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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 03/02/2026, have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 20-25 remain pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer et al. (US9827159), hereafter Leismer, in view of Howard (US3550585), hereafter Howard.
Regarding Claim 1, Leismer discloses a medical device (Fig. 1, system 10), the medical device comprising: a holder (Fig. 1, foot support 20) that can hold one or more body parts of an individual (col. 2, line 64, “foot support 20 for receiving the patient's feet”); an oscillating mechanism (Fig. 1, vibration unit 16) that can transmit an oscillating force to the holder (col. 3, line 2-4, “The foot support 20 may be adapted to conduct vibrations from the vibration unit 16 to the patient 11”); one or more sensors that provide information about the individual (col. 8 line 65-67, sensor 100, “The sensor 100 may be used by the control unit 80 to determine the value of the preload being applied to the patient 11”); one or more compliant components (Fig. 5, lever 50, pivot points 62) that are configured to allow movement of the one or more body parts that deviates from a movement of oscillation (Examiner Notes: See col. 4, line 62-67, in the prior art, the lever is rotatably attached to the foot support and the vibration unit for balance, allowing the user to rotate the foot around the ankle and therefore, deviate from the oscillation); wherein the oscillating mechanism can dynamically change a frequency of oscillation based on feedback from the one or more sensors (col. 7, line 41-44, “the control unit 80 may monitor and control… to provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated, monitor and control the motor 78 to establish or vary a frequency of vibration”) the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust an amplitude of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the frequency according to equation 1: V = (F)α (A) β (M)γ, wherein V is a variable determined for the individual, F is the frequency of oscillation, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, M is a mass of the individual, and α, β, and γ are constant exponents (Examiner Notes: Leismer discloses amplitude and frequency as independently controllable parameters, see col. 7 line 10-21, and can adjust amplitude based on dynamical change in frequency, see col. 7 line 41-44. Such system is capable of adjusting amplitude in response to frequency changes with any desired relationship. The claim recites adjusting the amplitude based on the frequency according to an equation, however, no specific structure or controller is required to determine variable V and calculation using the equation. Therefore, the claimed adjustment according to the equation is merely an example of an intended use and does not distinguish over the prior art);
Leismer further discloses and wherein the oscillating mechanism dynamically changes an amplitude of the oscillation based on the feedback from the one or more sensors (col. 8, line 59-63, “an attached sensor 100… as to provide for feedback control of amplitude”) the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust the frequency of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the amplitude according to equation 1 (See reasoning above).
Leismer is silent on the one or more compliant components comprise a pad, the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges.
However Howard teaches a medical device (Fig. 1), comprising of one or more compliant components (See Fig. A below, col. 2 line 34-37, the compliant component is movable around 14), wherein the one or more compliant components comprise a pad (See Fig. A below, force applying platform 12), the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges (See Fig. A, a curved indentation is defined by platform 12 and element 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the compliant component of Howard, to securely receive the user’s foot and align the leg position of the user as taught by Howard (Howard, col. 2 line 30-33).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, Adapted from Howard Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 1 wherein the oscillating mechanism is configured to adjust the frequency of oscillation of the oscillating mechanism to an optimal frequency of the individual based on the feedback (Examiner Notes: See Leismer Fig. 5, col. 7, line 41-44, the prior art discloses a feedback control of frequency based on sensor feedback, such feedback inherently improves and optimize the frequency).
Regarding Claim 8, Leismer discloses a medical device (Fig. 1, system 10), the medical device comprising: a pad (Fig. 1, foot support 20) that is shaped to rest against one or more body parts of an individual (col. 2, line 64, “foot support 20 for receiving the patient's feet”); one or more sensors that provide information about the individual (col. 8 line 65, sensor 100; col. 13, line 47-50, “a sensor configured to determine a preload value corresponding to the static loading force applied to the leg of the user”); an oscillating mechanism (Fig. 1, vibration unit 16) that can transmit an oscillating force to the pad as the oscillating mechanism oscillates (col. 3, line 2-4, “The foot support 20 may be adapted to conduct vibrations from the vibration unit 16 to the patient 11”); and wherein the oscillating mechanism can automatically adjust a frequency of oscillation (col. 7, line 41-44, “monitor and control… to provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated, monitor and control the motor 78 to establish or vary a frequency of vibration”; the process is done by a controller, rendering the process automated).
Leismer is silent on the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges.
However, Howard teaches a medical device (Fig. 1), comprising of one or more compliant components (See Fig. A below, col. 2 line 34-37, the compliant component is movable around 14), wherein the one or more compliant components comprise a pad (See Fig. A below, force applying platform 12), the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges (See Fig. A, a curved indentation is defined by platform 12 and element 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the compliant component of Howard, to securely receive the user’s foot and align the leg position of the user as taught by Howard (Howard, col. 2 line 30-33).
The modified Leismer further discloses the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust an amplitude of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the frequency according to equation 1: V = (F)α (A) β (M)γ, wherein V is a variable determined for the individual, F is the frequency of oscillation, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, M is a mass of the individual, and α, β, and γ are constant exponents (Examiner Notes: Leismer discloses amplitude and frequency as independently controllable parameters, see col. 7 line 10-21, and can adjust amplitude based on dynamical change in frequency, see col. 7 line 41-44. Such system is capable of adjusting amplitude in response to frequency changes with any desired relationship. The claim recites adjusting the amplitude based on the frequency according to an equation, however, no specific structure or controller is required to determine variable V and calculation using the equation. Therefore, the claimed adjustment according to the equation is merely an example of an intended use and does not distinguish over the prior art);
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 8, wherein the oscillating mechanism can automatically adjust an amplitude of oscillation (Leismer col. 8, line 59-63, “the vibrating arm 21 may have an attached sensor 100… to provide for feedback control of amplitude”; the term “feedback control” renders the process automated).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 8, wherein the oscillating mechanism automatically adjusts an amplitude of oscillation to maintain a contact with the individual as the oscillating mechanism oscillates (Leismer col. 7 line 40-46, “the control unit 80 may monitor and control the tension member 36 and/or the position drive 37 to provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated… monitor and control the motor 96 to establish or vary an amplitude of vibration.”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art’s functionality necessarily results in maintaining contact with the patient during oscillation as any inconsistency in contact would result in a change in the preload force, prompting the system to adjust amplitude to restore the target force, therefore, the claimed limitation is inherent based on the prior art).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 8: wherein the pad is further shaped to support a heel portion of one or two feet (Leismer Fig. 5, back surface of foot platform 20a, 20b; col. 3, line 11-14, “The foot support 20 may further include a horizontal shelf extending from a lower edge of the vertical portions providing a support for the patient's heel from below”); and wherein the pad allows the one or two feet to rotate about ankles of the one or two feet freely while the one or two feet are supported by the pad (Leismer col. 4, line 62-67, lever 50 and pivot points 62 allow the feet to rotate about ankles).
Regarding Claim 15, Leismer discloses a method of providing reciprocating movement to an individual (col. 2, line 52-53, “a system 10 provides vibration through the legs of a supine patient 11”), the method comprising: oscillating, by an oscillating mechanism (Fig. 1, vibration unit 16), a pad that is in contact with a body part of an individual (col. 2, line 64, “foot support 20 for receiving the patient's feet”); wherein the oscillating mechanism can dynamically change a frequency of the oscillating based on feedback from one or more sensors embedded in a device (col. 7, line 41-44, “monitor and control… to provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated, monitor and control the motor 78 to establish or vary a frequency of vibration”), which provide information about the individual (col. 7, line 41-44, “provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated”);
The Leismer further discloses the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust an amplitude of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the frequency according to equation 1: V = (F)α (A) β (M)γ, wherein V is a variable determined for the individual, F is the frequency of oscillation, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, M is a mass of the individual, and α, β, and γ are constant exponents (Examiner Notes: Leismer discloses amplitude and frequency as independently controllable parameters, see col. 7 line 10-21, and can adjust amplitude based on dynamical change in frequency, see col. 7 line 41-44. Such system is capable of adjusting amplitude in response to frequency changes with any desired relationship. The claim recites adjusting the amplitude based on the frequency according to an equation, however, no specific structure or controller is required to determine variable V and calculation using the equation. Therefore, the claimed adjustment according to the equation is merely an example of an intended use and does not distinguish over the prior art);
The Leismer further discloses wherein the oscillating mechanism can dynamically change an amplitude of the oscillating based on the feedback (col. 8, line 59-63, “the vibrating arm 21 may have an attached sensor 100… to provide for feedback control of amplitude”); the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust the frequency of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the amplitude according to equation 1 and wherein the pad is configured to allow the body part a limited movement in a direction that deviates from a direction of the oscillating (Examiner Notes: See Fig. 5, col. 4, line 62-67, in the prior art, the lever is rotatably attached to the foot support and the vibration unit for balance, allowing the user to rotate the foot around the ankle and therefore, deviate from the oscillation).
Leismer is silent on the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges.
However Howard teaches a medical device (Fig. 1), comprising of one or more compliant components (See Fig. A below, col. 2 line 34-37, the compliant component is movable around 14), wherein the one or more compliant components comprise a pad (See Fig. A below, force applying platform 12), the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges (See Fig. A, a curved indentation is defined by platform 12 and element 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the compliant component of Howard, to securely receive the user’s foot and align the leg position of the user as taught by Howard (Howard, col. 2 line 30-33).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Leismer discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the oscillating mechanism is configured to adjust the frequency of the oscillating of the oscillating mechanism to an optimal frequency of the individual based on the feedback (Examiner Notes: See Leismer Fig. 5, col. 7, line 41-44, the prior art discloses a feedback control of frequency based on sensor feedback, such feedback inherently improves and optimize the frequency).
Alternatively, claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer, in view of Trandafir (20080009776), hereafter Trandafir, in view of Howard.
Regarding Claim 1, Leismer discloses a medical device (Fig. 1, system 10), the medical device comprising: a holder (Fig. 1, foot support 20) that can hold one or more body parts of an individual (col. 2, line 64, “foot support 20 for receiving the patient's feet”); an oscillating mechanism (Fig. 1, vibration unit 16) that can transmit an oscillating force to the holder (col. 3, line 2-4, “The foot support 20 may be adapted to conduct vibrations from the vibration unit 16 to the patient 11”); one or more sensors that provide information about the individual (col. 8 line 65-67, sensor 100, “The sensor 100 may be used by the control unit 80 to determine the value of the preload being applied to the patient 11”); one or more compliant components (Fig. 5, lever 50, pivot points 62) that are configured to allow movement of the one or more body parts that deviates from a movement of oscillation (Examiner Notes: See col. 4, line 62-67, in the prior art, the lever is rotatably attached to the foot support and the vibration unit for balance, allowing the user to rotate the foot around the ankle and therefore, deviate from the oscillation); wherein the oscillating mechanism can dynamically change a frequency of oscillation based on feedback from the one or more sensors (col. 7, line 41-44, “the control unit 80 may monitor and control… to provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated, monitor and control the motor 78 to establish or vary a frequency of vibration”).
Alternatively, if Leismer is considered not to disclose the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust an amplitude of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the frequency according to equation 1: V = (F)α (A) β (M)γ, wherein V is a variable determined for the individual, F is the frequency of oscillation, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, M is a mass of the individual, and α, β, and γ are constant exponents;
Trandafir teaches a medical device for providing oscillating force to a body (Abstract), comprising of a circuitry that determines the user’s mass, and adjusting parameters including amplitude and frequency dynamically using feedback control (par. 0020). Although Trandafir does not specifically recite the claimed equation, it teaches all variables of the claimed equation: mass (M), amplitude (A), frequency (F) are adjusted to achieve a target treatment outcome (V). Therefore, Trandafir teaches the claimed functional relationship, which is having the patient outcome dependent on mass, amplitude, and frequency, and automatically adjust the parameters. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the teaching of Trandafir, to deliver desired therapeutic outcome as taught by Trandafir (Trandafir, Abstract, par. 0020).
Leismer further discloses and wherein the oscillating mechanism dynamically changes an amplitude of the oscillation based on the feedback from the one or more sensors (col. 8, line 59-63, “an attached sensor 100… as to provide for feedback control of amplitude”) the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust the frequency of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the amplitude according to equation 1 (See reasoning above).
Leismer is silent on the one or more compliant components comprise a pad, the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges.
However Howard teaches a medical device (Fig. 1), comprising of one or more compliant components (See Fig. A below, col. 2 line 34-37, the compliant component is movable around 14), wherein the one or more compliant components comprise a pad (See Fig. A below, force applying platform 12), the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges (See Fig. A, a curved indentation is defined by platform 12 and element 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the compliant component of Howard, to securely receive the user’s foot and align the leg position of the user as taught by Howard (Howard, col. 2 line 30-33).
Regarding Claim 8, Leismer discloses a medical device (Fig. 1, system 10), the medical device comprising: a pad (Fig. 1, foot support 20) that is shaped to rest against one or more body parts of an individual (col. 2, line 64, “foot support 20 for receiving the patient's feet”); one or more sensors that provide information about the individual (col. 8 line 65, sensor 100; col. 13, line 47-50, “a sensor configured to determine a preload value corresponding to the static loading force applied to the leg of the user”); an oscillating mechanism (Fig. 1, vibration unit 16) that can transmit an oscillating force to the pad as the oscillating mechanism oscillates (col. 3, line 2-4, “The foot support 20 may be adapted to conduct vibrations from the vibration unit 16 to the patient 11”); and wherein the oscillating mechanism can automatically adjust a frequency of oscillation (col. 7, line 41-44, “monitor and control… to provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated, monitor and control the motor 78 to establish or vary a frequency of vibration”; the process is done by a controller, rendering the process automated).
Leismer is silent on the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges.
However Howard teaches a medical device (Fig. 1), comprising of one or more compliant components (See Fig. A below, col. 2 line 34-37, the compliant component is movable around 14), wherein the one or more compliant components comprise a pad (See Fig. A below, force applying platform 12), the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges (See Fig. A, a curved indentation is defined by platform 12 and element 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the compliant component of Howard, to securely receive the user’s foot and align the leg position of the user as taught by Howard (Howard, col. 2 line 30-33).
Alternatively, if Leismer is considered not to disclose the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust an amplitude of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the frequency according to equation 1: V = (F)α (A) β (M)γ, wherein V is a variable determined for the individual, F is the frequency of oscillation, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, M is a mass of the individual, and α, β, and γ are constant exponents;
Trandafir teaches a medical device for providing oscillating force to a body (Abstract), comprising of a circuitry that determines the user’s mass, and adjusting parameters including amplitude and frequency dynamically using feedback control (par. 0020). Although Trandafir does not specifically recite the claimed equation, it teaches all variables of the claimed equation: mass (M), amplitude (A), frequency (F) are adjusted to achieve a target treatment outcome (V). Therefore, Trandafir teaches the claimed functional relationship, which is having the patient outcome dependent on mass, amplitude, and frequency, and automatically adjust the parameters. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the teaching of Trandafir, to deliver desired therapeutic outcome as taught by Trandafir (Trandafir, Abstract, par. 0020).
Leismer further discloses and wherein the oscillating mechanism dynamically changes an amplitude of the oscillation based on the feedback from the one or more sensors (col. 8, line 59-63, “an attached sensor 100… as to provide for feedback control of amplitude”) the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust the frequency of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the amplitude according to equation 1 (See reasoning above).
Regarding Claim 15, Leismer discloses a method of providing reciprocating movement to an individual (col. 2, line 52-53, “a system 10 provides vibration through the legs of a supine patient 11”), the method comprising: oscillating, by an oscillating mechanism (Fig. 1, vibration unit 16), a pad that is in contact with a body part of an individual (col. 2, line 64, “foot support 20 for receiving the patient's feet”); wherein the oscillating mechanism can dynamically change a frequency of the oscillating based on feedback from one or more sensors embedded in a device (col. 7, line 41-44, “monitor and control… to provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated, monitor and control the motor 78 to establish or vary a frequency of vibration”), which provide information about the individual (col. 7, line 41-44, “provide the preloading force to the tissues of the patient 11 being treated”); wherein the oscillating mechanism can dynamically change an amplitude of the oscillating based on the feedback (col. 8, line 59-63, “the vibrating arm 21 may have an attached sensor 100… to provide for feedback control of amplitude”); and wherein the pad is configured to allow the body part a limited movement in a direction that deviates from a direction of the oscillating (Examiner Notes: See Fig. 5, col. 4, line 62-67, in the prior art, the lever is rotatably attached to the foot support and the vibration unit for balance, allowing the user to rotate the foot around the ankle and therefore, deviate from the oscillation).
Leismer is silent on the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges.
However Howard teaches a medical device (Fig. 1), comprising of one or more compliant components (See Fig. A below, col. 2 line 34-37, the compliant component is movable around 14), wherein the one or more compliant components comprise a pad (See Fig. A below, force applying platform 12), the pad comprising a curved indentation between a pair of ridges (See Fig. A, a curved indentation is defined by platform 12 and element 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the compliant component of Howard, to securely receive the user’s foot and align the leg position of the user as taught by Howard (Howard, col. 2 line 30-33).
Alternatively, if Leismer is considered not to disclose the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust an amplitude of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the frequency according to equation 1: V = (F)α (A) β (M)γ, wherein V is a variable determined for the individual, F is the frequency of oscillation, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, M is a mass of the individual, and α, β, and γ are constant exponents;
Trandafir teaches a medical device for providing oscillating force to a body (Abstract), comprising of a circuitry that determines the user’s mass, and adjusting parameters including amplitude and frequency dynamically using feedback control (par. 0020). Although Trandafir does not specifically recite the claimed equation, it teaches all variables of the claimed equation: mass (M), amplitude (A), frequency (F) are adjusted to achieve a target treatment outcome (V). Therefore, Trandafir teaches the claimed functional relationship, which is having the patient outcome dependent on mass, amplitude, and frequency, and automatically adjust the parameters. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer, with the teaching of Trandafir, to deliver desired therapeutic outcome as taught by Trandafir (Trandafir, Abstract, par. 0020).
Leismer further discloses and wherein the oscillating mechanism dynamically changes an amplitude of the oscillation based on the feedback from the one or more sensors (col. 8, line 59-63, “an attached sensor 100… as to provide for feedback control of amplitude”) the oscillating mechanism configured to automatically adjust the frequency of oscillation based on the dynamic change in the amplitude according to equation 1 (See reasoning above).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, further in view of Johnson et al. (US6620117), hereafter Johnson.
Regarding to Claim 2, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 1, wherein the one or more compliant components (Leismer Fig. 5, lever 50, pivot points 62) are configured to allow the one or more body parts to deviate from a motion of oscillation (Leismer col. 4, line 62-67, lever 50 and pivot points 62 allow the feet to rotate about ankles).
The modified Leismer is silent on the one or more compliant components are configured to allow the one or more body parts to deviate in a direction that is perpendicular to the movement of oscillation.
However, Johnson teaches a vibration therapy apparatus (Abstract, device 80 in Fig. 6B) comprising of a holder to support user’s feet (col. 11, line 12-13, “the user's foot is maintained on the platform 14”), an oscillation mechanism (Fig. 6B, eccentric cam-drive devices 88), and compliant components (Fig. 6B, rod 84) that are configured to allow the one or more body parts to deviate from a motion of oscillation in a direction that is perpendicular to the movement of oscillation (col. 4 line 65-col. 9 line 9, “The platform 14 is supported by rods 84… can also accommodate horizontal motion without any vertical motion, and vice versa.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the compliant components of the known medical device of Leismer, with the compliant components of Johnson, to permit horizontal motion for alleviating joint pain as taught by Johnson (col. 2, line 60-65).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 2, wherein at least one of the one or more compliant components comprise one or more rods (Johnson, Fig. 6B, rod 84) that connect the holder to the oscillating mechanism (See Johnson, Fig. 6B; the rods connects the platform 14 to the eccentric drive 88); and wherein the one or more rods are flexible (Johnson, col. 8, line 67-68, “rods 84 having elastic memory and that are flexible”)
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 12, but is silent on further comprising one or more compliant rods that connect a holder to the oscillating mechanism; and wherein the one or more compliant rods are configured to allow the feet to deviate from a movement of oscillation.
However, Johnson teaches a vibration therapy apparatus (Abstract, device 80 in Fig. 6B) comprising of a holder to support user’s feet (col. 11, line 12-13, “the user's foot is maintained on the platform 14”), an oscillation mechanism (Fig. 6B, eccentric cam-drive devices 88), and further comprising one or more compliant rods (Fig. 6B, rod 84) that connect a holder (Fig. 6B, platform 14) to the oscillating mechanism (See Fig. 6B); and wherein the one or more compliant rods are configured to allow the feet to deviate from a movement of oscillation (col. 4 line 65-col. 9 line 9, “The platform 14 is supported by rods 84… can also accommodate horizontal motion without any vertical motion, and vice versa.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the compliant components of the known medical device of Leismer, with the compliant components of Johnson, to permit horizontal motion for alleviating joint pain as taught by Johnson (col. 2, line 60-65).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, further in view of S. Oh and S. Choi, "Effects of Contact Force and Vibration Frequency on Vibrotactile Sensitivity During Active Touch," in IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 645-651, 1 Oct.-Dec. 2019, hereafter Choi.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 4, wherein the feedback from the one or more sensors is a force of a contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism (Leismer col. 8, line 65-67, “The sensor 100 may be used by the control unit 80 to determine the value of the preload being applied to the patient 11”) (Examiner Notes: The “preload” of prior art is the compression force from the oscillating mechanism to the patient’s leg, which is the same as the force of contact, see Leismer col. 6 line 41-45); and wherein at least one of the one or more compliant components comprises a heel holder that is shaped to apply pressure to a heel of one or two feet and allow the one or two feet to freely rotate about ankles of the one or two feet (See Fig. A, the compliant component has a heel holder that supports the user’s heel; Leismer col. 4, line 62-67, lever 50 and pivot points 62 allow the feet to rotate about ankles), but is silent on wherein the oscillating mechanism is configured to adjust the frequency of oscillation to the optimal frequency of the individual by minimizing the force of the contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism.
However, Choi teaches that transmission of a vibratory stimulus into the skin is affected by the contact force (pg. 649, IV. Discussion Section B). And minimizing the force of the contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism will lead to a lower mechanical impedance and requires less vibrotactile stimulus (pg. 649, “Greater contact force generally encountered higher mechanical impedance… a stronger vibrotactile stimulus is required to achieve the same indentation on the skin”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer with the teaching of Choi, and use the sensor feedback to adjust the frequency of oscillation to the optimal frequency of the individual by minimizing the force of the contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism for less mechanical impedance and higher sensitivity of the stimulus as taught by Choi (Choi, pg. 649, IV. Discussion Section B).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, further in view of Epureanu et al. (US20180243153), hereafter Epureanu.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 4, but is silent on wherein the feedback comprises one or more physiological measurements of the individual from one or more medical sensors.
However, Epureanu teaches a vibration therapy device (Fig. 4, vibration therapy system 400), comprising of an oscillation mechanism (Fig. 4, actuators 410), and one or more physiological measurements of the individual from one or more medical sensors (par. 0030, “Sensors may be integrated into the harness arrangement or placed on the subject to measure physiological or mechanical responses in the subject to the vibration therapy”). And adjust the oscillation of the oscillation mechanism based on the feedbacks from the sensors (par. 0031, “automatically control the actuators based on the signal from the sensors. For instance, the controller may adjust the frequency and/or amplitude of vibrations generated by the actuators.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known medical device of Leismer, with the medical sensors of Epureanu, for feedback control and precise tuning of the oscillation (Epureanu, par. 0030).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, in view of Johnson, in view of Pogue (US4282865), hereafter Pogue, further in view of Epureanu.
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 13, but is silent on wherein the oscillating mechanism is a linear actuator; further comprising a force feedback sensor on the linear actuator; and further comprising one or more medical sensors that measure a physiological response in the individual.
However, Progue teaches an oscillation apparatus (Fig. 1, exercising apparatus 10), comprising of a foot support (Fig. 1, foot rest 103), and an oscillating mechanism (Fig. 3, hydraulic ram 50), wherein the oscillating mechanism is a linear actuator (col. 2, line 57-col. 3 line 9, See Fig. 1 and 2; the oscillation extends and retracts in a linear manner). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Johnson by replacing the oscillation mechanism with the linear actuator of Progue, since both results in a linear oscillation (See Leismer col. 9, line 38-44, “rotation of the eccentric wheel 71… is translated into a substantially linear reciprocating movement of the foot support 20”). This modification is within the predictable use of the prior art and does not produce an unexpected result, see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398 (2007). The modification would be a simple substitution.
The modified Leismer further discloses the oscillation mechanism further comprising a force feedback sensor on the linear actuator (Leismer, col. 8 line 59-67, sensor 100, “the vibrating arm 21 may have an attached sensor 100… to determine the value of the preload being applied to the patient 11”) (Examiner Notes: The sensor of the prior art would still attach to the oscillation mechanism after the modification).
The modified Leismer is still silent on further comprising one or more medical sensors that measure a physiological response in the individual.
However, Epureanu teaches a vibration therapy device (Fig. 4, vibration therapy system 400), comprising of an oscillation mechanism (Fig. 4, actuators 410), and one or more medical sensors that measure a physiological response in the individual (par. 0030, “Sensors may be integrated into the harness arrangement or placed on the subject to measure physiological or mechanical responses in the subject to the vibration therapy”). And adjust the oscillation of the oscillation mechanism based on the feedbacks from the sensors (par. 0031, “automatically control the actuators based on the signal from the sensors. For instance, the controller may adjust the frequency and/or amplitude of vibrations generated by the actuators.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known medical device of Leismer, with the medical sensors of Epureanu, for feedback control and precise tuning of the oscillation (Epureanu, par. 0030).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, in view of Epureanu, further in view of Choi.
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Leismer discloses the method of claim 19: wherein the feedback further comprises a force of a contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism (Leismer col. 8, line 65-67, “The sensor 100 may be used by the control unit 80 to determine the value of the preload being applied to the patient 11”) (Examiner Notes: The “preload” of prior art is the compression force from the oscillating mechanism to the patient’s leg, which is the same as the force of contact, see Leismer col. 6 line 41-45); but is silent on wherein the oscillating mechanism is configured to adjust the frequency of the oscillating to a natural frequency of the individual by minimizing the force of the contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism.
However, Choi teaches that transmission of a vibratory stimulus into the skin is affected by the contact force (pg. 649, IV. Discussion Section B). And minimizing the force of the contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism will lead to a lower mechanical impedance and requires less vibrotactile stimulus (pg. 649, “Greater contact force generally encountered higher mechanical impedance… a stronger vibrotactile stimulus is required to achieve the same indentation on the skin”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Leismer with the teaching of Choi, and use the sensor feedback to adjust the frequency of the oscillating to a natural frequency of the individual by minimizing the force of the contact between the individual and the oscillating mechanism (Examiner Notes: The natural frequency is interpreted as the frequency with minimized force of contact, wherein Leismer already discloses adjusting the frequency based on the force of contact, see Leismer col. 7, line 41-44) for less mechanical impedance and higher sensitivity of the stimulus as taught by Choi (Choi, pg. 649, IV. Discussion Section B).
The modified Leismer further discloses wherein the oscillating mechanism is further configured to further adjust the frequency of oscillation from the natural frequency to the optimal frequency based on the one or more physiological measurements (Examiner Notes: Leismer teaches adjusting the frequency based on feedbacks, see rejection for claim 18; It would have been obvious that the modified Leismer would include the physiological sensors of Epureanu into the feedback control); and wherein a holder is shaped to apply pressure to the heels of the one or two feet (Leismer Fig. 5, back surface of foot platform 20a, 20b; col. 3, line 11-14, “The foot support 20 may further include a horizontal shelf extending from a lower edge of the vertical portions providing a support for the patient's heel from below”) and allow the one or two feet to freely rotate about ankles of the one or two feet (Leismer col. 4, line 62-67, lever 50 and pivot points 62 allow the feet to rotate about ankles).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, further in view of D’Alesio (WO2017130112), hereafter D’Alesio.
Regarding Claim 22, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera; and wherein the feedback comprises one or more camera images.
However, D’Alesio teaches a device for providing oscillation to a person (Fig. 1, Abstract), comprising of one or more sensors that provide information about the individual (pg. 4, “the movable platform can comprise sensor means operatively connected to the control unit. These sensors are configured to measure one or more parameters concerning the person performing the exercise or the sporting equipment, or both. The control unit is configured to receive the measurement of the aforesaid parameters and to program accordingly, also in real time, the sequence of motor interferences to impart to the person”), wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera (pg. 4, “Said sensor means can therefore comprise… video cameras”); and wherein the feedback comprises one or more camera images (pg. 12, a camera inherently takes images, the cameras detect the position of the user as the feedback). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Leismer, with the camera sensor of D’Alesio, to detect the position of the user as adjust oscillation accordingly as taught by D’Alesio (D’Alesio, pg. 4, 12).
Claim(s) 21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, further in view of Yun (WO2009072679), hereafter Yun.
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 1, wherein the curved indentation comprises: a curved heel portion configured support a heel of a foot against gravity (See Fig. A, Howard Fig. 1, 2, a curved heel portion is shown as part of element 10 to support a foot against gravity); and a midfoot support portion configured to transmit the oscillating force to the individual (Fig. A, Howard Fig. 1, 2, a midfoot support portion is defined by the pad).
The modified Leismer is silent on the curved indentation is a continuous concave surface.
However, Yun teaches a device for providing oscillatory motion to a foot of a user (Abstract), comprising of a compliant component (Fig. 1, foot support unit 42), that comprises a pad (Fig. 1, foot mounting groove 422). The pad has a curved indention which is a continuous concave surface (See Fig. 1 and 2, element 422 has a groove that is a continuous concave surface). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Leismer, with the compliant component of Yun, for supporting the foot during oscillation as taught by Yun (Yun par. 25). Furthermore, Howard already teaches a curved indention, the shape of the indention is merely a design choice, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the prior art with the shape of the indention of Yun, as there is a lack of evidence that the claimed shape is significant, See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 23, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 21, wherein the pair of ridges extend laterally away from the continuous concave surface (See Fig. 1 and 2 of Yun, a pair of ridges extend laterally away from the concave surface of 422).
Regarding Claim 24, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 21, wherein the pad does not extend forward of the midfoot support toward a forefoot of the foot (See Yun Fig. 1, par. 26, the support is shaped to conform only the heel of the user and does not extend toward a forefoot).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer in view of Howard, further in view of Wilhelm (EP1683505, machine translation accessed 4/27/2026 relied upon here), hereafter Wilhelm.
Regarding Claim 25, the modified Leismer discloses the medical device of claim 1, wherein the holder is configured to transmit the oscillating force through the body part to move a body of the individual (Leismer, col. 3, line 2-4, “The foot support 20 may be adapted to conduct vibrations from the vibration unit 16 to the patient 11”), but does not specifically discloses the amplitude of the oscillation is at least about 2.5 cm;
However, Wilhelm teaches a device outputting oscillation to a person (par. 0001), wherein the amplitude of the oscillation is 0.1 to 4 cm (par. 0041, “Preferably, the amplitude is variable in the range of 1 mm to about 40 mm”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amplitude of Leismer to at least 2.5 cm, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (par. 0022 of applicant’s specification, “In various embodiments, the range of motion may be larger than 2.5 cm.”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argued that the prior art does not disclose equation 1 claimed by the amended claims. However, there is no specific controller or structure claimed that performs the determination of amplitude and frequency based on equation 1. Leismer is capable of independently adjust amplitude and frequency, therefore, it is capable of making adjustments based on the variable in the equation. Alternatively, Trandafir teaches controlling an amplitude and frequency based on the variable included in equation 1.
The prior arts fails to teach amended claims 21, 23-25. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yun and Wilhelm. Specifically, Yun teaches a compliant component with the claimed shape. Wilhelm teaches a range of amplitude of oscillation that the claimed range lies within.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. 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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights