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 amendments filed 18th August 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-24 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) that was previously applied in the office action dated 7th May 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the methods of amended claims 1-18 amount to significantly more by explicitly pertaining to the use of a dynamo torque analyzer to analyze an isometric contraction of a subject, citing the inclusion of structures such as a microcomputer with a CPU and memory; an s-type load cell with at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer; and a display in communication with the microcomputer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument, the cited structures are additional elements which are generically recited in the claims, there is no reasoning as to how the inclusion of the additional elements achieves significantly more than merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer. As currently written, the structure within the claims are generically recited, and do not provide significantly more than implementation of an abstract idea of data gathering, data manipulation/analysis, and display/outputting data.
Applicant argues that the methods of amended claims 1-18 provide improvements to the technical field of torque analysis, by the inclusion of an S-type load cell which include two mounting points on opposite sides of a torque analyzer enable the attainment of more reliable isometric torque data by preventing discomfort to a subject during isometric testing. Applicant cites Para. 30-31, 58, and Fig. 3 of the disclosure to support this argument.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that amended Claims 1-18 provide improvements to the technical field of torque analysis. The inclusion of an S-type load cell which includes two mounting points in the amended claims does not show the supposed improvement to the technical field of torque analysis or any computer. The claims must show the purported improvement to offer significantly more than mere implementation of an abstract idea.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Orfield (Previously referred to as ShapeLog) renders the recited limitation ‘wherein the load cell is an S-type Load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer’ obvious. Para. [0031] of Orfield teaches an “S type” load cell as the force sensor, and Fig. 7B shows the force sensor 114 having 4 mounting points, 2 on each side, attaching to the base 102 via screws. Orfield thus also renders Claim 22 obvious for teaching the mounting points comprising threaded bores via the screws. Orfield further renders Claim 24 obvious for teaching a battery coupled to a power supply. The rejections below have been updated to reflect the amended Claims.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-24 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 1 and 19 the claims recite “the dynamic torque analyzer”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 2-18 & 20-24 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-18 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-18 recites at least one step or instruction for measuring, collecting data, calculating using collected data, processing data, , which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG, or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-18 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites “a method of analyzing an isometric contraction of a subject using a dynamo torque analyzer, the method comprising: measuring in rea-time, via the dynamo torque analyzer, a force produced by the subject during the isometric contraction; collecting, via the dynamo torque analyzer, real-time data associated with the force produced by the subject during an isometric contraction; and calculating, via the dynamo torque analyzer, a torque value using the data; and displaying the torque value in real-time, wherein the dynamo torque analyzer comprises: a microcomputer comprising a CPU and memory; and a load cell in communication with the microcomputer, wherein the load cell is an S-type load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer; and a display in communication with the microcomputer”
The underlined portions of which resemble mental processes (e.g., (observation, measuring, and interpreting data, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) and mathematical concepts (e.g., calculating using gathered data as in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Further, dependent Claims 2-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Specifically, Claim 2 recites “after the collecting, processing, via the dynamo torque analyzer, the data associated with the isometric contraction”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the processing comprises processing the data associated with the isometric contraction with a dual-pass Butterworth filter.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein a cutoff frequency ranging between 5 Hz and 200 Hz is used.”
Claim 5 recites “wherein the processing comprises converting a voltage output from the load cell to newtons.”
Claim 6 recites “wherein a set of calibration parameters includes a slope (in) and intercept (b) value that is used to calibrate the dynamo torque analyzer.”
Claim 7 recites “wherein the processing comprises using a limb length of the subject to convert newtons to newton-meters.”
Claim 8 recites “wherein the processing comprises correcting the data for gravity.”
Claim 9 recites “wherein the processing comprises interpolating the data to 1,000 Hz.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein the torque value is a peak torque in real-time.”
Claim 11 recites “wherein the torque value comprises a rate of torque development (RTD) in real-time.”
Claim 12 recites “wherein RTD is calculated as a linear slope of a torque signal of the data at a time interval of 0-100ms.”
Claim 13 recites “wherein the RTD is calculated as a linear slope of a torque signal of the data at a time interval of 0-200ms.”
Claim 14 recites “wherein the RTD is calculated as the highest slope value for any 100 ms epoch that occurs over an initial 200 ms of a torque signal of the data.”
Claim 15 recites “further comprising performing, by the dynamo torque analyzer, a baseline check to determine if a countermovement occurred.”
Claim 16 recites “wherein, responsive to a determination by the dynamo torque analyzer that a countermovement has occurred, providing an indication that a new trial needs to be performed.”
Claim 17 recites “further comprising setting, by the dynamo torque analyzer, a contraction onset to determine a start of the isometric contraction.”
Claim 18 recites “wherein the calculating uses a limb length of the subject.”
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 2-18) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: dynamo torque analyzer, microcomputer, CPU, memory, load cell, etc. as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., dynamo torque analyzer, microcomputer, CPU, memory, load cell, etc. as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-18 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: dynamo torque analyzer, microcomputer, CPU, memory, load cell, etc. as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, ”Microcomputer
102 may be any of various types of computing devices” Para. [00029];”computer comprising a CPU and memory capable of executing instructions” Para. [00029]; “Various types of load cells may be used, such as an S-type load cell” Para. [00030]; “The dynamo torque analyzer includes a microcomputer comprising a CPU and memory, and a load cell coupled to the microcomputer.” Para. [00010].
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “dynamo torque analyzer”, “microcromputer”, and “CPU” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the dynamo torque analyzer. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-18 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of Claims 1-18 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-18 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claim 1 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-18 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-18 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0196262 A1 to McLeod et al. (hereinafter, Mcleod) in view of US 2013/0310979 A1 to Herr et al. (hereinafter, Herr) in further view of US 2018/0345080 A1 to Orfield et al. (hereinafter, Orfield).
Regarding Claim 1, McLeod discloses a method of analyzing an isometric contraction of a subject using a dynamo torque analyzer (Abstract), the method comprising:
Measuring in real-time, via the dynamo torque analyzer, a force produced by the subject during the isometric contraction ((McLeod: real-time assessment of absolute muscle force so as to 1) provide a measure of absolute muscle effort over the full range of voluntary contraction levels;) Para. [0256]);(( McLeod: gathering joint kinematics data in combination with load or torque measurements.) Para. [0220]);
collecting, via the dynamo torque analyzer, real-time data associated with the force produced by the subject during an isometric contraction ((McLeod: Force data acquired using a static analysis (isometric) technique with 1 second data segments.) Para. [0202]); ((McLeod: real-time assessment of absolute muscle force so as to 1) provide a measure of absolute muscle effort over the full range of voluntary contraction levels;) Para. [0256]); and
calculating, via the dynamo torque analyzer, a torque value using the data ((McLeod: torque, measured with a dynamometer tends to provide more accurate measurements, but muscle effort may be measured under some circumstances simply by causing a muscle to lift a weight or "load" (so-called "free weights").) Para. [0176]); and
displaying the torque value in real-time ((McLeod: real-time assessment of absolute muscle force so as to 1) provide a measure of absolute muscle effort over the full range of voluntary contraction levels;) Para. [0256]); (( McLeod: gathering joint kinematics data in combination with load or torque measurements.) Para. [0220]); ((McLeod: digital computer where analysis of the data is completed and results displayed) Para. [0095]); ((McLeod: real-time analysis that is within the capability of present-day portable computers is needed so that an evaluation of muscle activity can be made during the functional activity to provide timely coaching or biofeedback.) Para. [0203])
wherein the dynamo torque analyzer comprises: a microcomputer comprising a CPU ((McLeod: A computer (565) programmed to perform steps 240, 245, 250 and 255 as outlined in FIG. 22. The computer may be physically present or remotely situated. Preferably, however, feedback from the computations is available in real-time.) Para. [0233]) and
memory ((McLeod: a software program for performing steps 240, 245, 250, and 255 as outlined in FIG. 22, wherein said program is embodied in a machine-readable medium.) Para [0081]); and
a display in communication with the microcomputer ((McLeod: digital computer where analysis of the data is completed and results displayed) Para. [0095]);
Mcleod does not explicitly disclose a load cell in communication with the microcomputer, wherein the load cell is an S-type Load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer.
However, Herr discloses wherein the dynamo torque analyzer comprises: a load cell in communication with the microcomputer ((Herr: muscle-tendon units were modeled as unidirectional force sources, acting only in tension and never in compression) Para. [0090]);((Herr: system employs input from both mechanical sensors on the ankle…let the user modulate the gain of commanded ankle torque upon push off during level ground walking and stair ascent) Para. [0261]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method of McLeod by including wherein the dynamo torque analyzer comprises: a load cell in communication with the microcomputer as taught by Herr because it more efficiently computes appropriate joint dynamics ((Herr: sensory information is passed to a neuromuscular model of human locomotion, which computes appropriate joint dynamics for the device to provide to the user.) Para. [0047]).
McLeod in view of Herr does not disclose wherein the load cell is an S-type Load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer.
However, Orfield teaches wherein the load cell is an S-type Load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer ((Orfield: The example shown here features an “S type” load cell as the force sensor) Para. [0031]; Note: Fig. 7B shows the force sensor 114 having 4 mounting points, 2 on each side, attaching to the base 102 via screws.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the dynamo torque analyzer of McLeod in view of Herr by substituting for the S-type load cell as taught by Orfield because it can more efficiently detect the weight lifted-or force exerted-by the user ((can detect the weight lifted—or force exerted—by the user) Para. [0018]).
Regarding Claim 2, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. McLeod further discloses further comprising, after the collecting, processing, via the dynamo torque analyzer, the data associated with the isometric contraction ((McLeod: processing of the digitized data) Para. [0261]);((McLeod: maximum voluntary contraction levels (MVC) …data) Para. [0277]).
Regarding Claim 3, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 2. Herr further discloses wherein the processing comprises processing the data associated with the isometric contraction with a dual-pass Butterworth filter ((Herr: Butterworth digital filter to reduce or remove DC drift and motion artifacts) Para. [0281] (Herr)).
Regarding Claim 4, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 3. McLeod further discloses wherein a cutoff frequency ranging between 5 Hz and 200 Hz is used ((cut-off frequency in the 25-50 Hz range, and a most preferred cutoff frequency near 30 Hz.) Para. [0211]).
Regarding Claim 5, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 2. McLeod further discloses wherein the processing comprises converting a voltage output from the load cell to newtons ((converting the signal to another form of energy (typically an electric current or voltage) to create an "output" signal.) Para. [0133]); ((calibrate the output of wavelet packet analysis into units of force) Para. [0164]).
Regarding Claim 6, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 5. Mcleod further discloses wherein a set of calibration parameters includes a slope (m) and intercept (b) value that is used to calibrate the dynamo torque analyzer ((slope and intercept parameters…the contribution from each variable can then easily be weighted) Para. [0272]).
Regarding Claim 7, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 2. McLeod further discloses wherein the processing comprises using a limb length of the subject to convert newtons to newton-meters ((ratio of the length of the arm (elbow to wrist) to the distance from the elbow to biceps insertion point on the forearm, an accurate estimate of muscle effort results.) Para. [0096]);((muscle force relations are acquired… by gathering joint kinematics data in combination with load or torque measurements…expressed in terms of an effort in units of force (e.g., pounds-force).) Para. [0220] in conjunction with Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 8, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 2. Herr further discloses wherein the processing comprises correcting the data for gravity ((sum of the gravitational potential energy and the kinetic energy) Para. [0108]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the processing methods of McLeod to further comprise correcting the data for gravity as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 9, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 2. Herr further discloses wherein the processing comprises interpolating the data to 1,000 Hz ((signal was sampled at 1.5kHz and then downsampled to 500Hz) Para. [0290]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the processing methods of McLeod to further comprise interpolating the data as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 10, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. McLeod further discloses wherein the torque value comprises a peak torque in real-time ((McLeod: the time needed to develop those forces, the measure of which is preferably expressed in units of time to peak force) Para. [0163]); ((McLeod: real-time assessment of absolute muscle force so as to 1) provide a measure of absolute muscle effort over the full range of voluntary contraction levels;) Para. [0256]); (( McLeod: gathering joint kinematics data in combination with load or torque measurements.) Para. [0220]); ((McLeod: real-time analysis that is within the capability of present-day portable computers is needed so that an evaluation of muscle activity can be made during the functional activity to provide timely coaching or biofeedback.) Para. [0203]).
Regarding Claim 11, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1.
McLeod further discloses real-time gathering, analysis and display of data ((McLeod: real-time assessment of absolute muscle force so as to 1) provide a measure of absolute muscle effort over the full range of voluntary contraction levels;) Para. [0256]); (( McLeod: gathering joint kinematics data in combination with load or torque measurements.) Para. [0220]); ((McLeod: real-time analysis that is within the capability of present-day portable computers is needed so that an evaluation of muscle activity can be made during the functional activity to provide timely coaching or biofeedback.) Para. [0203])..
McLeod does not explicitly disclose wherein the torque value comprises a rate of torque development (RTD).
Herr further discloses wherein the torque value comprises a rate of torque development (RTD) ((Herr: velocity term represents negative feedback controlling the rate of muscle contraction) Para. [0217]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the torque value of McLeod to be a rate of torque development as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 12, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 11. Herr further discloses wherein the RTD is calculated as a linear slope of a torque signal of the data at a time interval of 0-100ms ((Herr: reflex parameter fit was seen to converge within tolerance, with the objective function having a negligible slope/curvature ratio for each parameter) Para. [0209]); ((Herr: model walking speed falls within the range from 1.2 msec to 1.35 msec) Para. [0110]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the torque value of McLeod to be an RTD calculated as a linear slope of a torque signal of the data at a time interval of 0-100ms as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 13, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 11. Herr further discloses wherein the RTD is calculated as a linear slope of a torque signal of the data at a time interval of 0-200ms ((Herr: reflex parameter fit was seen to converge within tolerance, with the objective function having a negligible slope/curvature ratio for each parameter) Para. [0209]);(( Herr: model walking speed falls within the range from 1.2 msec to 1.35 msec) Para. [0110]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the torque value of McLeod to be an RTD calculated as a linear slope of a torque signal of the data at a time interval of 0-200ms as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 14, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 11. Herr further discloses wherein the RTD is calculated as the highest slope value for any 100 ms epoch that occurs over an initial 200 ms of a torque signal of the data ((Elastic energy storage is maximized around 45 percent and 95 percent of the gait cycle, while kinetic/potential energy is maximized at 28 percent and 78 percent…peaks are phase shifted) Para. [0121]);((moving average with a 200 ms time window) Para. [0280]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the torque value of McLeod to be an RTD calculated as the highest slope value for any 100ms epoch that occurs over an initial 200ms of a torque signal of the data as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 15, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. McLeod further discloses further comprising performing, by the dynamo torque analyzer, a baseline check to determine if a countermovement occurred ((The term "functional contraction" refers herein to a contraction that is not controlled) Para. [0165]) ;((contraction…consisting of…functional contractions) Para. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 16, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 15. McLeod further discloses wherein, responsive to a determination by the dynamo torque analyzer that a countermovement has occurred, providing an indication that a new trial needs to be performed ((repeatedly performing one of the fundamental motions) Para. [0250]);((a set of calibration factors may enhance the accuracy, precision and discriminatory power of the methods.) Para. [0221]).
Regarding Claim 17, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Herr further discloses further comprising setting, by the dynamo torque analyzer, a contraction onset to determine a start of the isometric contraction ((feedback data of…muscle contractile velocity) Para. [0056]);((once a muscle starts to contract) Para. [0085]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the processing methods of McLeod to further comprise setting a contraction onset to determine a start of the isometric contraction as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 18, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Herr further discloses wherein the calculating uses a limb length of the subject ((participant…leg length) Para. [0089]; Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the processing methods of McLeod to further comprise using a limb length in calculations as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 19, McLeod discloses a dynamo torque analyzer (Abstract) comprising: a display in communication with the microcomputer ((digital computer where analysis of the data is completed and results displayed) Para. [0095]); a power supply coupled to the microcomputer ((data were collected using a…capacitive accelerometer…pre-amplified by a K-Beam 5210 power supply) Para. [0261]).
McLeod does not disclose wherein the dynamo torque analyzer comprises: a microcomputer comprising a CPU and memory; and a load cell in communication with the microcomputer, wherein the load cell is an S-type Load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer.
However, Herr teaches wherein the dynamo torque analyzer comprises: a microcomputer comprising a CPU and memory ((algorithmic procedures of a single global algorithm or computer code run by a single processor or a plurality of processors) Para. [0055]);
a load cell in communication with the microcomputer ((muscle-tendon units were modeled as unidirectional forces sources, acting only in tension and never in compassion) Para. [0090]); ((system employs input from both mechanical sensors on the ankle… lets the user modulate the gain of commanded ankle torque upon push off during level ground walking and stair ascent) Para. [0261])
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the dynamo torque analyzer of McLeod to further comprise a microcomputer comprising a CPU and memory; a load cell in communication with the microcomputer as taught by Herr because it more efficiently computes appropriate joint dynamics ((sensory information is passed to a neuromuscular model of human locomotion, which computes appropriate joint dynamics for the device to provide to the user.) Para. [0047])
McLeod in view of Herr does not disclose wherein the load cell is an S-type Load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer.
However, Orfield teaches wherein the load cell is an S-type Load cell comprising at least two mounting points on opposite sides of the dynamic torque analyzer ((Orfield: The example shown here features an “S type” load cell as the force sensor) Para. [0031]; Note: Fig. 7B shows the force sensor 114 having 4 mounting points, 2 on each side, attaching to the base 102 via screws.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the dynamo torque analyzer of McLeod in view of Herr by substituting for the S-type load cell as taught by Orfield because it can more efficiently detect the weight lifted-or force exerted-by the user ((Orfield: can detect the weight lifted—or force exerted—by the user) Para. [0018]).
Regarding Claim 20, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 19. Herr further discloses wherein the load cell comprises first and second mounting points ((extrinsic sensing refers to all information collected from sensors located externally) Para. [0046]);((sensors may include: digital encoders or hall-effect sensors, torque sensors, and inertial measurement units (IMU’s)) Para. [0048]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the dynamo torque analyzer of McLeod to further comprise the load cell comprising first and second mounting points as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131).
Regarding Claim 21, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 20.
McLeod further discloses further comprising an ankle cuff, pad, or boot attached to the first mounting point ((sensor may be affixed to the wrap or embedded therein) Para. [0209]).
Regarding Claim 22, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 19. Neither McLeod nor Herr disclose wherein the load cell is an S-type load cell.
However, Orfield teaches wherein the S-type load cell mounting points comprise at least one of threaded bores, hooks, loops, latches, or combinations thereof ((Orfield: The example shown here features an “S type” load cell as the force sensor) Para. [0031]; Note: Fig. 7B shows the force sensor 114 having 4 mounting points, 2 on each side, attaching to the base 102 via screws, a.k.a. requiring threaded bores at the mounting points.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the dynamo torque analyzer of McLeod in view of Herr by substituting for the S-type load cell as taught by Orfield because it can more efficiently detect the weight lifted-or force exerted-by the user ((can detect the weight lifted—or force exerted—by the user) Para. [0018]).
Regarding Claim 23, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 19. Herr further discloses further comprising an amplifier and an analog to digital converter that are coupled between the load cell and the microcomputer ((Output of pre-amplifier is connected to another amplifier with fixed gain of 10. The amplified signal is low pass filtered by a 2nd order low pass filter with cut off at 800 Hz to avoid aliasing. The signal is then passed to a 32 bit ADC and processed digitally by a microcontroller.) Para. [0290]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the dynamo torque analyzer of McLeod to further comprise an amplifier and an analog to digital convertor coupled between the load cell and microcomputer as taught by Herr because Herr teaches that such modifications improve model robustness ((Herr: Such modification can likely improve model robustness) Para. [0131)
Regarding Claim 24, McLeod in view of Herr in view of Orfield discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 19. Neither McLeod nor Herr disclose further comprising a battery coupled to the power supply.
However, Orfield teaches further comprising a battery coupled to the power supply ((solar panel 140 to charge a battery 142… solar panel 140, or photovoltaic cell of some form, could provide the power required to run the device.) Para. [0036]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the dynamo torque analyzer of McLeod by including a battery coupled to the power supply as taught by Orfield because it can more efficiently detect the weight lifted-or force exerted-by the user ((can detect the weight lifted—or force exerted—by the user) Para. [0018])
Conclusion
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 SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm EST..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791