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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to National Stage Application No. PCT/KR2021/000439 filed January 13, 2021 and to foreign priorities to Korean Application No. KR 10-20210004009 filed January 01, 2021, Korean Application No. KR 10-20200141794 filed October 29, 2020, and Korean Application No. KR 10-20200022972 filed February 25, 2020.
• The new limitations in claim 1 have been introduced in Korean Application No. KR 10-20210004009 in comparison with foreign applications such as an information processing terminal with a wireless communication network as shown in Fig 2 and Fig 29. Therefore, claims 1-10 are given the earliest effective filing date as Korean Application No. KR 10-20210004009 filed January 01, 2021.
Status of Claims
This present office action is responsive to the Application filed on May 24, 2022. As directed, claims 1-10 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Fig 7a & 7b, reference character “326c” appears to be pointing to different element. See below annotation for detail.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Figs 22, 24-25, reference character “750” is not mentioned in the description/specification.
Regarding Fig 26, reference character “780” is not mentioned in the description/specification. Per ¶0189, the rotation restraining part is referred as --770--.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0197 recites “on the left second hinge 311” which Examiner suggest amending to read --on the left first hinge 311--
¶0198 recites “on the right second hinge 312” which Examiner suggest amending to read --on the right first hinge 312--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “at least one type of sensors” in ln 8-9 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at least one sensor--
Claims 2-10 are objected by virtue of dependency to claim 3
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the sensors” in ln 10 which Examiner suggest amending to read --wherein the at least one sensor--
Claim 3 recites, “an upper limb” in ln 4 and ln 8 and “a lower limb” in ln 5 and ln 9 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the upper limb-- and --the lower limb-- as the limbs are introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites, “the sensor” in ln 19 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the at least one sensor--
Claim 6 recites, “devide” in ln 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --device--
Claim 6 recites, “the left side or the right side” in ln 22 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a left side or a right side-- as it has not been introduced previously.
Claim 7 recites, “the device distance” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a device distance-- as it is different from the “device distance value” of claim 6.
Claim 9 recites, “embedded in the first hinges and the second hinges” in ln 4 and “formed in the first hinges and the second hinges to allow exposure of the magnet member” in 5-7 which Examiner suggest amending to read --embedded in each of the pair of first hinges and the pair of second hinges-- and --form in each of the pair of first hinges and the pair of second hinges to allow exposure of the magnet members-- for consistency similar to claim 8.
Claim 9 recites, “at least one of position and size” in ln 8-9 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at least one of a position and a size-- as it has not been introduced for the magnet hole.
Claim 10 recites, “installed on the first hinges and the second hinges” in ln 4 which Examiner suggest amending to read --installed on each of the pair of first hinges and the pair of second hinges-- for consistency with claim 8.
Claim 10 recites, “about the corresponding position” in ln 4 which Examiner suggest amending to read --about a corresponding position-- as it has been introduced previously.
Claim 10 recites, “mounted on the first hinges or the second hinges” in ln 8 which Examiner suggest amending to read --mounted on any one of the pair of first hinges and the pair of second hinges-- for consistency with claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
A drive module in claim 3
A to-be-detected module in claim 8
The corresponding structure of the “drive module” is described as having body housing 710 in which components such as a drive motor, a printed circuit board, etc. are accommodated (¶0155).
The corresponding structure of the “to-be-detected module” is described as a combination of magnet holes and magnet members (¶0240-243) and a short- communication tag, for example, a RF or NFC tags (¶0244).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 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.
Regarding claims 9-10, claims are indicated to be dependent onto claim 7. However, the limitations, “the sensor module” and “the to-be-detected module” are introduced in claim 8 instead of claim 7. Therefore, claims render indefinite, because it is unclear whether applicant is intended to newly introduce the limitations of claim 8 into claims 9-10 or these claims are intended to be depended onto claim 8 instead of 7.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohira (machine translation of JP 2018075262 A; cited in IDS filed 08/21/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Ohira discloses, a rehabilitation exercise system for upper and lower limbs, comprising: a rehabilitation exercise device (the exercise device 1, Fig 1) for rehabilitation of arms or legs, and an information processing terminal (PG 3, ln 11-13, controller for controlling the actuator…apparatus connected to the controller) which is connected to the rehabilitation exercise device via a wireless communication network (PG 8, claim 9, “a controller capable of data communication with the first extension mechanism and the second extension mechanism by wire or wirelessly”);
wherein the rehabilitation exercise device comprises at least one type of sensors (PG 4, ln 12-20, the pressure sensor and the angle sensor) which detect a first information (PG 3, ln 37- PG 4, ln 21, any output signal from the sensors);
wherein the information processing terminal is configured to transmit a second information (PG 3, ln 37- PG 4, ln 21, load mode, relaxing mode) to the rehabilitation exercise device via the wireless communication network (PG 8, claim 9);
wherein the rehabilitation exercise device is configured to control a rehabilitation exercise load based on the first information and the second information (PG 7-8, claim 1, “a pressure sensor… an angle sensor, By the output signals of the pressure sensor and the angle sensor, Exercise load is controlled”).
Regarding claim 2, Ohira discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ohira further discloses, wherein the rehabilitation exercise device comprises: a rehabilitation exercise unit (lower leg support parts, 25, 41-44, holdings parts, 22-24, actuators 3a-e, 32a-e, and exercise apparatus 3, 31 ,32 as shown in Figs 1, 4-6, and 8-9); and a holder (carriage part 52, fixed part 53, guide rail 54 of the base portion as shown in Figs 1, 4-6, and 8-9) on which the rehabilitation exercise unit is located and configured to support the rehabilitation exercise unit so as to move between a first position (Fig 4, where the device is at rest) on which the rehabilitation exercise unit rests and a second position (Figs 5-6, and Figs 8-9 as the device is in use at different predetermined angle) where the rehabilitation exercise unit is elevated at a predetermined angle;
wherein the sensors comprise an angle sensor (PG 4, ln 12-20) which detects an angle of the rehabilitation exercise device (PG 3, ln 37- PG 4, ln 21, implies that the angle detected of the thigh support would respective to reference axis which can be the gravity direction in order to control the amount of load) respect to a gravity direction according to a state of being supported by the holder (device is supported by holder in any position as shown in Figs 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 9-10 are only rejected based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the subject matter of claim 3, the closest identified prior art document of record is Aoki et al. (US 20220110816 A1).
Aoki et al. discloses, a pair of second hinge (Fig 5) and a drive module detachably mounted onto only the pair of second hinges (¶0124, “detachably mounted to the knee-ankle-foot orthosis at three portions including an upper portion, lower portion and an intermediate portion between the upper and lower portions in the vertical direction”) as shown in Fig 7 and a sensor for detecting a gait motion state (¶0011-0012), but the prior art does not specifically teaches or suggest a drive module selectively mounted on any one of the pair of first hinges and the pair of second hinges, and wherein the sensor further comprises a mounting position detecting part which detects a location where the drive module is mounted on the pair of first hinges or the pair of second hinges.
No other prior arts have been found that teaches or suggest that a drive module selectively mounted on any one of the pair of first hinges and the pair of second hinges, a drive motor which pivots the first support or the second support being embedded in the drive module and wherein the sensor further comprises a mounting position detecting part which detects a location where the drive module is mounted on the pair of first hinges or the pair of second hinges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785