [0003] electrodes are flexible base material).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20170055918 A1) in view of Hiromoto (US 20190365322 A1) and further in view of Einav (US 20070282228 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16, further comprising
a user computerized device configured to guide a user through a shoulder exercise regimen (Hughes Fig 12 (1208,1210) par [0072] guide user through regimen; par [0073] data transmitted to computing device);
the set of shoulder muscle activity sensors of the shoulder activity detection device configured to generate shoulder activity data in response to the shoulder exercise regimen (Hughes Fig 12 (1212) par [0073]).
Hughes fails to explicitly disclose
an augmented reality system, the augmented reality system comprising:
an augmented reality display; and
a user computerized device disposed in electrical communication with the augmented reality display, the augmented reality display configured to display a user image received from the user computerized device.
However, Einav discloses an apparatus for rehabilitation (Einav Fig 4 par [0353]) comprising an augmented reality system, the augmented reality system comprising: an augmented reality display (Einav par [0476]); the augmented reality display configured to configured to guide a user through a therapeutic regimen (Einav par [0475]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used augmented reality to provide the therapy regimen, as such a function is well suited to guiding users through such a regimen (Einav par [0849]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20170055918 A1) in view of Hiromoto (US 20190365322 A1) and further in view of Connor (US 20150366504 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Hughes in view of Hiromoto discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 21, wherein when applying the shoulder activity data to the shoulder activity analysis model to identify the user shoulder outcome diagnosis, the controller is configured to: apply the anatomical sensor signal to an anatomical activity analysis model to identify a user anatomical outcome diagnosis (Hughes Fig 12 (1212) par [0070]).
Hughes fails to explicitly disclose wherein when applying the shoulder activity data to the shoulder activity analysis model to identify the user shoulder outcome diagnosis, the controller is configured to:
apply the trapezius sensor signal to a trapezius activity analysis model to identify a user trapezius outcome diagnosis;
apply the infraspinatus sensor signal to an infraspinatus activity analysis model to identify a user infraspinatus outcome diagnosis;
apply the deltoid sensor signal to a deltoid activity analysis model to identify a user deltoid outcome diagnosis;
apply one of the biceps sensor signal to a biceps activity analysis model to identify a user biceps outcome diagnosis and the pectoralis major sensor data to
a pectoralis major activity analysis model to identify a user pectoralis major outcome diagnosis; and
identify a user shoulder outcome diagnosis based upon at least one of the user trapezius outcome diagnosis, the user infraspinatus outcome diagnosis, the user deltoid outcome diagnosis, and the one of the user biceps outcome diagnosis and user pectoralis major outcome diagnosis.
However, Connor discloses a system for analysis of muscle groups using wearable sensors (Connor Fig 1 par [0065]), including arm and shoulder muscle groups (Connor Fig 78-81 par [0549]) which includes applying individual activity analysis models to identify a user outcome diagnosis (Connor par [0152] muscle activity analysis, par [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the invention of Hughes to take the individual muscle group outcome diagnosis such as disclosed by Connor and apply it to the muscle sensor data groups disclosed by Hiromoto, as this allows for modeling of individual muscle groups (Hiromoto par [0030]; Connor par [0306]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20170055918 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive first anatomy activity data from a first set of sensors of a first part of the shoulder activity detection device, the first anatomy activity data identifying anatomy range of motion and anatomy muscle activity of a first anatomy of the user (Hughes Fig 12 (1212) par [0072]);
receive anatomy shoulder activity data from a second set of sensors of a second part of the shoulder activity detection device, the second anatomy activity data identifying anatomy range of motion and anatomy muscle activity of a second shoulder of the user (Hughes Fig 12 (1212) par [0072]); and
compare the first anatomy activity data and the second anatomy activity data to identify baseline shoulder activity data for one of the first shoulder and the second shoulder of the user (Hughes par [0081] compare right and left leg data to determine reference model).
Hughes fails to explicitly disclose where the anatomy is a shoulder, and wherein the part is a sleeve.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to compare left and right shoulder data using a wearable shoulder sleeve in the same manner as Hughes discloses analyzing left and right leg data, as running the analysis on a different pair of body parts is a substitution with predictable results, as Hughes also discloses analyzing shoulder data (Hughes par [0059,0076,0081]).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20170055918 A1) in view of Poupyrev (US 20210026440 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16, wherein the shoulder activity analysis model is configured as a neural network model (Hughes par [0051]).
Hughes fails to explicitly disclose wherein the neural network model is a recurrent neural network model.
However, Poupyrev discloses a similar activity monitoring system (Poupyrev Fig 5, par [0036]) which uses a recurrent neural network model for motion analysis (Poupyrev par [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a recurrent neural network model such as disclosed by Poupyrev with the invention of Hughes, as such a neural network is known in the art for classifying motion data (Poupyrev par [0061]).
Regarding claim 26, Hughes discloses
The shoulder activity monitoring system of claim 16.
Hughes fails to explicitly disclose wherein the support material defines a tubular sleeve configured to be disposed over a user shoulder and arm
However, Poupyrev discloses a similar activity monitoring system (Poupyrev Fig 5, par [0036]) comprising support material which defines a tubular sleeve configured to be disposed over a user shoulder and arm (Poupyrev Fig 1 (102,104-1) par [0039] sensor on sleeve of jacket and shoulder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a tubular sleeve such as disclosed by Poupyrev to support the motion sensors, as such a configuration is common for wearable devices (Poupyrev par [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Poltaretskyi (US 20190380792 A1) discloses using a neural network for diagnosis of a shoulder condition of a patient (Poltaretskyi par [0827]).
Crawford (US 20200118459 A1) discloses a similar device for motion and injury detection (Crawford Fig 1 par [0018]). Rustamova (US 20200046261 A1) discloses a similar device for shoulder analysis (Rustamova Fig 1 par [0017]). Slepian (US 20190117129 A1) discloses a similar device for analysis of many different muscle groups (Slepian Fig 2A par [0026]). Kim (US 20180125408 A1) discloses a similar device for muscle function assessment (Kim par [0046]).
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 Matthew Becton whose telephone number is (571)272-9570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID BECTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794