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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/16/25 has been entered.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 10/16/25, amended claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-9, canceled claim(s) 2, 7, 11, 16, and new claim(s) 21-24 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “am interphase connector” in claim 5, which has no corresponding structure; “a head positioning device … configured to maintain alignment of the head of the person within the device,” in claim 8, which has no corresponding structure; “a plurality of mating attachment devices,” in claim 9, which corresponds to “clips, hook and loop fasteners, buttons, snaps, an aperture combined with an attachment piece” (see para [0036] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a main frame connector configured to engage the T-slot of one arm of the plurality of arms,” in claim 22, which corresponds to “a main frame connection plate 123 and at least one adjustment knob 125” (see para [0041] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “an attachment device configured to engage one mating attachment device of the plurality of mating attachment devices,” in claim 23, which corresponds to “clips, hook and loop fasteners, buttons, snaps, an aperture combined with an attachment piece” (see para [0036] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); and “an adjustment device configured to adjust a fit of the head positioning device,” in claim 24, which corresponds to “a slot 116 in the head positioning device 111 and an adjustment block 118, wherein the adjustment block 118 can engage the slot 116 in a tight fit manner and includes at least one knob 117 for moving the adjustment block 118 within the slot 116” (see para [0039] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 5, the claim term “interphase connector” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter since the specification has not described what structure the claimed subject matter is supposed to encompass. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 8, the claim term “a head positioning device … configured to maintain alignment of the head of the person within the device” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter since the specification has not described what structure the claimed subject matter is supposed to encompass. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
Dependent claim(s) 6, 8-9, and 21-24 fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 5, thus claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 21-24 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “each arm of the plurality of arms is disposed within a singular plane” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether this means (1) each arm has is disposed in its own singular plane or (2) all of the arms are disposed in one plane. The claim is examined under the latter interpretation.
For claim 3, the claim language “an isokinetic dynamometer coupled to the device” is ambiguous. Claim 1 recites “a device” in the preamble of the claim and therefore “the device” in claim 2 finds antecedence in this recitation of claim 1. However, because claim 2 recites that the “isokinetic dynamometer” is coupled to the device, it is then not part of the device, but claim 2 recites “[t]he device according to claim 1, further comprising an isokinetic dynamometer.” Therefore, the scope cannot be ascertained since an isokinetic dynamometer cannot be part of the device, but then also be coupled to the device because it wouldn’t make sense for the device to be coupled to itself. The claim is examined as meaning that the isokinetic dynamometer is a part of the device as a whole.
For claim 3, the claim language “the motion and torque” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 4, the claim term “an input shaft” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, already recites “an input shaft.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same input shaft or different input shafts are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 5, the claim term “interphase connector” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structures are supposed to be encompasses by the claim language and what structures are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure that is capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 8, the claim term “a head positioning device … configured to maintain alignment of the head of the person within the device” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structures are supposed to be encompasses by the claim language and what structures are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure that is capable of performing the recited function.
Dependent claim(s) 3-6, 8-9, and 21-24 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0272010 to O’Leary et al. (hereinafter “O’Leary”).
For claim 1, O’Leary discloses a device for measuring cervical spine movement of a head of a person (Abstract), comprising:
a main frame (Examiner’s Note: made of the elements that it has) having a plurality of arms (see parts of 120 that are on either side of element 121 in Fig. 30) for maintaining (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) the head of the person in a position (para [0277]-[0278]), each arm of the plurality of arms is disposed within a singular plane (as can be seen in Fig. 30); and
a torsion system (Examiner’s Note: made up of the element(s) it comprises) comprising an input shaft (130) (Fig. 30) (para [0278]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) selectively couple between a first position and a second position on at least one arm of the plurality of arms (para [0278]) (also see Fig. 37 and para [0285]).
For claim 3, O’Leary further discloses an isokinetic dynamometer coupled to the device (para [0123], [0201], and [0278]) (also see para [0016]), the isokinetic dynamometer device configured to measure the motion and torque (para [0123], [0201], and [0278]) (also see para [0016]).
For claim 4, O’Leary further discloses wherein the torsion system comprises an input shaft configured to couple the device to the isokinetic dynamometer (para [0278]).
For claim 5, O’Leary further discloses wherein the input shaft includes an interphase connector to couple the input shaft to the isokinetic dynamometer (see Fig. 30) (para [0201], [0276], and [0278]).
For claim 6, O’Leary further discloses wherein each arm of the plurality of arms further includes at least one pad (Fig. 30) (para [0278]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) hold the head of the person within the device (as can be seen in Fig. 30) (para [0278]).
For claim 8, O’Leary further discloses further comprising a head positioning device removably attached to the main frame (i.e., via clamp 112 and pivotally secured with 121/122, para [0277]) (also see para [0278]), the head positioning device configured to maintain alignment of the head of the person within the device (i.e., once 121 is locked in place, para [0277]) (also see para [0278]).
For claim 9, O’Leary further discloses wherein the head positioning device includes a plurality of mating attachment devices (para [0277]) (also see para [0278]), the plurality of mating attachment devices configured to couple the head positioning device to the main frame (para [0277]) (also see para [0278]).
For claim 24, O’Leary further discloses wherein the head positioning device includes an adjustment device configured to adjust a fit of the head positioning device (para [0277]) (also see para [0278]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/16/25 have been fully considered.
With respect to the objection(s) to the drawing(s), Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the objection(s) is/are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim objection, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112 rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the previous rejections are withdrawn. Newly established 112 rejections are based on the current claim language.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not address the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments presented in the response filed 10/16/25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791