DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claim amendments and Applicant’s Remarks filed 11 March 2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-12. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “[[ ]]a seat provided with a squab” [line 3], wherein the Examiner notes that there appears to be a space before “a seat”.
Claim 1 should read “a first immobilization member for immobilizing the patient’s knee on the platform;” [line 6].
The Examiner notes that claim 1 appears to be directed towards a system comprising several individual components [seat, support platform, first immobilization member, thrust member, foot support, first sensor, second sensor, analysis system, interface] as opposed to a “device” [wherein the Examiner notes that later recitation in at least dependent claim 4 of a “legging” that does not appear to be structurally part of the device defined by at least the seat, support platform, first immobilization member, thrust member, foot support, first sensor, analysis system, interface, further suggests a system of elements, as opposed to a singular device]. The Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite “A measuring system” [line 1] and corresponding recitations of the measuring device as referred to in the preamble of any dependent claims.
Claim 3 should read “the contents of a memory of said computer” [lines 4-5].
Claim 6 should read “correct positioning of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on [[the]] a specific patient” [lines 4-5].
Claim 6 should read “reference positions respectively of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on the specific patient” [lines 5-6].
Claim 8 should read “the contents of a memory of said computer” [line 4].
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the positioning member for positioning said second sensor” [lines 2-3].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes Regarding § 112(f) Interpretation: the previously presented claim interpretations of the limitations of “first immobilization member” [previously recited as “first member”], “second immobilization member”, and ”positioning member” [previously recited as “member”] on p. 4-7 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 11 August 2025 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 12, and those dependent therefrom is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a thrust member for pushing the knee, the thrust member mounted translationally movable on the platform” [lines 8-9], which is considered indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited limitation is meant to define a thrust member that is different/separate from the previously defined thrust member of the support platform of claim 1 [“a support platform… provided with a thrust member for pushing the patient’s calf” (lines 5-6)] or further limit the previously defined thrust member in terms of function and structure relative to the platform [The thrust member (9a) is mounted so as to be translationally movable on the platform (17a), in order to exert a thrust force against the patient's calf at a desired force threshold (Applicant’s Specification ¶0081); a thrust member (9a) for pushing the patient's knee which is mounted so as to be translationally movable on the platform (17a) (Applicant’s Specification ¶0101), wherein the Examiner notes that the specification is considered to only define a singular thrust member 9a]. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted either identified interpretation to be applicable in light of any art applied under § 102 or § 103.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “applying control laws depending on the contents of memory of said computer” [line 5], which is considered to recite subject matter that lacks antecedent basis, as claims 1-2 [from which claim 3 depends] and claim 3 fail to previously define any particular contents that may be stored on the claimed computer memory of claim 3 [line 3]. The Examiner notes that while claim 3 does recite a “computer memory” [line 3], the computer memory is not clearly linked to the computer that comprises the particular memory cited above. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the computer memory to contain control laws. Claim 8 is considered to recite similar language that lacks antecedent basis and is further considered indefinite [“applying control laws depending on the contents of said computer memory” (lines 4-5)], wherein for examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the indefinite limitation of claim 8 similar to the interpretation of claim 3 as noted above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “The device according to claim 1, wherein a control member…” [line 1], which is considered indefinite, as the particular relationship between the claimed control member and the device of claim 1 unclear, as it is not clear whether the device of claim 1 is meant to further comprise the control member, merely communicate with the control member, or employ any other particular configuration of the control member relative to the device of claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted any identified interpretation to be applicable in light of any art applied under § 102 or § 103.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a servo-control module correlated with at least one first motor for positioning the squab in relative inclination with the backrest, a second motor for positioning the platform in relative inclination with the squab” [lines 3-6], which is considered indefinite, as the lack of sufficient punctuation makes it unclear whether the recited second motor is meant to be correlated with the servo-control module alongside the first motor, or whether the second motor is merely recited as an additional structure. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted either identified interpretation to be applicable in light of any art applied under § 102 or § 103. Claim 12 is considered to recite similar language that is considered indefinite [lines 3-6], wherein for examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the indefinite limitation of claim 7 similar to the interpretation of claim 7 as noted above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “The device according to claim 2, wherein the control member” [line 1], which is considered indefinite, as claims 1-2 and 12 fail to provide antecedent basis for a control member. Claim 12 is further rendered indefinite, as the lack of antecedent basis for the recited “control member” makes the particular relationship between the claimed control member and the device of claim 2 unclear, as it is not clear whether the device of claim 2 is meant to further comprise the control member, merely communicate with the control member, or employ any other particular configuration of the control member relative to the device of claim 2. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted any identified interpretation to be applicable in light of any art applied under § 102 or § 103.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof [the Examiner notes that while claim 3 recites “controlling said first and second motors” (lines 3-4) and claim 8 recites “controlling said motors” (lines 3-4), as claim 2, which claims 3 and 8 are both dependent from, only defines a first and second motor (lines 2-4), the recitation of claim 8 is considered to be a slight difference in wording from the recitation of claim 3]. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robert (EP-2699160-B1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Robert teaches
A measuring device for characterizing an anterior cruciate ligament injury to a knee of a patient, comprising:
a seat provided with a squab having a tiltable backrest [The apparatus 17 comprises a seat 20 of the patient provided with a backrest 21 that can be tilted with respect to the seat. This is for example constituted by a cushion 22 on which the buttock of the patient 19 rests (Translated Robert p. 5, Fig. 5)],
a support platform for supporting the patient’s leg, rotationally movable relative to the squab, and provided with a thrust member for pushing the patient’s calf [The apparatus 17 comprises a support plate 23 for supporting the leg 24 of the mobile patient in rotation (arrow 25 on the Figure 5A) with respect to the seat 20 (Robert p. 5, Figs. 5-5A); It is also provided with a push member 28 of the calf 29 of the patient (Robert p. 5, Figs. 5-5A); The thrust member 28 comprises a calf support cushion 43 rigidly fixed to a link 44 hingedly connected at 45 to an axial jack system 46, parallel to the support, and capable of operating perpendicular to its stroke (arrow 47) (Robert p. 6, Fig. 5A)];
a first immobilization member for immobilizing the patient’s knee on the platform [There are provided means 32 for fixing the leg to said support and (cf. Figure 5A ) (Robert p. 5, Fig. 5A); The fastening means on the leg comprise in turn a pellet shaped spherical cap, or shell 67 of quadricipital support, arranged to be in contact with the top of the end of the thigh and attached to the support by a set of two straps 68 parallel rigid semi-rigid clamping, for example plastic (Robert p. 7, Fig. 5)]
a thrust member for pushing the knee, the thrust member mounted translationally movable on the platform [thrust member 28 (Robert p. 5-6, Fig. 5A), wherein the Examiner has interpreted the “thrust member for pushing the knee” to further limit the “thrust member for pushing the patient’s calf” as per the corresponding § 112(b) rejection above];
a foot support, rotationally movable on the platform, capable of causing the patient’s tibia to rotate at a desired force threshold, said foot support being provided with a second immobilization member for immobilizing the patient’s foot [The support 34 (see also Figure 7 and 7A ) comprises a shell 50 for holding the foot 35 (Robert p. 6, Fig. 5); This support 34 comprises a cylindrical vertical rod 54 fixed at its end to a spherical ball 55 rotatable along the three degrees of freedom (36, 37 and 38) in a guide 56 formed by a parallelepipedal part defining a recess or groove 58 in which sphere is retained, for example by longitudinal upper lips, grooves with which the spherical ball 55 cooperates with sliding allowing free rotation of the rotating foot support, as described above (Robert p. 6, Fig. 5A); Finally there are provided straps 60, for example two parallel straps for holding the foot in the support 34, to fix the assembly to allow a test repetitively and reliably (Robert p. 6, Fig. 5)];
a first sensor positioned on the tibial tuberosity, anterior of said patient for detecting translational displacement of the tibia [The support plate of the leg 23 comprises, as has been seen, and moreover, the displacement detection sensor 30. It is fixed in a height-adjustable manner by a rod 63, the plate 64 for example articulated (64) (Robert p. 7, Fig. 5)];
a second sensor assigned to measuring an angle of rotation of the tibia, said second sensor being mounted on a positioning member relative to the foot support [the foot support 34 also comprises sensor means known in themselves, for example constituted by an inclinometer of the capacitive type for example (not shown) of at least one angle of rotation of said connected support (mixed line 61 of the Figure 5A) by means of calculation and arranged to measure the rotational movement recorded by said sensor induced by the tibia during the bending of the support relative to the seat and integrate it if necessary to the elements already and already obtained and taken into account in the analysis of the lesion (Robert p. 6); When one exerts a pressure under the calf, (generating anterior translation of the tibia), just as when one imposes a flexion of the knee with an angle included between 10 ° and 70 °, one induces a movement of rotation of the tibia and therefore foot, which should be made free not to add a constraint disturbing the measurement (Robert p. 3), wherein the Examiner notes that Robert p. 3 indicates that rotation of the user’s foot is considered to be indicative of rotation of the user’s tibia, wherein the Examiner notes that the sensor means (inclinometer) being structurally connected to said foot support 34 as recited by Robert is considered to be an equivalent § 112(f) interpreted structure]; and
an analysis system for analyzing measurements respectively supplied by the first sensor and the second sensor, wherein the analysis system combines translational data from the first sensor with rotational data from the second sensor to characterize both translational and rotational movement of the tibia [The apparatus comprises recording means 40 of the curves 41 obtained for one and the other of the legs and giving the displacement of the sensor as a function of the thrust force (cf. figure 3 and 4 ) but in different inclinations (angles α-cf, arrow 25 on the Figure 5A ) between the support 23 and the seat 20, and calculation means 42 arranged to measure the differential between these curves and deduce the partial lesion of the AM ligament and / or PL ligament (Robert p. 5, Fig. 5A); These comprise a conventional computer microprocessor, programmed as in itself by those skilled in the art to perform the functions of comparison of the curves (Robert p. 5); We then perform the examination and comparison of the curves obtained, both with regard to the laxity differential, and that of the slopes between the two legs, which are compared with the threshold values, for example of 3 mm and 9 μm / N above, through the computer (step 72). This step may also advantageously comprise a measurement in rotation of the foot which, if it shows an angle of rotation, for example according to the degree of freedom 38, in the plane perpendicular to the leg, greater than a determined threshold value, related to the angle α flexion with the seat, for example 15 °, for an angle α of 30 °, can complete the diagnosis (Robert p. 8); When one exerts a pressure under the calf, (generating anterior translation of the tibia), just as when one imposes a flexion of the knee with an angle included between 10 ° and 70 °, one induces a movement of rotation of the tibia and therefore foot, which should be made free not to add a constraint disturbing the measurement (Robert p. 3), wherein the Examiner notes that Robert p. 3 indicates that rotation of the user’s foot is considered to be indicative of rotation of the user’s tibia], and
an interface for displaying data supplied by the analysis system [It is thus possible to deduce therefrom (step 77) the diagnosis of the lesion which is displayed for example in the form of a message on the screen of the indicator 40 and then to perform in 78 if necessary, the operation necessary to rectify the pathology (Robert p. 9, Fig. 5A)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Branch (US-20120046540-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 2, Robert teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient’s knee according to claim 1.
However, while Roberts discloses operability of translation of the thrust member and rotation of the foot support [Robert p. 6, Fig. 5A], Robert fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device comprises a first motor controlling a translation of the thrust member for pushing the knee and a second motor controlling a rotation of the foot support.
Branch discloses a robotic knee testing device, wherein Branch discloses motors for pushing the patient’s knee and rotating the patient’s foot to apply different diagnostic routines [the torque is applied by one or more computer controlled motors. In at least one embodiment, such is accomplished by the use of six (6) brushless servo motors. The computer may be programmed to instruct the motor(s) to perform any desired diagnostic routine. Custom software may be utilized on the computer to calculate the appropriate amount of torque to be used by each motor during testing based on the person's height and weight. The desired torque thresholds are then communicated with the motors (Branch ¶0072); Action G, about Pivot Point GPP--According to various embodiments, GPP is the axis of rotation (normal to the drawing plane, in axis "Z") for anteroposterior laxity testing, causing the rotation indicated as Action G. At least one envisioned embodiment uses a servomotor 168 to provide the rotational force, although other manual or mechanical methods of force application could be used (Branch ¶0243, Fig. 2); This is the axis of rotation for tibial internal and external rotation testing according to various embodiments. At least one envisioned embodiment uses a servomotor 206 to provide the rotational force, although other manual or mechanical methods of force application could be used (Branch ¶0244, Fig. 2)].
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 Robert to employ a first motor controlling a translation of the thrust member for pushing the knee and a second motor controlling a rotation of the foot support, in order to allow for computerized control of the mechanisms for pushing the patient’s knee and rotating the patient’s foot [Branch ¶0072].
Regarding claim 3, Robert in view of Branch teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient’s knee according to claim 2, wherein the device comprises a computer memory for recording at least one digital force model [Robert p. 5].
However, Robert fails to explicitly disclose a computer controlling said first and second motors by applying control laws depending on the contents of said memory of said computer.
Branch discloses a robotic knee testing device, wherein Branch discloses motors for pushing the patient’s knee and rotating the patient’s foot to apply different diagnostic routines [Branch ¶¶0072, 0243-0244, Fig. 2].
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 Robert to employ a computer controlling said first and second motors by applying control laws depending on the contents of said memory of said computer, in order to allow for computerized control of the mechanisms for pushing the patient’s knee and rotating the patient’s foot [Branch ¶0072].
Regarding claim 8, Robert in view of Branch teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient's knee according to claim 2, wherein the device comprises a computer memory for recording at least one digital force model [Robert p. 5].
However, Robert in view of Branch fails to explicitly disclose a computer controlling said motors by applying control laws depending on the contents of memory of said computer.
Branch discloses a robotic knee testing device, wherein Branch discloses motors for pushing the patient’s knee and rotating the patient’s foot to apply different diagnostic routines [Branch ¶¶0072, 0243-0244, Fig. 2].
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 Robert in view of Branch to employ a computer controlling said motors by applying control laws depending on the contents of memory of said computer, in order to allow for computerized control of the mechanisms for pushing the patient’s knee and rotating the patient’s foot [Branch ¶0072].
Regarding claim 10, Robert in view of Branch teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient's knee according to claim 2, wherein a first member for positioning the first sensor is mounted on at least one articulated beam which is attached to the platform [Robert p. 7, Fig. 5].
However, Robert in view of Branch fails to explicitly disclose wherein said positioning member for positioning said second sensor is also mounted on the at least one articulated beam.
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 Robert in view of Branch to employ wherein said positioning member for positioning said second sensor is also mounted on the at least one articulated beam, as this modification would amount to mere rearrangement of parts [second sensor as mounted in Robert p. 6 to be positioned with first sensor on the articulated beam (Robert p. 7, Fig. 5)] [MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)].
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Howard (US-20190117156-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 4, Robert teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient’s knee according to claim 1.
However, Robert fails to explicitly disclose wherein the positioning member for positioning said second sensor is arranged in a legging.
Howard discloses systems for monitoring a patient’s knee during rehabilitation, wherein Howard discloses movement sensors positioned in a sleeve worn around the patient’s knee [An exemplary wearable 100 comprises one or more of (in some cases all of) the following sensors 102: accelerometer(s), gyroscope(s), heart rate monitor(s), inertial measurements unit(s), stretch/flex sensor(s), pressure sensor(s), and temperature sensor(s) (Howard ¶0051); FIG. 1B shows the sleeve 100 while worn by a human about the knee. The textile material 101 is not shown to permit clear depiction of sensor arrangement (Howard ¶0056, Fig. 1B); The kinematic model created in Visual 3D is used to quantify the motion at the hip, knee, and ankle joints with rotations being expressed relative to the static trial (Howard ¶0100)].
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 Robert to employ wherein the positioning member for positioning said second sensor is arranged in a legging, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element [second sensor as mounted in Robert p. 6] for another [sleeve of Howard] with similar expected results [positioning the second sensor relative to the patient] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 6, Robert teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient’s knee according to claim 1.
However, Robert fails to explicitly disclose further comprising an assistance device at least comprising a signal transmitter capable of indicating to a practitioner correct positioning of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on the specific patient, with regard to reference positions respectively of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on the patient previously defined and stored in a directory of individualized sensor positions for various patients via a memory of the assistance device.
Howard discloses systems for monitoring a patient’s knee during rehabilitation, wherein Howard discloses devices comprising at least a signal transmitter for determining correct positioning of sensors on a specific patient [The individualization of the placement of the sleeve surrounding the joint: A major need in knee sleeve sensing is to ensure that the sensors are distributed in the same position each time the wearer puts the device on. One of the roles of the patellar sensor is to sense that the device of which the patellar sensor is a part is correctly placed so that the patella is surrounded by the pressure donut and able to provide feedback to the user to rotate or adjust the sleeve to correctly fit around the patella (Howard ¶0108)], with regard to reference positions of the sensors on the patient previously defined and stored in a directory of individualized sensor positions for various patients via a memory [A patient is fitted with the knee sleeve and feedback is given through the mobile application privately or in the presence of rehabilitation personnel to ensure that the knee sleeve is positioned correctly over the patella. These values are stored and remembered to inform a patient if they are correctly wearing the device. The patient is then presented with a menu of specific calibration exercises to perform for device calibration (Howard ¶0112)].
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 Robert to employ an assistance device at least comprising a signal transmitter capable of indicating to a practitioner correct positioning of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on the specific patient, with regard to reference positions respectively of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on the patient previously defined and stored in a directory of individualized sensor positions for various patients via a memory of the assistance device, in order to allow for proper and consistent positioning of sensors on a particular patient [Howard ¶¶0108, 0112].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Robert teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient’s knee according to claim 1, wherein a first member for positioning the first sensor is mounted on at least one articulated beam which is attached to the platform [Robert p. 7, Fig. 5].
However, Robert fails to explicitly disclose wherein said positioning member for positioning said second sensor is also mounted on the at least one articulated beam.
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 Robert to employ wherein said positioning member for positioning said second sensor is also mounted on the at least one articulated beam, as this modification would amount to mere rearrangement of parts [second sensor as mounted in Robert p. 6 to be positioned with first sensor on the articulated beam (Robert p. 7, Fig. 5)] [MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wang (US-20080228358-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 7, Robert teaches
The device according to claim 1.
However, Robert fails to explicitly disclose wherein a control member includes a control module for controlling at least one configuring of the seat for a specific patient the control module being a servo-control module correlated with at least one first motor for positioning the squab in relative inclination with the backrest, a second motor for positioning the platform in relative inclination with the squab, the control module comprising a memory for storing a directory of individualized seat configuration models for various patients which are pre-set and are reproducible by the control member.
Wu discloses systems for personalized configurations of seats, wherein Wu discloses a module for controlling at least one configuring of a seat of the device for a specific user, the control module being a servo-control module correlated with at least one motor for positioning portions of the seat in relative inclination to other portions of the seat [More specifically, actuators 82, which may, for example, be servomotors, are operatively connected to the seat assembly 24 to selectively move the lower seat portion 32 fore and aft, and up and down, as well as to tilt the lower seat portion 32, i.e., adjust the reclination angle. Servomotors 82 are also operatively connected to the seatback portion 36 to pivot the seatback portion 36, i.e., to adjust the reclination angle. An actuator 84 is also operatively connected to the headrest 40 to selectively raise and lower the headrest 40, and to move the headrest fore/aft relative to the seatback portion 36 (Wang ¶0022, Fig. 1)], the control module comprising a memory for storing a directory of individualized seat configuration models for various patients which are pre-set and are reproducible by a control member [The personalization system 12 is configured to cause the selectively variable parameters of the reconfigurable systems 24, 44, 48, 52 to assume values that are determined by the CPU 20 according to a predetermined algorithm and based on personal information about the occupant of the seat assembly 24. The personal information is prerecorded onto a data storage medium. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the personal information is stored in the data storage and retrieval module 16 (Wang ¶0025); Referring to FIGS. 4 and 5, the method includes, at step 100, obtaining personal information of a plurality of persons (shown at 102A, 102B, 102C, 102D in FIG. 5). Exemplary persons include the customer and the customer's family and friends. The personal information includes physical characteristics (biometric data) and personal preferences. The personal information may be obtained by direct measurement of the persons, or may be communicated by the persons. The physical characteristics may include, for example, weight, height, length of torso, length of legs, etc. (Wang ¶0027)].
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 Robert to employ a control member that includes a control module for controlling at least one configuring of the seat for a specific patient the control module being a servo-control module correlated with at least one first motor for positioning the squab in relative inclination with the backrest, a second motor for positioning the platform in relative inclination with the squab, the control module comprising a memory for storing a directory of individualized seat configuration models for various patients which are pre-set and are reproducible by the control member, in order to allow for personalization of the inclination between each of the squab, backrest, and support to accommodate a specific patient [Wang ¶0027].
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Branch, as applied to claim 2, in further view of Howard.
Regarding claim 9, Robert in view of Branch teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient's knee according to claim 2.
However, Robert in view of Branch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second member for positioning said second sensor is arranged in a legging.
Howard discloses systems for monitoring a patient’s knee during rehabilitation, wherein Howard discloses movement sensors positioned in a sleeve worn around the patient’s knee [Howard ¶¶0051, 0056, 0100, Fig. 1B].
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 Robert in view of Branch to employ the second member for positioning said second sensor is arranged in a legging, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element [second sensor as mounted in Robert p. 6] for another [sleeve of Howard] with similar expected results [positioning the second sensor relative to the patient] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 11, Robert in view of Branch teaches
The measuring device for characterizing an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament of a patient's knee according to claim 2.
However, Robert in view of Branch fails to explicitly disclose further comprising an assistance device at least comprising a signal transmitter capable of indicating to a practitioner correct positioning of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on a specific patient, with regard to reference positions respectively of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on the specific patient previously defined and stored in a directory of individualized sensor positions for various patients via a memory of the assistance device.
Howard discloses systems for monitoring a patient’s knee during rehabilitation, wherein Howard discloses devices comprising at least a signal transmitter for determining correct positioning of sensors on a specific patient [Howard ¶0108], with regard to reference positions of the sensors on the patient previously defined and stored in a directory of individualized sensor positions for various patients via a memory [Howard ¶0112].
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 Robert in view of Branch to employ further comprising an assistance device at least comprising a signal transmitter capable of indicating to a practitioner correct positioning of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on a specific patient, with regard to reference positions respectively of the first sensor and/or of the second sensor on the specific patient previously defined and stored in a directory of individualized sensor positions for various patients via a memory of the assistance device, in order to allow for proper and consistent positioning of sensors on a particular patient [Howard ¶¶0108, 0112].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Branch, as applied to claim 2, in further view of Wang.
Regarding claim 12, Robert in view of Branch teaches
The device according to claim 2.
However, Robert fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control member includes a control module for controlling at least one configuring of the seat for a specific patient, the control module being a servo-control module correlated with at least one first motor for positioning the squab in relative inclination with the backrest, a second motor for positioning the platform in relative inclination with the squab, the control module comprising a memory for storing a directory of individualized seat configuration models for various patients which are pre-set and are reproducible by the control member.
Wu discloses systems for personalized configurations of seats, wherein Wu discloses a module for controlling at least one configuring of a seat of the device for a specific user, the control module being a servo-control module correlated with at least one motor for positioning portions of the seat in relative inclination to other portions of the seat [Wang ¶0022, Fig. 1], the control module comprising a memory for storing a directory of individualized seat configuration models for various patients which are pre-set and are reproducible by a control member [Wang ¶¶0025, 0027)].
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 Robert to employ a control member that includes a control module for controlling at least one configuring of the seat for a specific patient, the control module being a servo-control module correlated with at least one first motor for positioning the squab in relative inclination with the backrest, a second motor for positioning the platform in relative inclination with the squab, the control module comprising a memory for storing a directory of individualized seat configuration models for various patients which are pre-set and are reproducible by the control member, in order to allow for personalization of the inclination between each of the squab, backrest, and support to accommodate a specific patient [Wang ¶0027].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the previously presented objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
The Examiner notes that not all of the previously presented claim objections were overcome and/or addressed. See above for maintained objections.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7, with respect to the previously applied claim rejections under § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that not all of the previously presented claim rejections under § 112(b) were overcome and/or addressed. See above for maintained rejections.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 8-11, with respect to the previously applied claim rejections under § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that claim 1 requires “a second sensor assigned to measuring an angle of rotation of the tibia, and said second sensor being mounted on a positioning member for positioning said second sensor relative to the foot support”, wherein the Applicant notes that Robert does not disclose such a dedicated rotational sensor mounted relative to the foot support. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that Robert does disclose a dedicated rotational sensor mounted relative to the foot support [the foot support 34 also comprises sensor means known in themselves, for example constituted by an inclinometer of the capacitive type for example (not shown) of at least one angle of rotation of said connected support (mixed line 61 of the Figure 5A) by means of calculation and arranged to measure the rotational movement recorded by said sensor induced by the tibia during the bending of the support relative to the seat and integrate it if necessary to the elements already and already obtained and taken into account in the analysis of the lesion (Robert p. 6); When one exerts a pressure under the calf, (generating anterior translation of the tibia), just as when one imposes a flexion of the knee with an angle included between 10 ° and 70 °, one induces a movement of rotation of the tibia and therefore foot, which should be made free not to add a constraint disturbing the measurement (Robert p. 3), wherein the Examiner notes that Robert p. 3 indicates that rotation of the user’s foot is considered to be indicative of rotation of the user’s tibia, wherein the Examiner notes that the sensor means (inclinometer) being structurally connected to said foot support 34 as recited by Robert is considered to be an equivalent § 112(f) interpreted structure].
The Applicant further asserts that claim 1 requires integration of translational and rotational data in the analysis system, wherein the Applicant notes that Robert does not disclose the joint processing of translational data [e.g., from a sensor positioned at the tibial tuberosity] and rotation data [from the second sensor mounted relative to the foot support] and argues that as Robert only measures a single type of displacement, Robert cannot provide diagnostic insight regarding assessing lesions of lateral ligaments. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as Robert does disclose processing both translational and rotational data to assess the user’s leg [The apparatus comprises recording means 40 of the curves 41 obtained for one and the other of the legs and giving the displacement of the sensor as a function of the thrust force (cf. figure 3 and 4 ) but in different inclinations (angles α-cf, arrow 25 on the Figure 5A ) between the support 23 and the seat 20, and calculation means 42 arranged to measure the differential between these curves and deduce the partial lesion of the AM ligament and / or PL ligament (Robert p. 5, Fig. 5A); We then perform the examination and comparison of the curves obtained, both with regard to the laxity differential, and that of the slopes between the two legs, which are compared with the threshold values, for example of 3 mm and 9 μm / N above, through the computer (step 72). This step may also advantageously comprise a measurement in rotation of the foot which, if it shows an angle of rotation, for example according to the degree of freedom 38, in the plane perpendicular to the leg, greater than a determined threshold value, related to the angle α flexion with the seat, for example 15 °, for an angle α of 30 °, can complete the diagnosis (Robert p. 8); When one exerts a pressure under the calf, (generating anterior translation of the tibia), just as when one imposes a flexion of the knee with an angle included between 10 ° and 70 °, one induces a movement of rotation of the tibia and therefore foot, which should be made free not to add a constraint disturbing the measurement (Robert p. 3), wherein the Examiner notes that Robert p. 3 indicates that rotation of the user’s foot is considered to be indicative of rotation of the user’s tibia].
The Applicant also asserts a difference between the instant invention and the disclosure of Robert is that the instant invention enables rapid ACL injury diagnosis without contralateral comparison to allow for direct identification of ACL tears by simultaneously evaluating translational and rotational motion in a single knee, whereas Robert requires comparing the injured knee with the contralateral healthy knee to confirm ACL lesions. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “diagnosis without contralateral comparison”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Robert is not limited to contralateral comparison, as Robert discloses comparison to a predetermined threshold, as opposed to solely comparison between a healthy and unhealthy leg of the same patient [According to the tests and the operative findings, a partial (fifteen cases) or complete (fifty-five cases) repair was carried out. Thus a threshold of differential laxity <3 mm at 134 N allows the preoperative repair diagnosis of a beam with a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 80%. The differential slope threshold <at 9 μm / N allows preoperative repair diagnosis of a beam with a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 80% … to obtain a curve according to the curves of figures 3 or 4 on one then on the other leg (step 71). We then perform the examination and comparison of the curves obtained, both with regard to the laxity differential, and that of the slopes between the two legs, which are compared with the threshold values, for example of 3 mm and 9 μm / N above, through the computer (step 72)]
The Applicant asserts that the claimed device ensure reliable and repeatable therapeutic monitoring, providing consistent follow-up of knee stability after treatment, wherein the Applicant notes that Robert does not provide the argued repeatability, as the measurements of Robert are limited and less anatomically targeted. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “repeatable therapeutic monitoring”, “follow-up of knee stability after treatment”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights