DETAILED ACTION
Non-final Rejection
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
working element in claims 1, 4, 7, 8 interpreted as “finger cups” as described in the specification (pg. 8, lines 19-20).
biasing means of claims 1, 6, 9 interpreted as “flexible elastic rods” as described in the specification (pg. 8, lines 21-22)
sensing means of claim 1 interpreted in view of page 8 and 9 in the specification where one embodiment shown in Fig. 4 appears to be mechanical linkages from the working elements to indicators that show the user movement. A second embodiment refers to electromechanical sensors to measure displacement for each finger and thumb.
Indicator means in claim 1 interpreted in two ways. With regards to the first embodiment shown in Figures 1-4, the "indicator element" is interpreted as "first and second indicator elements (19) (page 8, line 31) as shown in Figure 4 which is further described as "a fixed feedback rod (18) solidly attached to the fingers top block and extends towards the finger side such that its free end is visible to the user. A system of pointers (19) attached to the mobile feedback rods via joints (20) and slide along the fixed feedback rods SO that the user perceives the fingers movements as movements of the pointers relative to each other" on page 8, lines 8-12 of the specification. With regards to the second embodiment shown in Figure 5, the "indicator element" is interpreted as the display shown on the second side of the barrier (12) shown in Figure 5 of the drawings and described in page 14, lines 4-9 of the specification.
Finger tracking element in claim 16 which was interpreted as finger cups mentioned earlier.
Thumb tracking element in claim 17 which was interpreted as finger cups as well on pg. 8, lines 19-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: insert “of” after “movement in line 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lindberg et al. (US 2019/0380625) as evidenced by Sensix (EP2659835 + Google Patent’s translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lindberg et al. disclose a sensorimotor rehabilitation feedback system comprising:
a base frame;
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
271
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a working element configured to be coupled to a body appendage of a user, said working element being movable relative to said base frame (the top of the pistons that come in contact with the fingers);
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
271
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a biasing means operatively coupled to said working element, said biasing means being configured to provide a resistance force when said working element is moved by the body appendage (the pistons are spring loaded as shown in Fig. 2 of the EP reference, the springs providing resistance force and are coupled via some intermediate structures to the working element);
a sensing means configured to detect movement said working element ([0052] notes that each piston is connected to a sensor for measuring force-torque and displacement); and
an indicator means operatively coupled to said sensing means, said indicator means being configured to provide, to the user, an indirect indication of movement of said working element by the body appendage ([0052] states that a device described in EP2659835B1 was used for the evaluation; a copy and Google Patent translation of the EP document is included; highlighted portions of the translation indicates that displacement can be measured and outputted to a computer for providing the necessary information, thus the computer display is the indicator means).
Regarding claim 4, Lindberg et al. disclose the system further comprising at least one additional working element, such that said system comprises a plurality of working elements, each working element being configured to be coupled to a respective body appendage of the user (Fig. 1 shows four working elements, one for each finger).
Regarding claim 5, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said system is configured to permit multiaxial positioning of the body appendage (in Fig. 1, the fingers approach the top of the pistons at a particular angle; however, the user is free to use any approach angle for the finger tips relative to the top of the pistons which would result in multiaxial positioning of the body appendage).
Regarding claim 6, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said biasing means is adjustable between a plurality of resistance settings, each resistance setting corresponding to a different resistance force ( the highlighted portions of the Google translation indicate that the piston can be operated in an isometric measurement (piston is locked to prevent movement and only measures force) or non-isometric measurement (piston unlocked allowing vertical motion while collecting kinematic and kinetic data; different resistance forces would result).
Regarding claim 8, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said biasing means is configured such that each working element is capable of being biased independently of the other working elements (as noted in the claim 6 rejection, each piston/biasing means can be locked for isometric measurements or unlocked for non-isometric evaluation; each can be adjusted individually via a screw 8 on top of the piston as shown in the EP reference).
Regarding claim 9, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said biasing means is configured such that different biasing forces can be independently applied to said plurality of working elements (this follows using the same argument above in claim 8 where some pistons may be set for isometric and some non-isometric which could result in the user having to apply different forces to each).
Regarding claim 10, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said sensing means comprises a plurality of sensors, each sensor being operatively coupled to a respective working element (under each piston is a sensor element 10, highlighted portions of Google translation).
Regarding claim 11, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said indicator means is configured to display, to the user, in response to detection of motion of at least one working element by said plurality of sensors, feedback indicative of displacement of at least one of said plurality of working elements (as noted in the claim 1 rejection, all sensor data can be provided to a user via the analysis computer).
Regarding claim 15, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said sensing means comprises an electromechanical sensor (see [0094] reference to strain gauge sensor).
Regarding claim 16, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said working element is a finger tracking element arranged to be coupled to a finger of the user (see Fig. 1 and the Fig. 4 of the EP reference; the concave surface of the top of the piston allows for coupling to the finger tip).
Regarding claim 19, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said biasing means comprises a deformable member (see Fig. 2 of the EP reference which show a spring that was previously identified as part of the biasing means).
Regarding claim 20, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein a portion of said deformable member is fixed and prevented from bending (the spring can be compressed within the piston shown in Fig. 2 of the EP reference but is prevent from bending by the internal walls of the piston).
Regarding claim 22, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said indicator means is configured such that a presence of movement of said working element is indicated to the user (any movement measured by the sensors can be displayed by the computer).
Regarding claim 23, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said indicator means is configured such that a magnitude of movement of said working element is indicated to the user (the computer can output at least kinetic and kinematic data or force and displacement data as measured by the sensors).
Regarding claim 24, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said indicator means is configured to provide visual feedback to the user (the computer can output data to a display).
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg et al. (US 2019/0380625) as evidenced by Sensix (EP2659835 + Google Patent’s translation).
Regarding claim 2, Lindberg et al. do not disclose the system further comprising a visual barrier configured to prevent direct visual sight of the body appendage by the user when the body appendage is coupled to said working element. However, blocking the view of the hand during rehabilitation testing of fingers helps to isolate and assess the patient's proprioception (the body's internal sense of position and movement) and feedforward motor control, without relying on external visual cues. In this case, Lindberg et al. teach an alternative to a physical barrier. Lindberg tests proprioception using this device by asking the patient to close their eyes (see end of [0093]). Using a barrier to block the view of the hand/device would amount to an obvious design choice. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a barrier to block the user’s sight because Applicant has not disclosed that using the visual barrier provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected that using Lindberg’s method of closing the eyes, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either set up because both would perform the same function of preventing a user from seeing their fingers.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Lindberg et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Lindberg.
Regarding claim 3, Lindberg et al. disclose wherein said working element is adjustable to accommodate coupling to a range of sizes of the body appendage (the working element identified above is where the finger touches the top of the pistons; the EP reference shows a closeup of where the finger contacts the top of the piston; Lindberg’s design shows a large concave piston head at the top; because it is large and concave, it can adjust to any finger size from large to small).
Claim 29 is the method performed by the device of claims 1 and 2 and is therefore rejected using a combination of the same arguments above for claims 1 and 2.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg et al. (US 2019/0380625) as evidenced by Sensix (EP2659835 + Google Patent’s translation) in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 2020/0179212). Lindberg et al. do not disclose wherein said indicator means is configured to provide auditory feedback to the user. However, the use of audio feedback was known in the arts. Wilkinson et al. teach a rehabilitative device (See Abstract and Fig. 2). Wilkinson et al. teach that the device can provide the user feedback in the form of visuals or audible feedback (see end of [0211]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Lindberg et al. to include audible feedback as option for the user as taught by Wilkinson et al. because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-14, 17, 18, 21, 26-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 7, 12-14, 17, 18, 21, 26-28 are objected to while claims 1-3, 4-6, 8-11, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 22-25, and 29 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791