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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 04-03-2026. As directed, claims 1, 5, 7, 15-16 and 20 have been amended, and claim 10 was previously canceled. Thus, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are currently pending examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04-03-2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended each of claims 1, 5, 7, 15-16, and 20 to address minor informalities within these claims. The previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed bottom of page 7 through the bottom of page 8, that independent claim 1 requires a controller that is operable to control vibration force and the actuator assembly based on electrophysiological response of the user. Applicant then turns to the specification at paragraph 14 to outline disclosure of sensors related to electrodermal activity for controlling the axial and vibratory force delivery. Applicant then concludes by asserting that Leismer ‘273 describes an apparatus for musculoskeletal stimulation, but does not describe an electrophysiological response of the user as an input for controlling the axial and vibratory force, and thus Leismer ‘273 does not include all of the limitations of claim 1. Applicant further argues, see Remarks as filed bottom of page 8 through the top of page 9, that Leismer ‘591 describes an apparatus for musculoskeletal stimulation, but does not describe an electrophysiological response of the user as an input for controlling the axial and vibratory force, and thus Leismer ‘591 does not cure the deficiencies of Leismer ‘273.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterizations. First, the claim does not require the electrodermal sensor described in the specification, and thus Applicant appears to improperly narrow the claims by importing limitations from the specification into the claims. Electrophysiological response, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is not limited to sensing an electrodermal activity. In fact, electrophysiological could reasonably invoke any measurable physiological response that is dependent on electrical activity, such as any physiological response that is the result of an electrical action potential, as is seen in muscular activity as one example. At present, the claim does not specifically require that the physiological response sensed is electrodermal activity. Further, the at least one sensor is only presently limited such that it is operable to measure a physiological response of a user. It is only in the final clause of claims 1 and 16 respectively that the notion of control based on the electro-physiological response of the user is invoked. In this case, electrophysiological response also lacks antecedent basis in the claim, and thus incurs a 112b rejection on those grounds for each of claims 1 and 16. Further, with respect to the claims, since the electrophysiological response was not previously introduced in the claim, its recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this response erroneously refers back to the physiological response previously recited, or is a new claim element.
Still further, the language based on the electrophysiological response of the user is not synonymous with a positive recitation of the at least one sensor definitely measuring an electrophysiological response, rather the claim only requires control based on the user’s electrophysiological response, and the at least one sensor to measure the user’s physiological response. In other words, in Leismer ‘273, the relied upon load cell (49) has been specifically relied upon, and previously argued, to be based on muscular force applied to a plate by the user (see paragraphs 49, 54, and 68-69, and the arguments made of record in the final Office action of 01-28-2026). Muscular activity in the body requires electrical action potentials to innervate the muscles and produce a force. It was also previously argued that the load cell of Leismer ‘273 and its output are involved in feedback control of the axial and vibratory force (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force exerted between the surface 26 and floor support 23 is understood to at least include axial force exerted by the user, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 for the general description of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 52; paragraph 64, lines 12-44, which provide an in-depth description of the previous feedback loops used to control vibratory force; note paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where an offset force is provided to surface 26 in response to the user’s force on surface 26). Thus, the controller of the Leismer ‘273 device is operable to measure the muscular force applied by the user to the plate by the load cell, and given that muscular force requires electrical impulses to innervate the muscles, it can reasonably be said that the Leismer ‘273 load cell is operable to measure a physiological response of the user that is electrical in nature (i.e. force generated via the muscles requires electrical action potentionals), and is further employed in feedback controlling the axial and vibratory output of the device based on the electrophysiological response. Leismer ’591 has been alternatively relied upon for a more express link of the biosensor it teaches to the control feedback involved. Because Leismer ‘273 is not understood to be deficient with respect to the claimed language, Leismer ‘591 also does not have to be relied upon to remedy any deficiencies of Leismer ‘273 with respect to measuring/basing control on an electrophysiological parameter.
While it is true that the terms “electrophysiological” and “electrodermal” do not appear in either Leismer publication, it is of note that the term “electrophysiological” also does not appear in the instant specification. Because of this, the specification will be objected to for lack of antecedent basis for the claimed term in each of claims 1 and 16. As also discussed above, the electrodermal sensor contained within the specification is not currently recited in either of claims 1 and 16, and thereby the claims do not require an electrodermal sensor, rather a sensor operable to measure a physiological response and be used in feedback control on the basis of a measured electrophysiological response. This is quite different from requiring an electrodermal sensor capable of measuring, for instance, a galvanic skin response of the user for control of the device based on the galvanic skin response as outlined in the instant specification. It is of additional note that in each of dependent claims 4-9, 12, and 19-21, in some instances the at least one sensor at issue is limited to the electrodermal sensor, but in still other instances the at least one sensor is limited to either a load sensor or a thermal sensor. Thus, Applicant’s own arguments and indication that the electrophysiological response is derived from only an electrodermal sensor stand at odds with the dependent claims outlined, which seem to indicate that the at least one sensor can be provided as any of a load sensor, a thermal sensor, or an electrodermal sensor.
Applicant additionally argues that none of Mason, Reiner, nor Foucault would remedy the deficiencies of Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591. It is noteworthy that, as argued above, Applicant’s arguments are held unpersuasive with respect to any deficiencies with Leismer ‘273 as the claims are presently construed. It is of further note that, in the case that Applicant properly narrowed the claims to include an electrodermal sensor, Reiner, as applied to claim 12 previously and hereinbelow, has been relied on to teach such an electrodermal sensor. Applicant has not put forth any arguments as to why and how Reiner is deficient in this regard, and thus, were Applicant to amend the independent claims to narrow the at least one sensor to the electrodermal sensor, Reiner would reasonably be employed in the rejection of any such amended claims should the subject matter aligned with claim 12 be incorporated into independent form.
For these reasons, the previous rejections of record will be maintained hereinbelow.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term “electrophysiological response” should be canceled from the claims, or replaced with the appropriate galvanic skin response or equivalents thereof measured by the electrodermal sensor as outlined in paragraphs 13-14, and 18.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 7, line 5, each instance of “the vibration” should be replaced with “the vibration force” for consistency with claim 1, line 6.
At claim 16, line 9, it is suggested that “the segment” be replaced with “either of the first segment and the second segment” for clarity and consistency with claim 1, line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
A/the “vibration system” in claims 1 and 16, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 32 to be a vibrating motor and functional equivalents thereof.
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 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 1-9 and 11-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrophysiological response" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the electrophysiological response refers to the “physiological response” recited in line 11, or is a new claim element separate from the physiological response.
The term “electrophysiological response” does not appear in the instant specification, which additionally complicates interpretation of the claimed term in light of the specification. Based on Applicant’s arguments presented in the current response, it seems as though Applicant intends the electrophysiological response and the physiological response to be the same measured valued, and further intends to limit the electrophysiological/physiological response to one detected by an electrodermal sensor. However, dependent claims 4-9 and 12 limit the at least one sensor of claim 1 to a load sensor, a thermal sensor, or an electrodermal sensor, and thus, narrowing the interpretation of claim 1 to specifically include only an electrodermal sensor is at odds with, and separately would potentially pose additional 112b issues in, the outlined dependent claims. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the physiological and/or electrophysiological response will be interpreted as a response that is capable of being measured using at least one of a load sensor, a thermal sensor, and/or an electrodermal sensor. If Applicant believes this interpretation to be erroneous, it is suggested that the claims be amended to more distinctly and clearly point out that which is intended to be claimed.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electrophysiological response" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the electrophysiological response refers to the “physiological response” recited in line 10, or is a new claim element separate from the physiological response.
The term “electrophysiological response” does not appear in the instant specification, which additionally complicates interpretation of the claim term in light of the specification. Based on Applicant’s arguments presented in the current response, it seems as though Applicant intends the electrophysiological response and the physiological response to be the same measured valued, and further intends to limit the electrophysiological/physiological response to one detected by an electrodermal sensor. However, dependent claims 19-21 limit the at least one sensor of claim 1 to a load sensor or a thermal sensor, and thus, narrowing the interpretation of claim 16 to specifically include only an electrodermal sensor is at odds with, and separately would potentially pose additional 112b issues in, the outlined dependent claims. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the physiological and/or electrophysiological response will be interpreted as one that is capable of being measured using at least one of a load sensor and/or a thermal sensor. If Applicant believes this interpretation to be erroneous, it is suggested that the claims be amended to more distinctly and clearly point out that which is intended to be claimed.
Claims 17-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 13-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Leismer (US 2014/0276273), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘273, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘591.
Examiner notes that in both cases, the claims are rejected as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 USC 112b above.
Regarding claim 1, Leismer ‘273 discloses an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to a limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least a first segment and a second segment each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 9, lines 1-7; paragraph 10, lines 1-4; claim 1, lines 1-4, see “axial vibratory”; Fig. 1, note that the thigh and calf are the respective limb segments communicated by the knee joint), the apparatus (10) comprising:
a drive plate (26) operable to receive the limb of the user (paragraph 47, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2, where the limb is received at the surface 26 by the user’s feet);
a force unit (22) comprising a vibration system (44) in communication with the drive plate (26) to provide a vibration force to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 47, lines 1-15; paragraph 51, lines 1-10; Figs. 1-3) and comprising an actuator assembly (28) in communication with the drive plate (26) and being operable to move the drive plate (26) within an upper limit and a lower limit in a direction that is approximately perpendicular to a surface of the drive plate (26) and one of the first segment and the second segment that is closer to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 48, lines 1-5, note the use of the term “normal” to the support surface 26 regarding the actuation axis 34; paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where the feedback control moves the vibration surface 26 to offset user muscle force, see also paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 between different values; Fig. 1, note that the lower leg includes axes both normal to the support surface 26 and parallel to the support surface);
at least one sensor (49) operable to measure the physiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is, at least in part, understood to be from the user’s feet, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted, and the force is measured between surface 26 and support 23); and
a controller (48) in communication with the at least one sensor (49) and the force unit (22), the controller (48) being operable to control the vibration force and the actuator assembly (28) based on the electrophysiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force exerted between the surface 26 and floor support 23 is understood to at least include axial force exerted by the user, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 for the general description of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 52; paragraph 64, lines 12-44, which provide an in-depth description of the previous feedback loops used to control vibratory force; note paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where an offset force is provided to surface 26 in response to the user’s force on surface 26; further, note that muscular force requires electrical action potentials, and thus the measured force due to the user’s muscles is electrophysiological in nature).
If it is determined that Leismer ‘273 does not disclose a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, then:
Leismer ‘591 teaches an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least first and second segments each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 10, lines 1-5, see “axial vibratory”; paragraph 37, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) further comprising at least one sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user (paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Given that Leismer ‘273 indicates the use of a load cell (i.e., a sensor) in communication with the controller for feedback control of the vibration motion and the actuator assembly, 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 the device of Leismer ‘273 to have included a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, as taught by Leismer ‘591, to be employed in Leismer ‘273’s feedback loop for controlling the output of the vibration system and the actuator assembly of Leismer ‘273, responsive to the output of Leismer ‘591’s sensor configured as a biosensor for determining a physiological parameter relative to the user.
It is believed that such a modification can be made with reasonable expectation of success given that Leismer ‘273 already contemplates force offset based on user-directed force on the surface of the drive plate (26) (paragraph 68, lines 1-12), and further given that the at least one sensor (“biosensor”) of Leismer ‘591 is taught to directly measure such a force (paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40”), and since Leismer ‘273 contemplates using sensor feedback to control vibration and bias motion (paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44).
Regarding claim 2, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to alter the upper limit or the lower limit of the drive plate (26) in response to an input from the at least one sensor (49, or the biosensor of Leismer ‘591 as modified) (Leismer ‘273 at paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for feedback loops using sensor input, see bias force and paragraph 68, lines 1-12, see bias force; Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “load cell” and/or “biosensor” for the at least one sensor).
Regarding claim 3, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to control a frequency, an amplitude and a waveform of vibration communicated via the drive plate (26) (paragraph 63, lines 1-4; paragraph 64, lines 36-44, see “frequency”, “wave form”, and “force”, where the vibratory force would equate to the amplitude of the waveform over time; see also paragraph 19, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect an amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Regarding claim 6, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect an amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) which is operable to increase or decrease the axial force generated by the force unit (22) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, note the previous and Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Regarding claim 11, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the actuator assembly (28) in communication with the drive plate (26) is operable to adjust the bias force applied via the drive plate between the upper limit and the lower limit (see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 respectively).
Regarding claim 13, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the actuator assembly (28) is operable to vary the force required to move drive plate (26) between the upper limit and the lower limit (see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 respectively, i.e. increasing bias force changes the ability for the user to move the drive plate by conscious or unconscious muscle use).
Regarding claim 14, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the actuator assembly (28) is operable to vary a force required to move drive plate (26) and a speed at which the drive plate (26) is configured to move between the upper limit and the lower limit (see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 respectively, i.e. increasing bias force changes the ability for the user to move the drive plate by conscious or unconscious muscle use; paragraph 76, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 16, Leismer ‘273 discloses an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to a limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least a first segment and a second segment each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 9, lines 1-7; paragraph 10, lines 1-4; claim 1, lines 1-4, see “axial vibratory”; Fig. 1, note that the thigh and calf are the respective limb segments communicated by the knee joint), the apparatus (10) comprising:
a drive plate (26) operable to receive the limb of the user (paragraph 47, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2, where the limb is received at the surface 26 by the user’s feet);
a force unit (22) comprising a vibration system (44) in communication with the drive plate (26) to provide a vibration force to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 47, lines 1-15; paragraph 51, lines 1-10; Figs. 1-3) and comprising an actuator assembly (28) in communication with the drive plate (26) and being operable to move the drive plate (26) within an upper limit and a lower limit in a direction that is approximately perpendicular to a surface of the drive plate (26) and generally the segment of the limb closest to the drive plate (26) (paragraph 48, lines 1-5, note the use of the term “normal” to the support surface 26 regarding the actuation axis 34; paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where the feedback control moves the vibration surface 26 to offset user muscle force, see also paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28 between different values; Fig. 1, note that the lower leg includes axes both normal to the support surface 26 and parallel to the support surface);
at least one sensor (49) operable to measure a physiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is, at least in part, understood to be from the user’s feet, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted, and the force is measured between surface 26 and support 23); and
a controller (48) in communication with the at least one sensor (49) and the force unit (22), the controller (48) being operable to control the axial force and the actuator assembly (28) based on the electrophysiological response of the user (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force exerted between the surface 26 and floor support 23 is understood to at least include axial force exerted by the user, specifically when looking to Figs. 1-3, where the surface 26 is where the user’s feet are planted; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 for the general description of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 52; paragraph 64, lines 12-44, which provide an in-depth description of the previous feedback loops used to control vibratory force; note paragraph 68, lines 1-12, where an offset force is provided to surface 26 in response to the user’s force on surface 26; further, note that muscular force requires electrical action potentials, and thus the measured force due to the user’s muscles is electrophysiological in nature).
If it is determined that Leismer ‘273 does not disclose a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, then:
Leismer ‘591 teaches an apparatus (10) for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of a user of the apparatus (10), the limb having at least first and second segments each having axes and communicating by a joint (paragraph 10, lines 1-5, see “axial vibratory”; paragraph 37, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) further comprising at least one sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user (paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Given that Leismer ‘273 indicates the use of a load cell (i.e., a sensor) in communication with the controller for feedback control of the vibration motion and the actuator assembly, 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 the device of Leismer ‘273 to have included a sensor operable to measure the physiological response of the user, as taught by Leismer ‘591, to be employed in Leismer ‘273’s feedback loop for controlling the output of the vibration system and the actuator assembly of Leismer ‘273, responsive to the output of Leismer ‘591’s sensor configured as a biosensor for determining a physiological parameter relative to the user.
It is believed that such a modification can be made with reasonable expectation of success given that Leismer ‘273 already contemplates force offset based on user-directed force on the surface of the drive plate (26) (paragraph 68, lines 1-12), and further given that the at least one sensor (“biosensor”) of Leismer ‘591 is taught to directly measure such a force (paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40”), and since Leismer ‘273 contemplates using sensor feedback to control vibration and bias motion (paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44).
Regarding claim 17, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to alter the upper limit or the lower limit of the drive plate (26) in response to an input from the at least one sensor (49, or the biosensor of Leismer ‘591 as modified) (Leismer ‘273 at paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for feedback loops using sensor input, see bias force and paragraph 68, lines 1-12, see bias force; Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “load cell” and/or “biosensor” for the at least one sensor).
Regarding claim 18, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273 further discloses wherein the controller (48) is operable to control a frequency, an amplitude and a waveform of vibration communicated via the drive plate (26) (paragraph 63, lines 1-4; paragraph 64, lines 36-44, see “frequency”, “wave form”, and “force”, where the vibratory force would equate to the amplitude of the waveform over time; see also paragraph 19, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect an amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Claims 5, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘273, in view of Mason (US 2021/0134428), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘591, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Mason (US 2021/0134428).
Examiner notes that the claims are rejected as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 USC 112b above.
Regarding claim 5, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect the amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Neither Leismer ‘273 nor modified Leismer ‘273 indicate the detection of an amount of mean resistance.
However, Mason teaches a treatment apparatus including pedals (paragraph 94, lines 1-8; Fig. 4), wherein an amount of mean resistance applied to the pedals by the user’s feet is measured and received by a processor (paragraph 131, lines 1-2 and 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the sensor of Leismer ‘273 to measure a mean axial resistance applied by the user, as taught by Mason, as a known value measured by a load cell when a user interfaces with a treatment device at the lower limb.
Regarding claim 7, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect the amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) which is operable to increase or decrease the axial force generated by the force unit (22) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Neither Leismer ‘273 nor modified Leismer ‘273 indicate the detection of an amount of mean resistance.
However, Mason teaches a treatment apparatus including pedals (paragraph 94, lines 1-8; Fig. 4), wherein an amount of mean resistance applied to the pedals by the user’s feet is measured and received by a processor (paragraph 131, lines 1-2 and 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the sensor of Leismer ‘273 to measure a mean axial resistance applied by the user, as taught by Mason, as a known value measured by a load cell when a user interfaces with a treatment device at the lower limb.
Regarding claim 20, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, or modified Leismer ‘273, further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a load sensor (49) operable to detect the amount of axial resistance provided by the user and to communicate the amount of resistance provided by the user to the controller (48) (paragraph 54, lines 1-5, see “load cell”, where the force on the front of the vibration surface 26 is understood to be from the user’s feet; see paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44 for descriptions of the feedback loops used in controlling both the vibration and the bias force delivered by the voice coil 44 and the actuator assembly 28; in the alternative case, Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9, see “biosensor”, and note paragraph 66, lines 1-13, note that the “forward force 40” is determined and displayed, indicating the communication between the sensor/measuring device obtaining the forward force applied by the user and the controller 77 to display the force on the user interface 66).
Neither Leismer ‘273 nor modified Leismer ‘273 indicate the detection of an amount of mean resistance.
However, Mason teaches a treatment apparatus including pedals (paragraph 94, lines 1-8; Fig. 4), wherein an amount of mean resistance applied to the pedals by the user’s feet is measured and received by a processor (paragraph 131, lines 1-2 and 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the sensor of Leismer ‘273 to measure a mean axial resistance applied by the user, as taught by Mason, as a known value measured by a load cell when a user interfaces with a treatment device at the lower limb.
Claims 8-9, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘273, in view of Reiner (US 2008/0269652), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘591, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Reiner (US 2008/0269652).
Examiner notes that the claims are rejected as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 USC 112b above.
Regarding claim 8, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a thermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of a thermal sensor capable of detecting a change in temperature (paragraph 18, lines 1-8 and paragraph 20, lines 1-4).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 the biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include a thermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s skin temperature indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop for varying the axial or vibratory force supplied to the drive plate (26) (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a thermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of a thermal sensor capable of detecting a change in temperature (paragraph 18, lines 1-8 and paragraph 20, lines 1-4).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 the biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include a thermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s skin temperature indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus to control vibratory and axial force of the drive plate.
Regarding claim 12, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop for varying the axial or vibratory force supplied to the drive plate (26) (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is an electrodermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of an electrodermal sensor (paragraph 18, lines 1-9 and 14-15, see “electrodes 36 for measuring galvanic skin response”).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 the biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include an electrodermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s galvanic skin response indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus to control vibratory and axial force of the drive plate.
Regarding claim 21, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 16, as discussed above.
While modified Leismer ‘273 indicates the usage of a biosensor (Leismer ‘591: paragraph 69, lines 8-9), and the use of sensors in employing a controlled feedback loop (Leismer ‘273: paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44), modified Leismer ‘273 fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a thermal sensor operable to detect the change in temperature of the user and to communicate the change in temperature of the user to the controller.
However, Reiner teaches various biosensors for determining SNS or PSNS arousal in a subject and for employing a biofeedback loop in a treatment device, including the use of a thermal sensor capable of detecting a change in temperature (paragraph 18, lines 1-8 and paragraph 20, lines 1-4).
Given that the sensor of modified Leismer ‘273 has been shown to be in communication with the controller, 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 the biosensor of modified Leismer ‘273 to include a thermal sensor, as taught by Reiner, in order to determine changes in the user’s skin temperature indicative of levels of SNS or PSNS arousal (note that this arousal would be present while the user exercises and recovers, i.e. while applying force to the drive plate against tension) for use in a biofeedback loop for generating control signals of the apparatus.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leismer (US 2014/0276273), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘273, in view of Foucault (WO 2021/016482), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer (US 2020/0046591), hereinafter referred to as Leismer ‘591, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foucault (WO 2021/016482).
Examiner notes that the claims are rejected as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 USC 112b above.
Regarding claim 15, Leismer ‘273, or in the alternative, Leismer ‘273 in view of Leismer ‘591, disclose the apparatus for providing dosed axial and vibratory force to the limb of the user of claim 1, as discussed above.
Leismer ‘273, either alone or as modified, fails to disclose wherein the controller further comprises a gaming application and the gaming application operable to use the mechanical force that an individual places onto the footplate of the claimed invention to relay a real time input signal to the gaming application that would take the real time input signal and display an in-game output response.
However, Foucault teaches a rehabilitation apparatus (1) employing a virtual reality module (91) (paragraph 83, lines 1-15; Figs. 2 and 31) wherein the controller (72) further comprises a gaming application and the gaming application is operable to use a mechanical force that the user places onto the footplate (5) of the claimed invention to relay a real time input signal to the gaming application that is configured to take the real time input signal and display an in-game output response in order to guide the user through rehabilitative motions while gamifying the experience (paragraphs 112-113 and 136, note that the footplate 5 becomes the game controller).
Therefore, 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 the device of Leismer ‘273, either alone or as modified, to have included a gaming application on the controller operable to use the mechanical force that an individual places onto the footplate of the claimed invention to relay a real time input signal to the gaming application that would take the real time input signal and display an in-game output response, as taught by Foucault, in order to guide the user through rehabilitative motions while gamifying the experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights