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 Remarks and Amendments filed on 12-08-2025. As directed, claims 1-9 and 11-15 have been amended, claim 10 has been cancelled, and new claims 16-21 have been added. Thus, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are currently pending examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended each of claims 1-9 and 11-15 have each been amended and claim 10 has been cancelled to address minor informalities within the claims. Except where indicated below, the previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the provided drawings to show the reference numerals outlined in the specification. The previously held drawing objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed pages 9-10, that Leismer ‘273 cannot anticipate claims 1-4, 6, 11, and 13-14 because, in contrast to Applicant’s claimed and disclosed invention, Leismer ‘273 does not recite controlling the vibration or axial force based on physiological response of the user. Applicant concludes that Leismer ‘273 does not contain all of the limitations of claim 1, and thus is not an anticipatory reference. Applicant additionally cites to Leismer’s abstract and paragraph 72, further asserting that Leismer ‘273 provides a prescribed range of variation of the vibratory force experienced by the user, which is different from varying the axial vibratory force based on physiological response, as is required by claim 1.
Applicant goes on to argue, see Remarks as filed pages 10-11, that Leismer ‘591, used in the alternative to read on a sensor capable of measuring the user’s physiological response if Leismer ‘273 were deemed deficient with respect to such a limitation, does not overcome the deficiencies of Lesimer ‘273, because Leismer ‘591 only contemplates using biosensors to provide feedback to the user interface as opposed to using such a sensor to change the operating parameters related to vibratory force.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Leismer ‘273 does not anticipate the specified limitations, and that Leismer ‘591 does not overcome any alleged deficiencies of Leismer ‘273. First, Leismer ‘273 explicitly discloses altering vibratory axial force (claim 1, lines 1-4). Further, Leismer ‘273 contemplates the use of 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 further outlines the use of 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) in response to the physiological 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, Leismer ‘273 states the following at paragraph 62, lines 12-44:
“In a second embodiment, the load cell 44 may be used to develop both feedback signals 70 and 78. In this embodiment, the motion of the voice coil 44 is mechanically summed with motion of the linear actuator 52 (by virtue of their series connection) as depicted in FIG. 3. This mechanical summing is represented by summing junction 72 in FIG. 4 and provides a combined mechanical displacement to the load cell 49. The load cell may produce a load signal 51 that will generally contain a high-frequency vibration motion 30 superimposed on (providing excursions about) a low-frequency bias motion 32. The load signal 51 may be provided to a vibration extractor 74 (also typically implemented in software) that may process the load signal 51 to provide a variety of different parameters related to vibration including vibration excursion, peak vibration force, energy absorption and the like. Vibration excursion may, for example, be extracted by applying a high pass filter to the signal 51 and then measuring the amplitude of the result. This extracted amplitude can then provide feedback signal 70 of the vibration excursion. It will be understood that other parameters such as vibration force may be deduced from the known dynamic qualities of the load cell 49 and the associated structure of the actuator assembly 28 (masses and spring constants) and energy transfer may be deduced by comparing the load signal 51 to the vibration command signal 66. Generally, it will be appreciated that energy transfer may be controlled by monitoring a variety of parameters including but that are not limited to peak-to-peak vibration displacement, vibration frequency, vibration acceleration, alternating vibratory force, vibration wave form, joint flexion angle, direction of applied vibration, direction of applied bias three, bias force magnitude, treatment duration, compliance of user and system as well as combination of user in system, etc.”
It is noted that Leismer ‘273 provides, in paragraph 48, that “The force unit 22 may hold an actuator assembly 28 communicating with the vibration surface 26 to impart a vibration motion 30 and/or a bias motion 32 to the vibration surface along an actuation axis 34 generally normal to the surface of the vibration surface 26 and aligned with the lower leg of the user 11”. Leismer ‘273 further states that “Generally, the vibration motion 30 and the bias motion 32 may be actively resisted by conscious muscular action of the user 11” at paragraph 49, and that “the vibration motion 30 and the bias motion 32 may be provided respectively by voice coil 44 and linear actuator 52” in paragraph 58. As has been previously established, Leismer ‘273 also provides “feedback loops for electrically controlling the voice coil 44 and the linear actuator 52, for example, to independently control the bias motion 32 and vibration motion 30 discussed above with respect to FIG. 2. Different parameters of bias motion 32 and vibration motion 30 including force, excursion range, frequency, energy, and power may be controlled” at paragraph 61. Finally, paragraph 68 of Leismer ‘273 also states that “The ability to provide feedback control of a particular bias motion 32 is important during the application of vibration when the user 11 may unconsciously increase force on the footplate in response to the simulation. This feedback control moves the vibration surface 26 back to offset this unconscious increased pressure by the user”.
From these excerpts, and the relationship between load cell 49 and the bias motion 32 described (see paragraph 64, lines 12-22), and the placement of load cell 49 shown in Figure 3, which seems to allow for force applied by the user between surface 26 and support 23 to be measured by the load cell 49 based on its placement (paragraph 54, lines 1-4; Fig. 3), it has been surmised that the load cell, used to control both bias motion 30 and vibratory force 30 (see paragraph 64, lines 12-44), is operable to use physiological response from the user (i.e. user-generated force, see paragraph 54, lines 1-4 and paragraph 68, lines 1-12 and paragraph 70, lines 1-5) to influence the bias motion and vibratory force delivered to the user (paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44; see also paragraph 68, lines 1-12).
Further, specifically because Lesimer ‘273 does not explicitly state that load cell 49 is directly measuring the user-generated force on surface 26, Leismer ‘591 was employed to cure this potential deficiency. While it is true that Leismer ‘591 does not explicitly refer to use of the biosensors for controlling axial vibratory force, as has been contended by Applicant, the previous reliance on Leismer ‘591 was not specifically for feedback loops used to control vibration based on physiological response, given that Leismer ‘273 has already been shown to employ a sensor, i.e. load cell 49, in its control loops (paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44).
Rather, Leismer ‘591 was used to teach 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). It was then reasoned that since Leismer ‘273 indicates the use of a load cell 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 further noted that since Leismer ‘273 already indicates the need to “offset” user-directed force onto surface 26 (paragraph 68, lines 1-12), and given that Leismer ‘591 does explicitly define a biosensor for measuring this “forward force 40” by the user (paragraph 66, lines 1-13), the basis for the modification is an additional sensor capable of measuring this particular force from the user, specifically in the case where load cell 49 of Leismer ‘273 does not implicitly describe such a measurement.
Still further, Applicant’s own instant specification (see paragraph 17, lines 13-18 and Fig. 8) indicates that an appropriate type of sensor for measuring the user’s physiological response is a load sensor, which is the same type of sensor (i.e., a load cell) used by Leismer ‘273 in its relevant control feedback loop (paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and paragraph 64, lines 12-44). Thus, it is unclear how, when Applicant already indicates the use of a similar type of sensor in the instantly disclosed device, the Leismer ‘273 load cell is not operable to measure a physiological parameter of the user, as required by claim 1. It is also noted that these limitations, i.e., the sensor being a load sensor, also appear in each of claims 4-7.
Because Applicant has not specifically provided arguments as to why and how Lesimer ‘273 and its load cell are deficient with respect to the claimed language, and further because no arguments have been submitted regarding the specific modification of Leismer ‘273 and Leismer ‘591 made of record, the Office is not presently apprised of error in the purported rejections of claims 1-4, 11, and 13-14. Rejection of these claims will be maintained hereinbelow based on the deficiencies of Applicant’s presently provided traversal evidence.
Further, Applicant has argued that each of claims 5, 7-10, 12, and 15 are not rendered obvious by the additional references employed because of the supposed deficiencies of Leismer ‘273 and Leismer ‘591 with respect to claim 1. As these alleged deficiencies have been addressed above, these arguments are held as unpersuasive for at least the previously articulated reasons. Claims 16-21 will also be rejected in turn, given that the subject matter of these claims reflects that of claims 1-5 and 8.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 15-16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, lines 1-2, it is suggested that the first iteration of “the limb” be replaced with “a limb” to provide appropriate antecedent basis of the claim term.
At claim 1, line 2, it is suggested that the second iteration of “a limb” be replaced with “the limb” in accordance with the above suggestion.
At claim 5, line 2, it is suggested that “at least one” be added before “sensor” for consistency with claim 1, line 10.
At claim 5, line 2, it is suggested that “the amount” be replaced with “an amount” as the limitation has not yet been introduced.
At claim 7, line 3, it is suggested that “the amount” be replaced with “an amount” as the limitation has not yet been introduced.
At claim 7, lines 3-4, it is suggested that the second iteration of “an amount” be replaced with “the amount” in accordance with the previous suggestion.
At claim 15, line 5, it is suggested that “which is” be added before “configured to” for clarity.
At claim 16, line 1, it is suggested that the first iteration of “the limb” be replaced with “a limb” to provide appropriate antecedent basis of the claim term.
At claim 16, line 2, it is suggested that the second iteration of “a limb” be replaced with “the limb” in accordance with the above suggestion.
At claim 20, line 2, it is suggested that “at least one” be added before “sensor” for consistency with claim 16, line 10.
At claim 20, line 2, it is suggested that “the amount” be replaced with “an amount” as the limitation has not yet been introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 along an actuation axis that is 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 user 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);
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 physiological 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).
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 along an actuation axis that is 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 user 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);
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 physiological 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).
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).
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).
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).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stone (US 2023/0038267) is cited for its use of physiological user response in setting amplitude of force applied to the user (see paragraph 36).
Hsieh (US 2020/0268584) is cited for its use of physiological sensors in determining an output motor force (see paragraph 11).
Koenig (US 2017/0035638) is cited for its use of physiological sensors, particularly in determining a force produced by the patient, in determining an output control signal (see paragraph 121).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAIGE K. 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3785