DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on February 28, 2023. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, claims 1-72 have been canceled, and new claims 73-95 have been added. Thus, claims 73-95 are presently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they appear to be photographs which include dark shaded areas that are difficult to see. See MPEP 608.01(f) – photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility applications unless they are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 73-87 and 92-95 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 73 recites “a first expansion pad” and “a second expansion pad”, see lines 20-22. However, the pad assembly is referred to as an “extension pad assembly” and the dependent claims refer to the pads as “extension pads”. Thus, it is suggested that the limitations in claim 73, lines 20-22 be amended to read to “a first extension extension
Claim 92 recites “a first expansion pad” and “a second expansion pad”, see lines 7-9. However, lines 11-12 recite “the first and second extension pads” and the dependent claims refer to the pads as “extension pads”. Thus, it is suggested that the limitations in claim 92, lines 7-9 be amended to read to “a first extension and “a second extension .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 position locking feature” in claims 85 and 95 which is interpreted in accordance with paragraph [0143] of the instant Specification.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 88-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branch et al. (US 6,872,186), in view of Weiner et al. (US 2009/0093353).
As to claim 88, Branch discloses a device 10 (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) for manipulating a leg of a user, the device 10 configured to perform either of a flexion process or an extension process with respect to a knee joint of the user, the device 10 comprising: a flexion system for carrying out the flexion process, the flexion system including a flexion/extension linear actuator 40 configured to selectively actuate in a first direction and a second direction (col. 8, ln. 65 – col. 9, ln. 9); an extension system for carrying out the extension process; the extension system including the flexion/extension linear actuator 40 configured to selectively actuate in a first direction and a second direction (Fig. 9, col. 8, ln. 15-18); and a power system (switch 100 and hand pump 60) configured to selectively actuate the flexion/extension linear actuator 40 (use of the switch allows the user to pump (via hand pump 60) the knee into extension, Fig. 9, col. 8, ln. 15-18).
Branch does not disclose having a separate flexion linear actuator and extension linear actuator, but rather uses the same linear actuator for both flexion and extension movements and uses a hand pump 60 to switch between modes
However, Kobayashi teaches a device for performing both flexion and extension of the leg, which uses separate linear actuators for each movement (Fig. 7A-7B, second actuator 104 assists flexion of the knee joint and third actuator assists extension of the knee joint, paragraphs [0111],[0115]-[0116]) and further includes a power system to selectively actuate the flexion linear actuator and the extension linear actuator (paragraphs [0133]-[0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Branch to include separate actuators from the flexion and extension systems, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to provide an alternative means for assisting movement in either or both directions, which allows individual control over the assistive force provided in each movement (paragraph [0115] of Kobayashi).
As to claim 89, modified Branch discloses the device according to Claim 88, wherein each of the flexion linear actuator and the extension linear actuator is a hydraulic cylinder, and wherein a common hydraulic fluid of the power system is configured to be selectively communicated to each of the flexion linear actuator and the extension linear actuator (see Branch col. 7, ln. 39-60).
As to claim 90, modified Branch discloses the device according to Claim 88, wherein the power system is powered by a hand pump lever 60 actuated by the user (see Branch Fig. 1, Fig. 2, col. 8, ln. 23-26; col. 8, ln. 65 – col. 9, ln. 4).
As to claim 91, modified Branch discloses the device according to Claim 88, wherein the power system includes a mode adjustment switch 100 configured to control which of the flexion linear actuator or the extension linear actuator is instantaneously powered by the power system (see Branch col. 8, ln. 15-18 and Kobayashi, paragraphs [0133]-[0134]).
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewing (US 2007/0093729), in view of Leismer et al. (US 2014/0276273).
As to claim 92, Ewing discloses a device (knee extension apparatus 20, Fig. 1, Fig. 3) for manipulating a leg of a user, the device 20 configured to perform an extension process with respect to a knee joint of the user (paragraph [0029]), the device 20 comprising:
a column assembly (including tubular support members 46, 48, 50 and elongated member 28) including a stationary first component 46 and a second component 28 configured to translate relative to the first component 46 with respect to a longitudinal direction of the column assembly 44 (support member 48 can slide up and down support member 46 to adjust the height of the knee engagement portion 26, paragraph [0021]);
an extension pad assembly 26 (described as a knee pad in paragraph [0075]) coupled to the second component 28 of the column assembly 44, the extension pad assembly 26 including a first extension bracket 282 configured to engage an upper surface of the leg at a position above the knee joint and a second extension bracket 284 configured to engage the upper surface of the leg at a position below the knee joint during the extension process of the device (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, paragraph [0035]), wherein the extension pad assembly 26 includes a bar (cross member 280) having the first and second extension pads 282, 284 coupled to opposing ends thereof (see Fig. 5), wherein the bar 280 rotates about an axis of rotation arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the column assembly 44 (cross member 280 can rotate about axis C-C via the rotational connection between support member 50 and support member 48, C-C is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (B-B) of the column assembly 44, see Fig. 1, paragraph [0021]); and
an extension linear actuator (pneumatic cylinder 68, see Fig. 4, paragraph [0022]) configured to selectively cause the translation of the second component 28 having the extension pad assembly 26 with respect to the longitudinal direction (B-B) of the column assembly during the extension process (drive assembly drives pneumatic cylinder 68 in the down direction along axis A-A which causes knee engagement portion 26, 126 to move in the down direction to move the joint 40 of the knee to an extended position, paragraph [0028]).
Ewing differs from the claimed invention in that Ewing discloses a single knee pad 26 (paragraph [0075]) and first and second extension brackets 282, 284 to engage above and below the knee, while the claim requires a first extension pad and a second extension pad. Ewing further does not expressly disclose that the bar 280 is a swivel bar. However, Leismer teaches a knee extension apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) having extension pads 36 for engaging above and below the knee (Fig. 2) as well as a swivel bar 110 (equalizer arm 110 pivots about pivot 111, Fig. 6) extending between the two pads 36 (see Fig. 2, Fig. 6, paragraph [0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ewing so the knee engagement means is in the form of two pads connected by a swivel bar, as taught by Leismer, in order to provide a suitable alternative knee engagement means that equalizes the force applied on either side of the knee joint and allows for further adjustability to different patients.
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewing (US 2007/0093729), in view of Leismer et al. (US 2014/0276273), as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of Praprotnik (US 4,222,376).
As to claim 93, modified Ewing discloses the device according to Claim 92, wherein the column assembly is configured to be translatable relative to a direction of extension of the leg of the user during the extension process. However, Praprotnik teaches an exercise machine (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) having a column assembly (base assembly 10 includes vertical cylindrical tube 40) including a slidable socket assembly 15 which allows the column/base assembly 10 to translate relative to an extension direction (translates in the left-right direction of Fig. 2) to adjust the position of the device relative to a chair a in which the user sits (see col. 2, ln. 18-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ewing to include a slidable assembly for allowing the column assembly to translate in the extension direction relative to the chair, as taught by Praprotonik, in order to provide a means to secure the chair in a fixed position relative to the device during use, to avoid sliding, and to allow adjustability for the length of different user’s legs.
Claims 94 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewing (US 2007/0093729), in view of Leismer et al. (US 2014/0276273), as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of Perry, JR. (US 2008/0096744).
As to claim 94, modified Ewing discloses the device according to Claim 92, wherein each of the first extension pad and the second extension pad includes a surface configured to extend around an upper disposed portion of the leg of the user during the extension process (the brackets 282,284 of Ewing, which are modified to be pads, engage the upper surface (anterior surface) of the leg, see Fig. 2), but does not disclose that the surface of the pads is a circumferentially extending concave surface (the pads taught by Leisner appear to be cylinder shaped with no concavity to them, see Leisner, Fig. 1).
However, Perry teaches a rehabilitation device (Fig. 1) having a pad 61 for engaging the leg of a user (calf/knee/thigh pad 61, see Fig. 1d, paragraph [0075]), the pad 61 having a circumferentially extending concave surface (Fig. 1, Fig. 1d, paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ewing, so that the pads have the circumferentially extending concave shape, as taught by Perry, in order to provide a an equally suitable alternative pad shape which is comfortable and contoured to the curved shape of the leg.
As to claim 95, modified Ewing discloses the device according to Claim 92, but lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the extension pad assembly includes a position locking feature for locking a position of the extension pad assembly to the second component with respect to the longitudinal direction of the column assembly.
However, Perry teaches a pad assembly 30, 31 (Fig. 1d) that includes a position locking feature (pin 38 and holes 36, 39) for locking a position of the pad assembly 30 to a second component 37 with respect to a longitudinal direction (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ewing so that the adjustment of the pad assembly in the longitudinal direction of the column assembly includes a position locking feature, as taught by Perry, in order to provide the necessary means to retain the pad assembly in the desired position and prevent unwanted vertical sliding during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 73-87 would be allowable except for the minor claim objections noted above.
As to claim 73, Branch discloses a device 10 (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) for manipulating a leg of a user, the device 10 configured to perform either of a flexion process or an extension process with respect to a knee joint of the user, the device 10 comprising:
a support frame 20 extending in a longitudinal direction A from a first end 22 to a second end 23 (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, col. 6, ln. 11-14);
a flexion system (Fig. 1-2) comprising:
a foot support assembly 30 configured to translate relative to the support frame 20 in the longitudinal direction A thereof, the foot support assembly 30 configured to engage a foot of the user during a flexion process of the device 10 or an ankle of the user during an extension process of the device 10 (see Fig. 4, col. 6, ln. 37-45); and
a flexion linear actuator 40 configured to selectively cause the translation of the foot support assembly with respect to the longitudinal direction of the support frame during the flexion process; (col. 8, ln. 65 – col. 9, ln. 9)
and a power system 60 configured to selectively actuate the flexion linear actuator (manual pump 60, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, col. 7, ln. 42-54).
Branch further discloses that the device can operate an extension process using the same linear actuator 40 and manual pump 60 by activating a switch 100 (Fig. 9, col. 8, ln. 15-18), but does not disclose an extension system comprising the column assembly, extension pad assembly, and extension linear actuator; or a power system configured to selectively actuate a separate extension linear actuator as well as the flexion linear actuator, as required by claim 1.
Ewing discloses a device (knee extension apparatus 20, Fig. 1, Fig. 3) for manipulating a leg of a user, the device 20 configured to perform either of an extension process with respect to a knee joint of the user (paragraph [0029]), the device 20 comprising:
a support frame (base 52) extending in a longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end (see Fig. 1);
an extension system 22 comprising:
a column assembly (including tubular support members 46, 48, 50 and elongated member 28) extending from the support frame 52 in a transverse direction (vertically) arranged transverse to a longitudinal direction thereof, the column assembly including a first component 46 coupled to the support frame 52 and a second component 28 configured to translate relative to the first component 46 with respect to the transverse direction (support member 48 can slide up and down support member 46 to adjust the height of the knee engagement portion 26, paragraph [0021]);
an extension pad assembly 26 (described as a knee pad in paragraph [0075]) coupled to the second component 28 of the column assembly, the extension pad assembly 26 including a first extension bracket 282 configured to engage an upper surface of the leg at a position above the knee joint and a second extension bracket 284 configured to engage the upper surface of the leg at a position below the knee joint during the extension process of the device (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, paragraph [0035]),
an extension linear actuator (pneumatic cylinder 68, see Fig. 4, paragraph [0022]) configured to selectively cause the translation of the second component 28 having the extension pad assembly 26 with respect to the transverse direction during the extension process (drive assembly drives pneumatic cylinder 68 in the down direction along axis A-A which causes knee engagement portion 26, 126 to move in the down direction to move the joint 40 of the knee to an extended position, paragraph [0028]); and
a power system (drive assembly 58. Fig. 4) configured to actuate the extension linear actuator 68 (Fig. 4, paragraph [0022]).
Ewing further discloses that the device can operate a flexion process using the same linear actuator 68 in the reverse direction by including a flexible, yet resilient material under the knee to press it back into a bent position when the cylinder retracts (paragraph [0029]), but does not disclose a flexion system comprising the foot support assembly and flexion linear actuator or a power system configured to selectively actuate a separate flexion linear actuator as well as the extension linear actuator, as required by claim 1.
Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Branch having the flexion system with foot support assembly and flexion linear actuator translatably moving the foot support assembly with the extension system having the column assembly, extension pad assembly, and extension linear actuator of Ewing in the claimed manner, since doing so would involve relatively complex structural changes such that and any attempt to combine them to arrive at the claimed invention would be improper hindsight.
Thus, claims 73-87 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diallo (US 2014/0094721), Farris (US 4,665,899), Harris (US 2007/0161479), Pucci et al. (US 2018/0256433) and Roman (US 4,229,001) each discloses a knee flexion and/or extension apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785