DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the drawings, specification, and claims 57-58, 60, and 65 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/22/2025.
The previous rejections of claims 58 and 65-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/22/2025. However, a new rejection to amended claim 67 has been presented, as discussed in detail below.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancellation of claim 69 (Remarks, filed 10/22/2025).
The previous rejections of claims 56 and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancellation of claims 56 and 69 (Remarks, filed 10/22/2025).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 49-51, 55, 57, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by the amendments to independent claim 49, a new ground(s) of rejection of these claims (and new claim 70) is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harabayashi in view of Chu, as presented in detail below.
Regarding Claims 52 and 60-62, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to combine Harabayashi and Chu because Harabayashi does not discuss balance or falls and because the perturbations of Chu refer to elements of walking/gait and therefore the purpose and method of Chu is too different from that of Harabayashi to allow a person to expect a similar effect in bike training. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, concerning Applicant’s assertion that Harabayashi does not discuss balance or falls, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to column 1, lines 33-47 of the specification, which states the intended purpose of the invention is to train a user’s since of equilibrium and to better simulate a real biking experience which requires a rider “to balance himself.” Secondly, concerning the alleged differences between the systems and methods of Harabayashi and Chu, Examiner interprets both to refer to standard exercise equipment (such as a treadmill or stationary bike) placed atop a moving platform which provides perturbations that ultimately test or train a user’s balance—amongst other physical skills. Therefore, Examiner asserts that combining the specified elements of Chu’s perturbation system with the perturbation system described by Harabayashi would have expected and obvious results. See rejections of claims below for further detail.
Applicant also argues that Chu does not teach the motion control unit automatically stopping the perturbation(s) based on detection by the motion capture unit and returning the platform to a neutral position, as recited in claim 49. Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to figure 9 of Chu. See rejection of claim 49 below.
Concerning the rejections of claims 53-54; 58; 59; 64; 65 and 67-68; and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that independent claim 49, from which these claims depend and further limit, is novel and inventive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that the elements of independent claim 49 are taught by Harabayashi in view of Chu, as explained above. See rejections of claims below.
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.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 67 recites the limitation "the reactive balance response threshold" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret this to refer to responses which maintain the user’s balance and/or does not result in a fall.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 49-52, 55, 57, 60-63, 65, 68, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harabayashi, and further in view of Chu.
Regarding Claim 49, Harabayashi discloses a stationary training bicycle (STB) (fig. 1: stationary bike; abstract);
a moving platform (figs. 9-11: movable support 5; col. 3, lines 15-24);
one or more motors (fig. 19: motor 73; col. 5, lines 23-30: “rotated by reversible motors”);
a central control unit (col. 4, lines 1-6: “possible to automatically control the hydraulic cylinder by a previously determined computer program”);
wherein the moving platform is configured to provide unexpected external perturbation tilts to the STB (figs. 12a-12d; col. 4, lines 58-63: “the movable support 5 to inclined forward, backward and both sides as shown in FIGS. 12a-12d;” Examiner notes the underlined portion will be addressed below), thereby stimulating balance control of a subject situated on the STB (col. 1, lines 51-56: “cycle type athletic equipment which can tilt the seat and the handlebar to any optional angle… for hardening the strength of legs, cultivating the sense of equilibrium and enabling more complicated training;” col. 1, lines 40-47).
Harabayashi implies but does not explicitly disclose that the external perturbation tilts are unexpected, and Harabayashi also does not disclose a motion capture unit or motion control unit. However, Chu discloses a motion capture unit (pars. 0154-0155: “heel strikes can be detected by monitoring motor current… the moment of heel strike 241 and toe-off 242 can be ascertained from monitoring the motor current parameter to identify the detection event;” par. 0097: “The apparatus 10 of the present invention also includes a number of sensors 28 that are attached the individual 14 that is being trained and optionally at various locations on the apparatus 10 itself. For example, inertial sensors 28, which are well known in the art, can be placed on various parts of the body of the individual 14 to sense position and velocity… While sensors 28 are preferred, other ways to measure body location can be used, such as video analysis of body movement”);
a motion control unit (par. 0147: “a microprocessor controlled mechanism for precise control of perturbation displacement, velocity, and acceleration”);
unexpected external perturbation tilts (par. 0035: “The perturbations may be programmed to occur… at a random number of occurrences of such a gait cycle event, Additionally, the perturbations may occur randomly;” par. 0044: “a large disturbance introduced at a random time”); and
the motion control unit is configured to automatically stop the perturbations and return the moving platform to a neutral position once an effective reactive balance response is detected by the motion capture unit (fig. 9: Examiner notes steps 74 and 76 indicate that when an effective reaction occurs—meaning one that maintains balance and prevents a fall—the disturbance events stop, thus stopping perturbations and returning the platform to a neutral position).
Because Harabayashi and Chu both teach exercise equipment atop a moving platform that provides perturbation tilts which is ultimately used to improve a user’s sense of balance—amongst other skills—it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention both to combine the unexpected nature of the tilts of Chu with the system of Harabayashi in order to provide a more dynamic training session for users to better improve their ability to “adapt to unexpected changes in the external environment” (Chu, par. 0006) and to combine the motion control and capture units of Chu with the system of Harabayashi in order to allow the system to respond to specific actions of the user (Chu, fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 50, Harabayashi further discloses the STB comprises a pedal unit and a seat, wherein the relative position of the pedal unit and the seat is adjustable (col. 3, lines 15-21: “a saddle seat 3 is also adjustably attached to the upper end of a seat pillar 4 in a known manner so as to adjust the height of the handlebar 1 and the seat 3, respectively;” col. 6, lines 13-17: “The seat 91 may be constructed to be fixed on a desired position of the movable support 5 by sliding to-and-fro by a conventional sliding mechanism so as to adjust a distance from the rotary pedal 20, such as to be pedaled by legs of a user who sits on the seat 91”).
Regarding Claim 51, Harabayashi further discloses the pedal unit is adjustable in height, resistance, force, tension and/or speed (col. 4, lines 55-7: “a load torque applied to the pedal is changed by a control lever provided in a select lever box 47”); and/or
wherein the seat is adjustable in height and/or angle (col. 3, lines 15-21: “a saddle seat 3 is also adjustably attached to the upper end of a seat pillar 4 in a known manner so as to adjust the height of the handlebar 1 and the seat 3, respectively”).
Regarding Claim 52, Harabayashi modified by Chu further discloses a harness configured to secure the subject during the perturbations (Chu, fig. 1: harness 38; par. 0103: “The apparatus 10, as seen in FIG. 1, also includes a harness system 38 that embraces the individual 14 and is suspended from support bar 48 via tether 50. Support bar 48 is positioned by vertical posts 54. Force transducers 46, mounted in the training harness 38, generate use input signals to determine when an individual 14 has fallen”). The combination of the systems Harabayashi and Chu described above for Claim 49 would have included this harness.
Regarding Claim 55, Harabayashi further discloses a gear mechanism (figs. 18-19: gears 76-77; col. 5, lines 25-30: “The lower portions 2b, 4b are provided at the upper end with pinion 74, 75 which are rotated by reversible motors (one of which is shown by 73), and are meshed with sector gears 76, 77 fixed to the upper portions 2a, 4a so as to tilt the upper portions 2a, 4a by motors”).
Regarding Claim 57, Harabayashi further discloses the external perturbation tilts are selected from: lateral perturbations (left and right tilt perturbations), Antero-posterior perturbations (forward and backward tilt perturbations), Vertical perturbations, Rotational perturbations around a vertical axis, or any combination thereof (figs. 21c-21d: lateral perturbations; figs. 8b, 8d: antero-posterior perturbations).
Regarding Claim 60, Harabayashi modified by Chu further discloses the central control unit (Chu, fig. 1: central control unit 32) comprises a processing unit configured to execute a computer program configured to determine performance of the subject during perturbations and/or determine further perturbations training sessions (Chu, par. 0100: “The apparatus 10 itself preferably includes its own central control unit 32 with the appropriate control algorithm and custom motor control software, which provides bilateral, independent bi-directional real-time biofeedback motor control function. The control algorithm is written as a state machine, and responds according to a lookup-table of inputs to determine the next step.” The Examiner is interpreting that the “next step,” which is determined by the lookup-table, refers to elements of current and future training sessions, such as number and intensity of future perturbations). The combination of the systems Harabayashi and Chu described above for Claim 49 would have included this processing unit function.
Regarding Claim 61, Harabayashi modified by Chu further discloses the determination of the performance of the subject during perturbations is performed in real time (Chu, par. 0100: “central control unit 32 with the appropriate control algorithm and custom motor control software, which provides bilateral, independent bi-directional real-time biofeedback motor control function”), based at least in part on data related to balance reactive response performance of the subject during perturbations (Chu, par. 0157: “Each of these measured or computed variables provides a time history that provides unique information about the loads and timing of loads applied to the motor 208, which in turn are representative of different phases of the gait cycle or other information relating to the gait cycle. Similar measurements and computational analysis for detecting kinematic events can be performed for loads placed on motors during motion of other body joints other than lower extremity joints associated with gait. For example, motion of the trunk or upper extremity and phases of the such motion, such as shoulder kinematics or spinal kinematics, can be detected by the algorithm of the present invention”) and optionally, during the cognitive tasks; and/or
wherein the determination of further perturbations training sessions is based at least in part on data related to the performance of the subject during a previous perturbation session (Chu, par. 0100: “The apparatus 10 itself preferably includes its own central control unit 32 with the appropriate control algorithm and custom motor control software, which provides bilateral, independent bi-directional real-time biofeedback motor control function. The control algorithm is written as a state machine, and responds according to a lookup-table of inputs to determine the next step”). The combination of the systems Harabayashi and Chu described above for Claim 49 would have included the real-time performance determination and/or determination of further perturbation training sessions.
Regarding Claim 62, Harabayashi modified by Chu further discloses the external perturbations are provided in a triangular motion profile for each perturbation (Chu, par. 0044: “Next, the individual starts at an initial steady state locomotion velocity with a large disturbance introduced at a random time. The disturbance causes the platform to accelerate to a prescribed disturbance velocity before returning to a second steady state locomotion velocity;” Examiner notes this is equivalent to the acceleration-deceleration triangular motion profile). The combination of the systems Harabayashi and Chu described above for Claim 49 would have included this triangular motion profile.
Regarding Claim 63, Harabayashi further discloses operating parameters of a training session comprise: type of perturbation (figs. 8a-8p), maximum acceleration/deceleration of a perturbation, maximum velocity of a perturbation, magnitude of a perturbation, angle of perturbation, number of perturbation repetitions, the delay time between the perturbations, relative position between the seat and the pedal unit (col. 3, lines 15-21: “a handlebar 1 is adjustably attached to the upper end of a handlebar post 2 and a saddle seat 3 is also adjustably attached to the upper end of a seat pillar 4 in a known manner so as to adjust the height of the handlebar 1 and the seat 3, respectively”), operating parameters of the pedal unit (col. 4, lines 55-7), or any combination thereof (abstract; col. 1, line 50 – col. 2, line 11: “A relief amount of the hydraulic pressure is regulated by a relief valve provided in a supply line at the discharge side of the pump and a load torque applied to the pedal is changed by a control lever provided in a select lever box 47 within a range of 0-400 kg cm”).
Regarding Claim 65, Harabayashi modified by Chu further discloses providing one or more unexpected external perturbations to a subject using the system of claim 49 (see claim 49);
detecting a reactive balance response of the subject to the external perturbations based on data acquired by the motion capture unit of the system (Chu, par. 0097: “The apparatus 10 of the present invention also includes a number of sensors 28 that are attached the individual 14 that is being trained and optionally at various locations on the apparatus 10 itself. For example, inertial sensors 28, which are well known in the art, can be placed on various parts of the body of the individual 14 to sense position and velocity… While sensors 28 are preferred, other ways to measure body location can be used, such as video analysis of body movement”);
analyzing the detected reactive balance response of the subject (Chu, par. 0032: “In accordance with the present invention, a new apparatus and system is provided that studies and analyzes the biomechanics of a disturbance event, such as a slip or trip incident or other disturbance to a part of the body;” pars. 0099-0100: “The sensors 28 gather data regarding the various parameters that are being monitored. This data is, preferably in real-time, sent to a computer 30 for processing and analysis… The apparatus 10 itself preferably includes its own central control unit 32 with the appropriate control algorithm and custom motor control software, which provides bilateral, independent bi-directional real-time biofeedback motor control function”); and
automatically stopping the perturbations and returning the moving platform to a neutral position by the motion control unit once an effective reactive balance response has been detected by the motion capture unit (Chu, fig. 9: Examiner notes steps 74 and 76 indicate that when an effective reaction occurs—meaning one that maintains balance and prevents a fall—the disturbance events stop, thus stopping perturbations and returning the platform to a neutral position). The combination of the systems Harabayashi and Chu described above for Claim 49 would have included these detecting, analyzing, and stopping steps.
Regarding Claim 68, Harabayashi modified by Chu further discloses the analysis of the detected balance response is performed by a computer program comprising one or more machine learning algorithms (Chu, par. 0159: “Other embodiments of the data algorithm 258 for detecting gait phase events or events related to motion of a body joint incorporate Markov chains, Bayesian statistics, neural networks, or similar approaches that provide sensor fusion and real-time feature extraction”); and/or
wherein the computer program is configured to provide feedback to the subject indicative of the performance of the subject in the reactive balance response (Chu, par. 0164: “Music feedback can be used by the present invention as a behavioral modifier;” par. 0152: “real-time feedback from the components, external cues and specific timing relating to various phases of the gait cycle”) and/or wherein the computer program is further configured to adjust operating parameters of the training session based at least in part on the analyzed reactive balance response (Chu, par. 0100: “The apparatus 10 itself preferably includes its own central control unit 32 with the appropriate control algorithm and custom motor control software, which provides bilateral, independent bi-directional real-time biofeedback motor control function. The control algorithm is written as a state machine, and responds according to a lookup-table of inputs to determine the next step.” The Examiner is interpreting that the “next step,” which is determined by the lookup-table, refers to elements of current and future training sessions, such as number and intensity of future perturbations). The combination of the systems Harabayashi and Chu described above for Claim 49 would have included this analysis and feedback.
Regarding Claim 70, Harabayashi modified by Chu further discloses the subject is in a standing position (Chu, fig. 1; par. 0095: “a disturbance event for a standing perturbation where the individual 14 is standing still”). The combination of the systems Harabayashi and Chu described above for Claim 49 would have included the user being in a standing position.
Claims 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harabayashi in view of Chu as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Bass.
Regarding Claim 53, modified Harabayashi does not disclose a floating state. However, Bass discloses the moving platform is mounted on an axis and is configured to be in a fixed state (figs. 1-3) or a floating state (figs. 4-6), wherein the moving platform is configured to provide intrinsic self-induced perturbations, when the moving platform is in a floating state (par. 0020: “The movable support is movably mounted to the base for movement in a fore-aft direction along a longitudinal axis in response to input pedaling forces applied by the user to the pedals of the cycle device. The movable support is further movably mounted to the base for simultaneous tilting movement of the cycle device about a tilt axis that is coincident with the longitudinal axis”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to better simulate real-life exercising scenarios and better train the subject’s balance (Bass, abstract; pars. 0002-0004).
Regarding Claim 54, Harabayashi modified by Bass discloses that the moving platform can be configured to be in a floating state. See Claim 53 above. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to further modify Harabayashi modified by Bass so that the floating state of the moving platform is configured to be engaged during a time period between external perturbation tilts. The KSR Court recognized that "[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. In this particular case, it is known that there are external perturbation tilts as well as an ability to transition the moving platform into a floating state. In terms of the timing of engaging the floating state, there are two finite options: the floating state is engaged between external perturbation tilts or during external perturbation tilts. Either of these two options would therefore be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to pursue. However, from a mechanical standpoint, it would not make sense to engage a floating state during external perturbation tilts. Therefore, for an apparatus that is known to produce external perturbation tilts and that is able to be configured in a floating state, it is reasonable to conclude that the only rational option is to engage the floating state between these tilts.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harabayashi in view of Chu as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Kurz.
Regarding Claim 58, Harabayashi does not disclose any specific numerical ranges describing the range of motion or number of perturbations. However, Kurz discloses the lateral perturbations are in the range of about 0°-20° to each side and/or wherein velocity of the lateral perturbations is in the range of about 0-30 degree/sec and/or wherein acceleration or declaration is in the range of about 0- 30 degree/sec2; and/or
wherein the antero-posterior perturbations are in the range of about 0°-15° to each direction and/or wherein velocity of the antero-posterior perturbations is in the range of about 0-30 degree/sec and/or wherein acceleration or declaration is in the range of about 0-30 degree/sec2; and/or
wherein the vertical perturbations are in the range of about 0-15 cm in each direction (pg. 5, Table 1: vertical displacement can vary between 1-18 cm for each perturbation, which can be forward, backward, left, or right. The Examiner notes that the range of 1-18 cm largely overlaps with the range of 0-15 cm, and the ranges are therefore substantially identical), and/or wherein velocity of the vertical perturbations is in the range of about 0-40 cm/sec and/or wherein acceleration or declaration is in the range of about 0-40 cm/sec2; and/or
wherein the frequency is in the range of about 1-10 perturbations/min (pg. 5, Table 1: 1-3 perturbations per minute); and/or
wherein the rotation perturbations are in the range of about 0-10 cm in each direction, and/or wherein velocity of the rotation perturbations is in the range of about 0-40 cm/sec and/or wherein acceleration or declaration is in the range of about 0-40 cm/sec2 and/or wherein the frequency is in the range of about 1-10 perturbations/min. The Examiner further notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, “and/or” is being interpreted simply as the disjunctive “or.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the specific session parameters of Kurz with the system of Harabayashi in order to provide more consistent training sessions and to better track the subject’s improvement (Kurz, pgs. 3-4).
Claims 59 and 66 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harabayashi in view of Chu as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Mansfield.
Regarding Claim 59, Harabayashi does not disclose any cognitive challenges. However, Mansfield discloses the central control unit is further configured to provide a cognitive challenge to the subject, during at least a portion of a perturbation system (pg. 5: “To promote generalisability, the perturbations will be delivered while subjects perform a variety of cognitive and movement tasks;” pg. 6, Table 1: cognitive tasks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cognitive challenge of Mansfield with the system of Harabayashi because linking motor and cognitive tasks is a well-known technique in the art to further test and improve performance (Mansfield, abstract; pg. 12).
Regarding Claim 66, Harabayashi does not disclose any cognitive challenges. However, Mansfield discloses providing a cognitive challenge to the subject and determine a cognitive performance of the subject, based on the response to the cognitive challenge (pg. 5: “To improve ability to rapidly switch attention, cognitive and movement tasks will be included during training;” pg. 6, Table 1: cognitive tasks; pg. 8, Table 2: Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (sMMSE)); and/or
wherein the cognitive challenge is provided in synchronization with an unexpected external perturbation (pg. 5: “To promote generalisability, the perturbations will be delivered while subjects perform a variety of cognitive and movement tasks”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cognitive challenge of Mansfield with the system of Harabayashi because linking motor and cognitive tasks is a well-known technique in the art to further test and improve performance (Mansfield, abstract; pg. 12).
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harabayashi in view of Chu as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Goldberg.
Regarding Claim 64, Harabayashi does not disclose a heart rate or pressure sensor. However, Goldberg discloses adjustable gripping handles, comprising a heart rate sensor and/or a pressure sensor (par. 0009: “The handlebar includes at least two different handle means. One handle means includes spaced apart and outwardly directed elements. The second handle means includes an element inwardly located relative to the first handle means. The handlebar is adjustable in the front socket;” par. 0014: “optionally also adjusting the height of the handlebars to facilitate riding the stationary exercise bicycle in multiple positions;” claim 14: “includes a heart rate monitor or a computer controlled energy measuring device”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the heart rate sensor of Goldberg as it is a common feature of stationary bikes well known in the art that provides useful information to the subject using the bike (Goldberg, abstract; pars. 0002-0005).
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harabayashi in view of Chu as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Zets.
Regarding Claim 67, Zets discloses the reactive balance response threshold is customized to the subject, wherein the reactive balance response threshold is determined based on calibration and/or previous training sessions (par. 0101: “The thresholds are selected so that information regarding movement of the subject relative to these thresholds provides useful information during motional therapy. It is noted that movement of the biomechanical state measure sample point 163 can be caused when the subject sways, and movement by foot or other significant movement is not required. As such, the example embodiment illustrated by FIG. 4 can assess static balance. Further, if the anterior posterior thresholds limits such as segment 167 and 171 are increased, dynamic forward/backward motion may also be measured. Similarly, if inertial data is used as described hereinbefore, the sensor information can be used during dynamic motions such as gait, steps, lunges, and postural transitions (such as sit to stand)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feedback and threshold customization of Zets with the system of Harabayashi in order to more effectively track progress of the user (Zets, abstract; par. 0016).
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 JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715