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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Amended Claims
This action is response to applicant’s amendments filed on 7/20/2026. The following is the status of the currently pending claims:
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 9-21 are pending
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 9 are amended
Claims 4, 7 and 8 are cancelled
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn as drawn to a non-elected invention
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 5, 6 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments correct improper antecedent basis issues drawn to the claims being dependent on previously cancelled claims. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 5, 6 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-15 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, during further search of the instant claims the examiner identified the NPL publication “Disentangling Sensory and Motor Deficits of Fine Hand Function Using an Electronic Grip Gauge (EGG) to Simulate Transferring Fragile Objects” to Buczak et al. The examiner notes that the NPL reference includes common inventor Jacob George. However, the reference lists 3 additional inventors (so there is a different inventive entity) and was published on August 8, 2022 which predates the filing date of the provisional application on August 26, 2022. As this filing date is less than 1 year from the effective filing date, we look to 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A) exception to determine if the publication qualifies as prior art. In this case, it is not readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure because of the additional inventors listed on the publication that are not listed on the instant application, and as such, the publication will be treated as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) (see MPEP 2153.01(a)). The rejection of the claims in view of the NPL reference to Buczak et al is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Buczak et al (examiner provided NPL reference “Disentangling Sensory and Motor Deficits of Fine Hand Function Using an Electronic Grip Gauge (EGG) to Simulate Transferring Fragile Objects” and accompanying documentation showing publication of the paper in the full issue of the MEC22 Symposium on August 9, 2022).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11-15 and 21; Buczak discloses a grip gauge (figure 1) configured to measure grip force from a single hand of a user and to enable differentiation of sensory deficits from motor deficits (Introduction, Methods, Conclusion), the grip gauge comprising:
a shell (Device design; figure 1);
a force sensor (load cell) housed within the shell, the force sensor being configured to measure grip forces applied to the shell (Introduction and Device Design; figure 1);
a control unit (wireless microcontroller) housed within the shell and communicatively connected to the force sensor (Introduction and Device Design; figure 1);
a wireless transmitter (wireless microcontroller) communicatively connected to the control unit and configured to transmit measured grip forces to one or more external devices (Introduction and Device Design; figure 1); and
an indicator (LED and/or speaker providing auditory feedback) communicatively connected to the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to compare measured grip forces received from the force sensor to a predetermined threshold force and is configured to modulate the indicator based on the comparison (Introduction, Device Design, Experimental Conditions; figure 1),
wherein the control unit is switchable between
a discrete mode in which the indicator is in a first state when measured grip forces are below the threshold force and is in a second state when measured grip forces exceed the threshold force (Experimental Conditions), and
a continuous mode in which the indicator is modulated according to how close measured grip forces are to the threshold force (Experimental Conditions), and
wherein the control unit is configured to compare user performance during the discrete mode and user performance during the continuous mode, and to determine, when user performance is improved during the continuous mode relative to during the discrete mode by at least a predetermined level, that hand dexterity deficits are primarily due of sensory deficits rather than from motor deficits (Introduction, Device Design, Experimental Conditions and Results).
Further regarding claim 1, the examiner contends that the disclosure in the Experimental Conditions section that, “Using this test condition (continuous feedback) in conjunction with the previous test condition (discrete feedback) provides a way to systematically probe the impact of tactile sensory feedback on grasping precision. Significantly greater performance with continuous auditory feedback implies tactile feedback is impaired.” constitutes and anticipates that the control unit is configured to compare user performance during the discrete mode and user performance during the continuous mode, and to determine, when user performance is improved during the continuous mode relative to during the discrete mode by at least a predetermined level, that hand dexterity deficits are primarily due of sensory deficits rather than from motor deficits. Specifically, the disclosure notes “significantly greater performance with continuous auditory feedback implies tactile feedback [i.e. sensory deficits] rather than motor deficits” indicates that a predetermined level must be met to indicate sensory deficits over motor deficits (with note that they use the “significantly” instead of just greater, meaning that there must be at least a predetermined level of difference). However, in the alternative, if the applicant contends that this is not inherent that the disclosure of “significantly greater performance with continuous auditory feedback implies tactile feedback rather than motor deficits” anticipates the claim limitation, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the control unit of Buczak to compare user performance during the discrete mode and user performance during the continuous mode, and to determine, when user performance is improved during the continuous mode relative to during the discrete mode by at least a predetermined level, that hand dexterity deficits are primarily due of sensory deficits rather than from motor deficits as automating a manual activity wherein providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 III.)
Further regarding claim 2; Buczak discloses the force sensor is a load cell (Device Design; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 3; Buczak discloses an accelerometer housed within the shell, wherein the control unit is communicatively connected to the accelerometer and wherein the wireless transmitter is further configured to transmit measured accelerometer data to the one or more external devices (Device Design; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 5; Buczak discloses the indicator comprises a light and/or a speaker disposed on the grip gauge (Device Design; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 6; Buczak discloses the indicator is associated with an external device communicatively connected to the control unit (Device Design; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 9; Buczak discloses the indicator comprises a speaker and wherein the control unit controls the volume of an audible sound generated by the speaker according to how close measured grip forces are to the threshold force (Device Design; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 11; Buczak discloses the shell comprises a base portion configured to house one or more weights (Device Design; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 12; Buczak discloses the shell is formed in a rectangular prism shape (Device Design; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 21; Buczak discloses the grip gauge comprises a single load cell as the force sensor (Device Design; figure 1).
Regarding claims 13-15; Buczak discloses a grip gauge system, comprising: the grip gauge of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and an external device (external CPU) communicatively connected to the electronic grip gauge and configured to receive data from the wireless transmitter, the external device comprising one or more processors and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the external device to generate a display presenting one or more grip metrics (Introduction and Methods; figure 3 shows an example of a display showing grip metrics generated via a computer that receives data from device).
Further regarding claim 14; Buczak discloses the one or more grip metrics comprise: peak grip force; peak grip force during one or more transfers and/or one or more transfer subphases; variability in grip force across transfers and/or across transfer subphases; peak acceleration; peak acceleration during one or more transfers and/or one or more transfer subphases; variability in acceleration across transfers and/or transfer subphases; transfer speed; variability in transfer speed; transfer start/stop times; distance lifted off a platform; and/or relative location of placement on the platform (wherein Buczak the grip metrics comprise peak grip force during the tests; Methods; figures 1 and 3).
Further regarding claim 15; Buczak discloses the one or more grip metrics comprise: peak grip force during each transfer and/or each transfer subphase; and/or peak acceleration during each transfer and/or each transfer subphase (wherein Buczak the grip metrics comprise peak grip force during the tests; Methods; figures 1 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buczak (cited above) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pathak (US 2013/0297022 A1).
Buczak is described in the rejection of claim 1 above; Buczak further discloses the use of a three-axis accelerometer in communication with the control system in the grip gauge to monitor position, acceleration and velocity of the grip gauge during the testing (Introduction and Methods).
However, Buczak does not explicitly disclose a Hall effect sensor housed within the shell, wherein the control unit is communicatively connected to the Hall effect sensor and wherein the wireless transmitter is further configured to transmit measured Hall effect measurements to the one or more external devices
Pathak teaches a similar grip measuring device which utilizes either Hall effect sensors or accelerometer/gyroscope combination in order to provide a contactless position/movement sensing of the gripped element (paragraphs [0025] and [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to either provide Buczak with a Hall effect sensor to provide further position information of the connected grip element or to substitute Buczak’s accelerometer with a Hall effect sensor as taught by Pathak in order to provide contactless position sensing as simply substitution of one known element for another to yield a predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2013/0143718 A1 to Pani et al; discloses a system for local or remote rehabilitation and functional evaluation of the hands.
US 2015/0245789 A1 to Dromerick et al; discloses a method and system for rapid screening for mild traumatic brain injury and other cognitive impairment by analysis of intra-individual variability of motor performance which monitors grip strength to assess motor function.
US 7,739,910 B2 to Clem et al; discloses a system for carrying out protocol based isometric exercise regimen of the hand.
WO 2009/150417 A2 to Gassert et al; discloses a motor skills measuring system.
WO 2024/118688 A2 to Barry et al; discloses a mobile device based hand grip measurement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights