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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 8, 11-12, 16, and 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “the movable joints” should read “movable joints”.
Claim 3, line 2, “the same range of motion” should read “a same range of motion”.
Claim 4, line 3, “the Co/C1, C3/C4 and C7/T1 vertebral levels” should read “Co/C1, C3/C4 and C7/T1 vertebral levels”.
Claim 8, line 11, “pivotal motion of the rigid elongate member” should read “the pivotal motion of the rigid elongate member”.
Claim 11, line 4, “the sum of the maximum rotational movements” should read “a sum of maximum rotational movements”.
Claim 12, line 2, “the maximum range of rotational movement” should read “a maximum range of rotational movement”.
Claim 16, line 3, “axial rotation” should read “the axial rotation”.
Claim 16, line 3, “the C1-C2 joint region” should read “a C1-C2 joint region”.
Claim 16, line 3, “the human cervical spine” should read “a human cervical spine”.
Claim 19, line 2, “a neck assembly” should read “the neck assembly”.
Claim 19, line 3, “a test structure” should read “the test structure”.
Claim 20, line 2, “a surrogate head” should read “the surrogate head”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-12 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 11 recites the limitation “the plane of rotation” in line 2. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “a single plane of rotation” of claim 8 from which claim 11 depends or a different plane of rotation. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “the plane of rotation” refers to the same ones of “a single plane of rotation” found in claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the maximum range of rotational movement” in line 3. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “the maximum range of rotational movement” of claim 12 line 2 or a different maximum range of rotational movement. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “the maximum range of rotational movement” refers to the same ones of “the maximum range of rotational movement” found in claim 12 line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20160189571 A1; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a neck assembly (Fig 4) for use in an anthropomorphic test device comprising: a first mount disposed at a first end of the neck assembly (lower neck load cell 52; Fig 4), the first mount being adapted to be connected to a support structure (connected to a rib cage assembly 16 in Fig 1); a second mount disposed at a second end of the neck assembly (upper neck load cell 50; Fig 6), the second mount being adapted to be connected to a test structure such as a surrogate head (connected to surrogate head in Fig 6); and at least one movable joint disposed between the first mount and the second mount (ligament joint 38; ¶31 and Fig 4), the at least one movable joint being operable to rotate about at least three axes (inherent with the use of ligament joints in an omnidirectional neck assembly because it’s designed to move in all directions).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses wherein each movable joint comprises the same range of motion as, or a different range of motion from, any other movable joint (inherent because this is an omnidirectional neck assembly designed to move in all directions).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses comprising at least one resilient member arranged to extend across at least a portion of the at least one movable joint (joint element 40 mode of flexible material; ¶31).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses comprising at least one pair of resilient members arranged on opposing sides of at least one of the movable joints (joint element 40 on opposing sides; Fig 5C).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses comprising a rotary joint disposed at a location between the first end and the second end of the neck assembly (ligament joint 38 can be a movable joint or rotary joint; ¶31), the rotary joint being arranged to provide axial rotation about a single axis of rotation within the neck assembly (inherent with an omnidirectional neck assembly), the single axis of rotation extending in a locally lengthwise direction (again, this is inherent if the neck assembly is omnidirectional by design because it would be able to move or rotate in any direction).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses a neck assembly (Fig 4) for use in an anthropomorphic test device comprising: a first mount disposed at a first end of the neck assembly (lower neck load cell 52; Fig 4), the first mount being adapted to be connected to a support structure (connected to a rib cage assembly 16 in Fig 1); a second mount disposed at a second end of the neck assembly (upper neck load cell 50; Fig 6), the second mount being adapted to be connected to a test structure such as a surrogate head (connected to surrogate head in Fig 6); a rigid elongate member extending between the first mount and the second mount (rigid vertebra disc 32; ¶30), wherein a first end of the rigid elongate member is connected to the first mount by a first pivot joint (connected to the lower neck load cell 52; Fig 5A-C) and a second end of the rigid elongate member is connected to the second mount by a second pivot joint (connected to the upper neck load cell 50; Fig 5A-C); wherein the first pivot joint is configured to allow pivotal motion of the rigid elongate member relative to the first mount and the second pivot joint is configured to allow pivotal motion of the rigid elongate member relative to the second mount within a single plane of rotation about two discrete axes of rotation (inherent because the omnidirectional neck assembly has rotation and movement in all directions).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses wherein the first pivot joint and/or the second pivot joint is/are configured to allow relatively unrestricted rotation about their respective axes of rotation (inherent with omnidirectional neck assembly with the ability to move in all directions).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses wherein the neck assembly comprises one or more stop means to limit rotation allowed by the first pivot joint and/or the second pivot joint (range of motion similar to the human body means there is a way to limit movement; ¶25).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses a neck assembly (Fig 4) for use in an anthropomorphic test device comprising: a first mount disposed at a first end of the neck assembly (lower neck load cell 52; Fig 4), the first mount being adapted to be connected to a support structure (connected to a rib cage assembly 16 in Fig 1); a second mount disposed at a second end of the neck assembly (upper neck load cell 50; Fig 6), the second mount being adapted to be connected to a test structure such as a surrogate head (connected to surrogate head in Fig 6); and a rotary joint disposed at a location between the first end and the second end of the neck assembly (ligament joint 38; ¶31), the rotary joint being arranged to provide axial rotation about a single axis of rotation within the neck assembly, the single axis of rotation extending in a locally lengthwise direction (inherent with the use of ligament joints in a omnidirectional neck assembly).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses wherein the rotary joint is disposed between the first mount and the second mount (ligament joint 38; ¶31 and Fig 4).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses wherein the rotary joint comprises a plain bearing (vertebra disc can also be used as plain bearing for ligament joint; Fig 4).
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses wherein the second mount is adjustable to form, in use, a connection with one or more different test structures (second mount connected to head in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses wherein the first mount comprises a first mount portion and a second mount portion (shown below from Fig 4),
PNG
media_image1.png
559
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the second mount portion is adjustably fixable relative to the first mount portion in a plurality of orientations, to represent, in use, different initial orientations (when referring to different orientations regarding posture, this is inherent to the design of the omnidirectional neck assembly because this high fidelity model has multi-directional movement and flexibility and this model also follows human neck vertebra curvature driving posture in ¶13).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses a neck assembly according to claim 1; and a test structure connected to the second mount (second mount connected to head in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses wherein the test structure comprises a surrogate head (second mount connected to head in Fig 6).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Sullenberger et al. (US 20160078783 A1; hereinafter Sullenberger).
Regarding claim 2, Sullenberger teaches wherein one or more of the movable joints comprise a ball joint (ball joints used as movable joints for an arm; ¶39).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the teachings of Sullenberger since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results. In this case Sullenberger notes that the use of ball joints allows for movement in all directions (¶39). See MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 4, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Merkle et al. (US 20140220530 A1; hereinafter Merkle).
Regarding claim 4, Merkle teaches comprising three movable joints, the three movable joints being spaced apart and arranged to approximately simulate the Co/C1, C3/C4 and C7/T1 vertebral levels within a human cervical neck (to simulate movable joints a human neck model can mimic the structure of vertebral levels; Fig 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the teachings of Merkle for the benefit of implementing a neck assembly with higher fidelity by mimicking the structure of real life vertebral levels.
Regarding claim 11, Merkle teaches wherein the neck assembly is configured to provide an overall range of motion in the plane of rotation, wherein the overall range of motion is distributed across the first pivot joint and the second pivot joint such that the overall range of motion equals the sum of the maximum rotational movements allowed by the first and second pivot joints (A model that uses vertebral levels highly implies the use of overall range of motion equaling the sum of the maximum rotational movements allowed because in this type of neck assembly design the human neck doesn't rotate from one single point, instead the amount your head can rotate is the sum of all individual small rotations from different points; Fig 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the teachings of Merkle for the benefit of implementing a neck assembly with higher fidelity by mimicking the structure of real life vertebral levels.
Regarding claim 12, Merkle teaches wherein the neck assembly is configured such that the maximum range of rotational movement allowed by the first joint is greater than the maximum range of rotational movement allowed by the second joint (inherent to a model that mimics vertebral levels; Fig 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the teachings of Merkle for the benefit of implementing a neck assembly with higher fidelity by mimicking the structure of real life vertebral levels.
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses wherein the rotary joint is positioned and arranged to provide a realistic neutral zone for axial rotation (this is inherent to a high biofidelity design because a realistic neutral zone is necessary to accurately simulate neck motion). Wang does not explicitly disclose the realistic neutral zone at the C1-C2 joint region of the human cervical spine.
However, Merkle teaches the proper structure of the C1-C2 joint region of the human cervical spine (Fig 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the teachings of Merkle for the benefit of implementing a neck assembly with higher fidelity by mimicking the structure of real life vertebral levels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715