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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/027062, filed on March 17, 2023.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 1, “Mobility rehabilitation device” should read --A mobility rehabilitation device--
Line 1, “comprising” is considered legal phraseology and should be amended
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for more guidance
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-8, 12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, “the intensity” should read --an intensity--,
Claim 4,
“ the movement” should read --a movement--,
“the power” should read --a power--,
Claim 5,
“the value of power” should read --a value of power--,
“the power” should read --a power--,
Claim 6, line 5, “the power” should read --a power--,
Claim 7,
“the gluteus” should read should read --a gluteus--,
“the front femoral portion” should read should read --a front femoral portion--,
“the rear femoral portion” should read should read --a rear femoral portion--,
“the front tibial portion” should read should read --a front tibial portion--,
“the rear tibial portion” should read should read --a rear tibial portion--,
Claim 8, line 2, “in integral to” should read --is integral to--,
Claim 12, line 5, “the axis of rotation” should read --an axis of rotation--,
Claim 15,
“the walking movement” should read --a walking movement--,
“the mechanical power” should read --a mechanical power--,
“the value of power” should read --a value of power--,
“the movement means” should read --a movement means--,
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.
Such claim limitations are:
“control means for measuring the power supplied” in Claim 4
“fastening means for the patient’s femur” in Claim 11
“automatic movement means of said platforms” and “measuring means of the mechanical power” in Claim 15
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited.
Regarding Claim 2, the applicant discloses a computer program configured to implement a series of steps, including “subdividing the lower limbs … identifying a main muscle group … schematizing the action cycle … determining … an adjusting cycle of the intensity”.
It is unclear how the applicant intends the computer program to perform each of these steps, as the provided Specification repeats the claim limitations, but does not clarify the intended functionality of the program.
Claims 2 and 3 both recite an “adjusting cycle”, however, it is unclear if this cycle is intended to be understood as the same cycle disclosed in Claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the cycles to be in reference to Claim 1.
Regarding antecedent basis:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said couple of mobilization actuators" and “the movement cycle” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the action cycle" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the current cycle” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recited the limitation “the current cycle” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trees (US 8858409 B2) in view of Kiremitci (US 20120265275 A1), in view of Daffer (US 20090222070 A1), and further in view of Bonutti (US 20180243626 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Trees discloses: A device for mobility rehabilitation (Paragraph 0002, The present specification generally relates to patient support apparatuses and, more specifically, to patient support apparatuses which are adjustable from a horizontal orientation to an egress orientation, a tilt orientation, and an exercise orientation useful for rehabilitating patients with severe muscle weakness) comprising
a table hinged at an end to a support structure (Paragraph 0044, Referring to FIG. 1, one embodiment of a patient support apparatus 29 is schematically depicted. The patient support apparatus 29 can be used for rehabilitation of severely deconditioned patients, including deconditioned bariatric patients. The patient support apparatus 29 generally comprises a base frame 61, a support deck 50, a segmented patient support surface 11, a lift system 170 (depicted in FIGS. 4 and 5) and a stationary exercise support, such as foot plate assembly 41)
and respective actuator configured to make said table rotate between a horizontal position and a vertical position (Paragraph 0046, Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 3-5, the lift system 170 includes load frame 62 which couples the lift system 170 to the base frame 61. It is noted that FIGS. 3-5 and the following description generally correspond to FIGS. 4-5 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,426,760 and the associated description of those figures contained therein. The load frame 62 supports the various linear actuators (such as jack motors and the like) and related mechanical and electrical components which facilitate raising, lowering and tilting the support deck 50 with respect to the base frame 61 and articulating various portions and/or segments of both the support deck 50 and the segmented patient support surface 11),
said table being provided with a harness configured to fasten a patient positioned thereon so that the patient cannot fall down even when the table is in vertical position (Paragraph 0089, As shown in FIG. 13, the patient is secured to patient support apparatus at the chest, waist and knees with support straps 15, 16 and 17. The straps are secured to strap weldments 12, 121, 122 located on the underside of the patient support surface),
said rehabilitation device comprising also
a lower limbs movement mechanism (Figure 25, upper leg support segment 31, lower leg support segment 32, ankle support segment 33), (Paragraph 0091, Referring to FIGS. 25A-25D by way of example, an embodiment of a support deck 50 is depicted which enables a leg elevation function)
configured to make the patient's femur rotate with respect to the hip (Paragraph 0091, A conventional lift system (not shown) may be coupled to the support deck 50 to enable pivoting the intermediate portion 54 with respect to the seat portion 52 and the leg portion 53 with respect to the intermediate portion 54 such that the leg portion 53 is elevated relative to the seat portion 52 to achieve a leg elevation orientation)
and a couple of feet movement platforms (Paragraph 0067, Specifically, the foot plate assembly 41 is positioned proximate a free end of the leg portion 53 of the support deck 50. The foot plate assembly 41 is positioned to receive the feet of a patient when the patient is positioned on the segmented patient support surface 11)
a data processing and control unit (Figure 24, control unit 174)
configured to control said lower limbs movement mechanism (Paragraph 0072, The control system 200 generally comprises a control unit 174 having a memory 176 for storing computer readable and executable instructions and a processor 178 communicatively coupled to the memory 176. The processor 178 is operable to read the computer readable and executable instructions stored in the memory 176 […] The control unit 174 receives signals from the user interface 160 and adjusts the position of the support deck and/or the segmented patient support surface based on the signals received by sending control signals to the jack motors 24, 55, 90, 92, 118 of the lift system 170)
Trees does not disclose a plurality of infrared light sources. However, Kiremitci does disclose an oscillating photo light therapy device that comprises
a plurality of infrared light sources (Paragraph 0019, The three light emitting sources 28 are herein superposed, and a transparent protective sheet 30 (such as made of clear acrylic) is provided forwardly of the light emitting sources 28 as a shield that protects the users from touching any hot filter and components while allowing the transmission of the desired rays to the user U)
fastened to respective supports integral to said support structure (Paragraph 0023, Device D can be used in a stand-alone vertical floor-mounted manner, behind the treadmill T of various manufacturers (as in FIG. 1) or it can be attached to the treadmill or other exercise machine by using clamps, bolts and other appropriate mechanical fastening devices)
and positioned so that each light source lights up the muscles of a respective area of the patient's lower limbs (Paragraph 0022, The light emitting sources 28 emit an ample amount of infrared energy from 633 to 900 nm range light spectrum (e.g. 633 nm, 700 nm or 852 nm), and are used along with parabolic reflectors and selective narrow band transmitting glass filters to produce an effective infrared photo light therapy on the thigh area of the user U while he/she utilizes the treadmill T. The light-emitting unit U oscillates for instance approximately 15 degrees every minute via the 1 RPM gear motor 32, thereby enabling the user U to receive uniform energy on his/her legs),
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kiremitci’s photo light therapy device with the rehabilitation support apparatus taught by Trees to provide additional health benefits, such as increasing the blood flow to improve patient movement during exercises (Paragraph 0024-0025, This selected energy is able to reduce pore sizes, improve skin complexion, heal wounds faster, energize the lower epidermis for producing collagen and aid in gradually reducing cellulite. The selective infrared energy is also able to penetrate approximately 1/2'' in depth to increase the blood flow for even more benefits for training athletes).
However, Trees in view of Kiremitci does not explicitly disclose the data processing and control unit being configured to manage an adjusting cycle of the intensity of said light sources.
Daffer does disclose said data processing and control unit (Abstract, The present invention relates to an individual covered compartment or capsule in which a person can lie for various therapeutic treatments. The capsule includes the ability to provide for a whole body photo-therapy system including controllable wavelength LEDs and/or infrared lights) is configured also to manage an adjusting cycle of the intensity of said light sources (Paragraph 0024, Besides being able to control the wavelength of the LED array, the control panel can also be utilized to control the energy output of the light arrays) in a differentiated manner for each of said sources (Paragraph 0039, The controls can be provided for continuous or variable pulsation frequency of the light, and the intensity, power level, the infrared thermal temperature, and intermixing the sequence of LED and infrared treatment can be made) (Paragraph 0027, In the person's leg area, infrared light sections are shown at 52A and 52B, and again these can be controlled from the controls 42 using suitable electronic controls available for lights)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Daffer’s controlled light arrays with the patient rehabilitation apparatus disclosed by Trees in view of Kiremitci so as to provide adjustable and customizable light therapy based on the needs of a particular patient.
Tree in view of Kiremitci and Daffer do not explicitly disclose adjusting the cycle of intensity as a function of the movement cycle imposed by said couple of mobilization actuators of the lower limbs.
Bonutti discloses said data processing and control unit (Paragraph 0142, In the illustrated embodiment, the controller 310 is operatively connected to a memory 312 configured to store one or more control routines including data representative of a desired muscle activation sequence) is configured also to manage an adjusting cycle of the intensity (Paragraph 0142, the controller is configured to control which types of stimuli are conveyed at a given time and/or to selectively adjust an intensity of a stimuli) of said light sources (Paragraph 0140, The muscle activation system 300 can be configured to transmit any suitable type of stimulus for selectively activating and relaxing the muscles. In one or more embodiments, the generator 302 is configured to generate a noxious stimulus that is transmitted through the transmitters 304 to the subject. Examples of suitable noxious stimuli include electrical stimuli (e.g., TENS, Russian stimulation, etc.), thermal stimulation (heat stimulation, cold stimulation), mechanical stimulation (vibration, etc.), optical stimulation (e.g., laser energy, etc.), etc.) in a differentiated manner for each of said sources, as a function of the movement cycle imposed by said couple of mobilization actuators of the lower limbs (Paragraph 0142, the controller 310 is configured to execute a control routine using the stimulation generator 302 and the stimulation transmitters 304 that sequentially activates and relaxes the muscles to which the transmitters are connected in a desired muscle activation sequence […] the controller 310 can be configured to control the timing at which a stimulus is conveyed to the muscles of the subject (e.g., the start time and period of a stimulus) in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the control routine disclosed by Bonutti to provide the modified Trees with a means for selectively targeting muscle regions in accordance with specific movement cycles to improve patient mobility (Paragraph 0144, after an injury, stroke, muscular distrophy, etc., the muscle activation system 300 can selectively activate and relax certain muscles of subject in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence to retrain the subject in walking (e.g., the muscle activation system can be operatively connected to the thigh, calf, hamstrings, quadriceps, abductor/adductor of the gluteus, etc. to retrain a normal walking gait) or other gross motor skills or to retrain the subject in various fine motor skills such as eating, writing, typing, etc.)
Regarding Claim 3, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Daffer discloses said adjusting cycle of the intensity (Paragraph 0039, The controls can be provided for continuous or variable pulsation frequency of the light, and the intensity, power level, the infrared thermal temperature, and intermixing the sequence of LED and infrared treatment can be made), and Bonutti further discloses that it is configured so that each light source has a maximum emission intensity at the contraction steps of the respective muscle group and a minimum emission intensity at the relaxation steps of the respective muscle group (Paragraph 0142, the controller 310 is configured to execute a control routine using the stimulation generator 302 and the stimulation transmitters 304 that sequentially activates and relaxes the muscles to which the transmitters are connected in a desired muscle activation sequence […] the controller 310 can be configured to control the timing at which a stimulus is conveyed to the muscles of the subject (e.g., the start time and period of a stimulus) in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence).
Regarding Claim 4, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees further discloses: wherein said movement mechanism comprises control means for measuring the power supplied in each moment during the execution of the movement (Paragraph 0068, the foot plate assembly 41 comprises at least one load sensor, such as an LVDT, a piezo-electric pressure transducer or the like, for determining a weight applied to the foot plate assembly 41 by a patient).
Regarding Claim 8, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees further discloses: wherein said support structure in integral to a base on rollers (Paragraph 0045, Base frame 61 further comprises a plurality of casters 34, 35, 36, and 37 conventionally located proximate the four corners of the base frame 61. Locking mechanisms 38 and 39 are provided for at least the front casters 35, 36, respectively).
Regarding Claim 9, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees further discloses: wherein said table is configured to take stably any position between the horizontal and the vertical one (Paragraph 0002, The present specification generally relates to patient support apparatuses and, more specifically, to patient support apparatuses which are adjustable from a horizontal orientation to an egress orientation, a tilt orientation, and an exercise orientation useful for rehabilitating patients with severe muscle weakness).
Regarding Claim 10, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees further discloses: wherein said actuator is a hydraulic or electric piston hinged at an end to the base and at the other end to the table (Paragraph 0046, The load frame 62 supports the various linear actuators (such as jack motors and the like) and related mechanical and electrical components which facilitate raising, lowering and tilting the support deck 50 with respect to the base frame 61 and articulating various portions and/or segments of both the support deck 50 and the segmented patient support surface 11. The load frame 62 generally comprises longitudinal beams 72, 73 and transverse elements 74, 75. Additional transverse elements 76, 77 support jack motors 90, 92, within the load frame 62, respectively).
Regarding Claim 11, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees further discloses: wherein said movement mechanism (Paragraph 0091, Referring to FIGS. 25A-25D by way of example, an embodiment of a support deck 50 is depicted which enables a leg elevation function) comprises a couple of linear actuators, of electric or hydraulic type (Paragraph 0046, The load frame 62 supports the various linear actuators (such as jack motors and the like) and related mechanical and electrical components which facilitate raising, lowering and tilting the support deck 50 with respect to the base frame 61 and articulating various portions and/or segments of both the support deck 50 and the segmented patient support surface 11),
each hinged at an end to the table at the position of the hip of each leg of the patient (Paragraph 0091, A conventional lift system (not shown) may be coupled to the support deck 50 to enable pivoting the intermediate portion 54 with respect to the seat portion 52 and the leg portion 53 with respect to the intermediate portion 54 such that the leg portion 53 is elevated relative to the seat portion 52 to achieve a leg elevation orientation, as depicted in FIG. 25B) and at the opposite end to a respective fastening means for the patient's femur (Paragraph 0089, As shown in FIG. 13, the patient is secured to patient support apparatus at the chest, waist and knees with support straps 15, 16 and 17).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trees (US 8858409 B2) in view of Kiremitci (US 20120265275 A1), in view of Daffer (US 20090222070 A1), in view of Bonutti (US 20180243626 A1, further in view of Van Erlach (US 9005101 B1)
Regarding Claim 2, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Bonutti further discloses: wherein said processing and control unit (computer programs are stored (Paragraph 0142, In the illustrated embodiment, the controller 310 is operatively connected to a memory 312 configured to store one or more control routines including data representative of a desired muscle activation sequence) (Bonutti, Paragraph 0142, the controller is configured to control which types of stimuli are conveyed at a given time and/or to selectively adjust an intensity of a stimuli).
identifying a main muscle group (Bonutti, Paragraph 0144, or example, after an injury, stroke, muscular distrophy, etc., the muscle activation system 300 can selectively activate and relax certain muscles of subject in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence to retrain the subject in walking (e.g., the muscle activation system can be operatively connected to the thigh, calf, hamstrings, quadriceps, abductor/adductor of the gluteus, etc. to retrain a normal walking gait) or other gross motor skills or to retrain the subject in various fine motor skills such as eating, writing, typing, etc.) and schematizing the action cycle imposed by said lower limbs mobilization movement mechanism as a sequence of a plurality of contraction and relaxation steps of said main muscle group (Paragraph 0142, the controller 310 is configured to execute a control routine using the stimulation generator 302 and the stimulation transmitters 304 that sequentially activates and relaxes the muscles to which the transmitters are connected in a desired muscle activation sequence);
determining, for each of said light sources associated to said areas, an adjusting cycle of the intensity of the infrared radiation emitted (Paragraph 0142, the controller is configured to control which types of stimuli are conveyed at a given time and/or to selectively adjust an intensity of a stimuli) (Daffer, Paragraph 0039, The controls can be provided for continuous or variable pulsation frequency of the light, and the intensity, power level, the infrared thermal temperature, and intermixing the sequence of LED and infrared treatment can be made), as a function of said contraction and relaxation cycle schematized at point for the area associated to the specific light source (Paragraph 0142, the controller 310 is configured to execute a control routine using the stimulation generator 302 and the stimulation transmitters 304 that sequentially activates and relaxes the muscles to which the transmitters are connected in a desired muscle activation sequence […] the controller 310 can be configured to control the timing at which a stimulus is conveyed to the muscles of the subject (e.g., the start time and period of a stimulus) in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence)
However, Trees et al. does not explicitly disclose subdividing the lower limbs in a plurality of areas.
Van Erlach does disclose wherein said processing and control unit computer programs are stored (Column 13, lines 9-15, FIG. 6 illustrates an algorithm detailing a process flow enabled by system 1 of FIG. 1 for automatically sensing a specified body part and automatically delivering an associated therapy, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Each of the steps in the algorithm of FIG. 6 may be enabled and executed in any order by a computer processor executing computer code) configured to implement the following steps:
1) subdividing the lower limbs in a plurality of areas, each infrared light source being configured to stimulate a respective area, (Figure 5, Column 11, lines 45-67, System 503 illustrates a mammal 501a residing on a substrate 519 comprising (physical) sensors 502 and 504 and associated therapy devices 521 […] sensors 518a . . . 518e represent overlapping sensors describing attachment points between a torso 511a of the mammal 501a and exterior body parts 541a, 541b, 542a, 542b, and 550 (or limbs) of the mammal (e.g., arms legs, head, etc.));
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Van Erlach’s sensor arrangement with the patient rehabilitation apparatus disclosed by Trees et al, so as to provide specific, targeted phototherapy treatment to the intended region of the body.
Regarding Claim 6, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Daffer discloses an adjusting cycle of the light source intensity (Paragraph 0039, The controls can be provided for continuous or variable pulsation frequency of the light, and the intensity, power level, the infrared thermal temperature, and intermixing the sequence of LED and infrared treatment can be made), and Bonutti further discloses a maximum emission intensity at the contraction steps of the respective muscle group and a minimum emission intensity at the relaxation steps of the respective muscle group (Paragraph 0142, the controller 310 is configured to execute a control routine using the stimulation generator 302 and the stimulation transmitters 304 that sequentially activates and relaxes the muscles to which the transmitters are connected in a desired muscle activation sequence […] the controller 310 can be configured to control the timing at which a stimulus is conveyed to the muscles of the subject (e.g., the start time and period of a stimulus) in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence).
However, Trees et al. does not explicitly disclose sensor readings to determine threshold, or a base value and a maximum value of light intensity.
Van Erlach does disclose: wherein said adjusting cycle of intensity can be configured so that the intensity of each of said light sources oscillates cyclically between a base value and a maximum value (Column 11, lines 31-39, Furthermore, the controller may activate sensor readings to determine a temperature of the body portion receiving infrared therapy to assure that it remains within predetermined thresholds. Sensor readings may indicate a change in location of the right shoulder as a user moves. In response, the controller re-computes a new location of the target body portion, deactivates therapy devices that are no longer proximal to the target body portion, and activates proximal therapy devices while monitoring a total desired delivery of the therapy),
said base value being obtained as the sum of a minimum threshold value and a value proportional in each moment to the power provided as contribution to the movement by the patient (Van Erlach, Column 8, lines 3-6, The controller may instruct infrared therapy devices (i.e., proximal to a current position of the right elbow) to deliver the infrared therapy at a specified intensity level for a programmed duration), (Bonutti, Paragraph 0142, the controller 310 is configured to execute a control routine using the stimulation generator 302 and the stimulation transmitters 304 that sequentially activates and relaxes the muscles to which the transmitters are connected in a desired muscle activation sequence […] the controller 310 can be configured to control the timing at which a stimulus is conveyed to the muscles of the subject (e.g., the start time and period of a stimulus) in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Van Erlach’s sensor based assessment of light intensity in relation to patient movement, so as to improve the overall accuracy of the photo therapy treatment disclosed by Trees et al.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trees (US 8858409 B2) in view of Kiremitci (US 20120265275 A1), in view of Daffer (US 20090222070 A1), in view of Bonutti (US 20180243626 A1, further in view of Brodard (US 20180085276 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees discloses the use of load sensors to detect forces applied to the lower leg movement mechanism, but does not explicitly describe a calculation incorporating different applied forces.
Brodard does disclose wherein said control means (Paragraph 0112, The device comprises an integrated system for the prior measurement and recording of the sequence of the electromyograms (EMG) of all the muscles involved in the execution of a defined trajectory, this sequence defines, throughout said trajectory and for each muscle, a stimulation window as a function of the position of its EMG, which also prevents said muscle from being stimulated at non-physiological moments. The force position relationship also ensues from said stimulation window. The force intensity relationship is also based on the EMG measurements) are configured to calculate the power provided by the patient (Paragraph 0106, By this same real time operation of modulation of said radius of circle during a gait cycle, it is possible to modulate the reaction force exerted by the foot support 10 to respect a close mimicry with the modulation of the reaction force of the ground that is well known occurring during a voluntary gait cycle) as the difference between the value of power supplied by the mechanism in any moment of a movement cycle in which the patient remains still (Paragraph 0098, Initially, a given trajectory is calculated to be reproduced passively, with zero force exerted by the patient, only the specific weights of the orthosis and the weight of the leg are taken into account and neutralized, in particular against gravity. In this case, there are no active interactions of the subject with the orthosis) and the power supplied by the mechanism in the same moment as the current cycle (Paragraph 0099, Then, the same trajectory is accomplished in a voluntary active manner by a healthy subject and the sequence of electromyograms (EMG) of the muscles involved is duly measured and recorded. This procedure can be repeated with different load resistance values applied to the articulations).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Brodard’s force intensity and force position calculations into the patient rehabilitation device disclosed by Trees so as to provide adjustable and personalized levels of force to better aid in a patient’s movements and help strengthen their muscles.
Regarding Claim 14, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Bonutti discloses wherein the intensity of the light radiation (Daffer, (Paragraph 0039, The controls can be provided for continuous or variable pulsation frequency of the light, and the intensity, power level, the infrared thermal temperature, and intermixing the sequence of LED and infrared treatment can be made) of at least one of said light sources is a function of position (Paragraph 0140, The muscle activation system 300 can be configured to transmit any suitable type of stimulus for selectively activating and relaxing the muscles), ((Paragraph 0142, the controller 310 is configured to execute a control routine using the stimulation generator 302 and the stimulation transmitters 304 that sequentially activates and relaxes the muscles to which the transmitters are connected in a desired muscle activation sequence […] the controller 310 can be configured to control the timing at which a stimulus is conveyed to the muscles of the subject (e.g., the start time and period of a stimulus) in accordance with a desired muscle activation sequence)) but does not disclose function of the position of said platforms.
Brodard does disclose wherein the intensity of the light radiation of at least one of said light sources is a function of the position (Paragraph 0112, The device comprises an integrated system for the prior measurement and recording of the sequence of the electromyograms (EMG) of all the muscles involved in the execution of a defined trajectory, this sequence defines, throughout said trajectory and for each muscle, a stimulation window as a function of the position of its EMG, which also prevents said muscle from being stimulated at non-physiological moments. The force position relationship also ensues from said stimulation window. The force intensity relationship is also based on the EMG measurements) of said platforms (Paragraph 0102, The same trajectory of the gait cycle is then accomplished in a voluntary active manner by a healthy subject and the sequence of electromyograms (EMG) of the muscles involved is duly measured and recorded. This procedure must be repeated with different values of the force applied to the foot support 10 provoking an equivalent reaction force exerted by said foot support, a force which will correspond to the proportion of weight of the subject freed of its support by the harness)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Brodard’s force intensity and force position calculations into the patient rehabilitation device disclosed by Trees so as to provide adjustable and personalized levels of force to better aid in a patient’s movements and help strengthen their muscles.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trees (US 8858409 B2) in view of Kiremitci (US 20120265275 A1), in view of Daffer (US 20090222070 A1), in view of Bonutti (US 20180243626 A1, in view of Van Erlach (US 9005101 B1), further in view of Paiz et al. (US 20180071583 A1, hereinafter “Paiz”).
Regarding Claim 7, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, Bonutti, and Van Erlach discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. However, Van Erlach does not explicitly disclose how said areas of step (1) are delineated.
Paiz does disclose wherein said areas defined at step comprise, for each side of the patient, an area associated to the gluteus, an area associated to the front femoral portion, an area associated to the rear femoral portion, an area associated to the front tibial portion, an area associated to the rear tibial portion (Paragraph 0051, As shown in FIG. 1B, fitness analytic system 110 may generate a muscle impact heat map indicating muscle utilization for a workout. For example, fitness analytic system 110 may calculate a muscle impact heat map by determining the total energy expenditure for a workout and distributing the result across each muscle using the muscle profile attribute defined in the movement catalog).
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 data processing and control unit of the patient rehabilitation device disclosed by Trees et al. to incorporate the analytic system taught by Paiz so as to provide further subdivision of the lower limbs muscles for more accurate measurements regarding position and movement during treatment.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trees (US 8858409 B2) in view of Kiremitci (US 20120265275 A1), in view of Daffer (US 20090222070 A1), in view of Bonutti (US 20180243626 A1, further in view of Halperin (US 10765582 B2)
Regarding Claim 12, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees discloses feet movement platforms (Paragraph 0067, Specifically, the foot plate assembly 41 is positioned proximate a free end of the leg portion 53 of the support deck 50. The foot plate assembly 41 is positioned to receive the feet of a patient when the patient is positioned on the segmented patient support surface 11), but does not disclose the platforms being hinged or rotatable.
Halperin does disclose:
said platforms are hinged each with their own front end to the axis of rotation integral to said table (Figure 4E, Column 22, lines 50-64, In some embodiments, the apparatus may include optional handgrips and/or footrests (not shown). The handgrips and/or footrests may be modularly assembled and/or disassembled from the main unit. In some embodiments, pedals may be supplied. Optionally the user actively moves the footrests (for example pedals) for exercise and/or to power the apparatus. Alternatively or additionally, footrests may be moved by the apparatus (for example by a motor). Foot rests may be stationary and/or move for example in circular orbits (for example like pedals) and/or in a rocking motion and/or in an up and down motion. Optionally, movement of the footrests is synchronized with pelvis platform 416b and backrest 424d and/or thigh platforms 416c,d. Optionally the apparatus includes adjustable components to suit different sized users),
and each of said platforms comprises also an elastic pushing means (Column 14, lines 4-8, Optionally, there may be a resistance to manual movements, for example with springs, weights, and/or magnets) configured to push upwards the rear portion of said platform making it rotate around its own axis of rotation (Column 25, lines 15-24, Alternatively or additionally, telescoping poles 494c,d and/or rotating joint 496d may be moved by force applied by the user. For example, telescoping poles 494c,d and/or rotating joint 496d may have a substantially fixed resistance to movement. Alternatively or additionally, telescoping poles 494c,d and/or rotating joint 496d may have a variable resistance to movement. For example the resistance may be set according to the exercise level desired from the user).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the art-recognized teachings of adjustable foot rests of with the patient rehabilitation system disclosed by Trees et al. The foot rests taught by Halperin allow for adjustable lower limb movement to aid in mobility-related exercises (Abstract, the apparatus may help for example, to mobilize limited mobility users and/or to train healthier habits), (Column 15, lines 14-18, In some embodiments, encouraging walking movements while sitting will help a patient learn to perform the movements in a relaxed manner and/or without fear of falling).
Regarding Claim 13, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees discloses feet movement platforms (Paragraph 0067, Specifically, the foot plate assembly 41 is positioned proximate a free end of the leg portion 53 of the support deck 50. The foot plate assembly 41 is positioned to receive the feet of a patient when the patient is positioned on the segmented patient support surface 11), but does not disclose the platforms being hinged or rotatable.
Halperin does disclose:
said platforms are hinged each with their own front end to an axis of rotation fastened so that it can translate according to a direction parallel to said table (Figure 4E, Column 23, lines 37-55, Optionally the various drivers may be controlled and/or synchronized by a processor. In some embodiments, for example as illustrated in FIG. 4C, when platform 416b is turned left (e.g. in the direction of arrow 438b), then left thigh platform 416d goes up (e.g. in the direction of arrow 438e) and right thigh platform 416c goes down (e.g. in the direction of arrow 438d). Optionally, at the same time right backrest 424d rotates rightward (e.g. in the direction of arrow 438c))
and each of said platforms comprises also an elastic pushing means (Column 14, lines 4-8, Optionally, there may be a resistance to manual movements, for example with springs, weights, and/or magnets) configured to push upwards the rear portion of said platform making it rotate around its own axis of rotation (Column 25, lines 15-24, Alternatively or additionally, telescoping poles 494c,d and/or rotating joint 496d may be moved by force applied by the user. For example, telescoping poles 494c,d and/or rotating joint 496d may have a substantially fixed resistance to movement. Alternatively or additionally, telescoping poles 494c,d and/or rotating joint 496d may have a variable resistance to movement. For example the resistance may be set according to the exercise level desired from the user).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the art-recognized teachings of adjustable foot rests of with the patient rehabilitation system disclosed by Trees et al. The foot rests taught by Halperin allow for adjustable lower limb movement to aid in mobility-related exercises (Abstract, the apparatus may help for example, to mobilize limited mobility users and/or to train healthier habits), (Column 15, lines 14-18, In some embodiments, encouraging walking movements while sitting will help a patient learn to perform the movements in a relaxed manner and/or without fear of falling).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trees (US 8858409 B2) in view of Kiremitci (US 20120265275 A1), in view of Daffer (US 20090222070 A1), in view of Bonutti (US 20180243626 A1, in view of Halperin (US 10765582 B2), in view of Brodard (US 20180085276 A1), further in view of Van Erlach (US 9005101 B1).
Regarding Claim 15, Trees in view of Kiremitci, Daffer, and Bonutti discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Trees discloses feet movement platforms (Paragraph 0067, Specifically, the foot plate assembly 41 is positioned proximate a free end of the leg portion 53 of the support deck 50. The foot plate assembly 41 is positioned to receive the feet of a patient when the patient is positioned on the segmented patient support surface 11), but does not disclose movement cycles to simulate walking movement.
Halperin does disclose:
an automatic movement means (Column 15, lines 25-29, Optionally a motor may be used to produce movement and/or be activated by a switch. Alternatively or additionally movements may be motor assisted (for example moving one or more limb may activate a motor that powers further movement and/or movement of other limbs)) of said platforms (Figure 4E, Column 22, lines 54-63, Optionally the user actively moves the footrests (for example pedals) for exercise and/or to power the apparatus. Alternatively or additionally, footrests may be moved by the apparatus (for example by a motor). Foot rests may be stationary and/or move for example in circular orbits (for example like pedals) and/or in a rocking motion and/or in an up and down motion. Optionally, movement of the footrests is synchronized with pelvis platform 416b and backrest 424d and/or thigh platforms 416c,d.),
configured to make the patient's foot carry out movement cycles which simulate the walking movement (Column 14, lines 32-36, In some embodiments of the current invention an apparatus may encourage movements mimicking full body walking motion