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 .
Status of Amended Claims
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendments and arguments/remarks filed on 1/2/2026.
Claims 1, 12 and 14 are amended
Claims 4, 7 and 8 are cancelled.
Claim 21 is added
Claims 16-20 are pending as withdrawn to non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim(s) 12 and 14 have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the previously held 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, it is noted that new 35 USC 112(b) rejections are provided below in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-15 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided herein. The amendments to recite that the control unit is configured to switch between a discrete mode and a continuous mode as currently amended is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection, which relied on the Chevalier reference which teaches aspects of both discrete and continuous modes, but is silent to the control module switching between the two modes. Accordingly, after performing an updated search on the scope of the instant claims, the examiner has provided the Herr et al reference (US 2017/0042467 A1) in addition to the previously relied upon references to teach the scope of the newly amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments that Chevalier’s broad platform level approach to activity monitoring and performance analytics would not have guided the skilled person to a device capable of clinical assessment of hand dexterity and grip-force regulation are found to be non-persuasive as the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. 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). It appears that the applicant is relying on the new limitation “to thereby enable differentiation of sensory deficits from motor deficits” to support the argument that Chevalier cannot differentiate. However, the new Chevalier/Herr combination as provided below teaches all features that would meet the limitation of “to thereby enable differentiation of sensory deficits from motor deficits” because it would be an inherent effect of being able to use the control unit to switch between the discrete and continuous modes.
Finally, regarding the applicant’s argument with respect to new claim 21, the examiner finds the argument to be non-perusasive as outlined in the rejection below. Specifically, the examiner notes that Chevalier does not require multiple pressure sensors on the palm, and actually lists other sensors that can be used as the surface sensors 501-507. Further, Chevalier discloses a single internal force/pressure sensor 709 which would meet the BRI of claim 21 if there were no external pressure sensors which is contemplated in Chevalier’s disclosure.
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 5, 6 and 9 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.
Claims 5, 6 and 9 lack proper antecedent basis as they are dependent on cancelled claims.
In order to advance prosecution, the examiner will interpret claims 5, 6 and 9 to be dependent on amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier (US 2022/0206462) in view of Herr et al (US 2017/0042467 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 11 and 12; Chevalier discloses a grip gauge (connected grip element 101) configured to measure grip force from a single hand of a user, the grip gauge comprising:
a shell (external surface of mechanical enclosure element 707);
a force sensor (elements 709) housed within the shell, the force sensor being configured to measure grip forces applied to the shell (paragraphs [0130], [150], [0161]); figure 7);
a control unit (element 701, 808) housed within the shell and communicatively connected to the force sensor (paragraph [0130], [0141]; figure 7);
a wireless transmitter (element 805) communicatively connected to the control unit (element 701) and configured to transmit measured grip forces to one or more external devices (elements 105, such as a smartphone, or tablet) (paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0021]-[0022], [0142]; figures 1-10, specifically 1, 7); and
an indicator (LED element 705 LED, audio feedback element 803, force feedback element 706) communicatively connected to the control unit (element 701, 808), 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 (paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0154]; figures 1-10, specifically 7 and 8);
wherein the control unit is configured to:
modulate the indicator according to 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 (discloses that real-time feedback is provided when forces exceed threshold values wherein the first state is when the threshold isn’t met and the second state is when the threshold is exceeded and feedback is provided using LEDs and or audio; paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0154], [0164]; figures 1-10, specifically 7 and 8) and
modulate the indicator (force feedback indicator element 706) according to a continuous mode in which the indicator is modulated according to how close measured grip forces are to the threshold value (wherein Chevalier discloses that the force feedback indicator provides the mechanical stimulation such that the type of force feedback, including the starting time, duration and vibration strength is controlled by the software to dynamically provide the user information based on real-time data analytics; paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0154] and [0164]; figures 1-10, specifically 7 and 8),
to thereby enable differentiation of sensory deficits from motor deficits (paragraphs [0018]-[0215]).
However, Chevalier does not explicitly disclose that the control unit is switchable between the discrete mode and continuous mode.
Herr teaches a system (figure 2) which a controller (element 28) and feedback elements (elements 30) for providing feedback based on measured sensor (elements 38) data, wherein the system is configured to allow the user to select different modes of feedback or change parameters related to the feedback (paragraph [0050]-[0051]). Herr further discloses different modes of feedback include a discrete or continuous feedback mode (paragraphs [0108]-[0114] and [0115]-[00121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chevalier’s control unit to be switchable between a discrete mode and a continuous mode as taught by Herr in order to allow the user to pick/alternate to the desired feedback mode.
Further regarding claim 3; modified Chevalier discloses an accelerometer (element 813) 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 (paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0021], [0140] ; figures 1-10, specifically figure 7 and 8).
Further regarding claim 5; modified Chevalier discloses the indicator comprises a light (element 705) and/or a speaker (element 803) disposed on the grip gauge (paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0154]; figures 1-10, specifically 7 and 8).
Further regarding claim 6; modified Chevalier discloses the indicator is associated with an external device communicatively connected to the control unit (wherein paired mobile application of external device elements 105; paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0154]; figures 1-10, specifically 7 and 8).
Further regarding claim 9; modified Chevalier is described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
However, Chevalier does not explicitly disclose that the control unit controls the volume of an audible sound generated by the speaker according to how close measured grip forces are to a threshold value.
Chevalier does disclose that the force feedback indicator element 706 provides feedback mechanical stimulation such that the type of force feedback, including the starting time, duration and vibration strength are controlled by the software to dynamically provide the user information based on real-time data analytics. Chevalier further discloses that the audio feedback is controlled by the embedded application based on threshold values (paragraphs [0154] and [0164]). Furthermore, Herr teaches amplitude feedback wherein information is conveyed by the modulated amplitude of the provided feedback (paragraph [0111]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Chevalier/Herr combination to control the strength/amplitude of the audio signal in order to provide the user information on how close they were to a threshold value with dynamic real-time data analytic feedback as use of a known technique on a known device to yield a predictable result (in this case utilizing Chevalier’s and Herr’s varying intensity mechanical feedback techniques to the audio feedback to provide the same function of providing a user with a real time dynamic indication to proximity to the threshold value based on modified amplitude).
Regarding claim 11; modified Chevalier discloses the shell comprises a base portion configured to house one or more weights (it is disclosed that the shell can be connected to weighted jump rope element 102b via the lock and release elements 101a and 102a on the base portion of connect grip device element 101; paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0030]; figures 1-10, specifically figure 1).
Regarding claim 12; modified Chevalier discloses the shell is formed in a cylindrical shape (see figures 4, 5 and 7).
However, Chevalier does not explicitly disclose the shell is formed in a rectangular prism.
The examiner notes that the applicant does not provide an explicit reasoning/rationale to forming the shell as a rectangular prism (as original claim 12 and figures show the shell as a block; but the specification is silent to any rationale/reasoning to the use of a rectangular prism, and only mentions blocks in the background section where it describes previous tests which use blocks without mention of any particular shape). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Chevalier/Herr combination such that the grip shell is in any desired shape for the user to grasp, including a rectangular prism, as a matter of routine engineering design choice as a selection of shape (see MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claims 13-15; modified Chevalier discloses a grip gauge system comprising:
the grip gauge of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and
an external device (element 105) communicatively connected to the electronic grip gauge and configured to receive data from the wireless transmitter (paragraphs [0021]-[0022]), the external device comprising one or more processor 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 (paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0021]-[0022],[0027]-[0031], [0205]; figures 1-10, specifically 1-3, 10).
Regarding claim 14; modified Chevalier 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 it is disclosed that the platform analytic services stream the data including grip strength, and thus would inherently display the peak grip force when it displays the highest force detected, as well as the variability based on how the grip is changing; paragraphs [0018]-[0215]; figures 1-10, specifically 1-3 and 10).
Regarding claim 15; modified Chevalier 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 it is disclosed that the platform analytic services stream the captured data for review including grip strength and acceleration, and thus would inherently display the peak grip force and acceleration when it displays the highest force and acceleration detected, including during transfer; paragraphs [0018]-[0215], specifically [0021]-[0022],[0027]-[0031],[0205]; figures 1-10, specifically 1-3 and 10).
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier in view of Herr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al (US 2020/0386632 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 21; the Chevalier/Herr combination is described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chevalier further discloses that the force/gauge sensor (element 709) may be piezo resistive sensors (paragraphs [0161]); but does not explicitly disclose the force sensor as a load cell.
Yamada teaches the use of a load cell with a Wheatstone bridge to be used as the pressure/force sensor in similar gripping force measurement device (paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the piezo resistive sensor of the Chevalier/Herr combination with a load cell force/pressure sensor as taught by Yamada as simple substitution of one known element for another to yield a predictable result (Chevalier’s device using a load cell with a Wheatstone bring as the force sensor to measure grip forces).
Further regarding claim 21; the Chevalier/Herr/Yamada combination is described above in the rejection of claim 2. Chevalier further discloses the force sensor as a single sensor (element 709) for measuring pressure applied when the internal rod deforms from external forces (paragraph [0161]) and further discloses that external sensors (elements 501-507) are can be various sensors including pressure channels, pulse oximetry, heart rate pulse, ECG-EKG, body temperature, and galvanic skin response (paragraph [0151]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the Chevalier/Herr/Yamada combination grip gauge to comprise a single load cell as the force sensor as obvious to try, selecting from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (in this case, wherein the external sensors 501-505 can be selected as the different types of surface sensors that aren’t force pressure channels [i.e. pulse oximetry, heart rate pulse, ECG-EKG, body temperature, and galvanic skin response], thus leaving element 709 as the only force sensor [wherein 709 is a load cell in the Chevalier/Herr/Yamada combination], thus meeting the BRI of claim 21).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier in view of Herr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pathak (US 2013/0297022 A1).
The Chevalier/Herr combination is described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chevalier further discloses the use of accelerometers (element 813) and gyroscopes (element 812) connected to the control unit and the wireless transmitter to provide position/movement information of the connected grip elements 101 to the external devices (paragraphs [0156]-[0157]).
However, Chevalier does not explicitly disclose the grip gauge comprising 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 device.
Pathak teaches a grip measuring device which utilizes either a Hall effect sensor or accelerometer/gyroscope combination in order to provide a contactless position sensing of the gripped element (paragraph [0025],[0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to either further provide the Chevalier/Herr combination with a Hall effect sensor to provide further position information of the connected grip elements or to substitute the Chevalier/Herr combination’s accelerometer/gyroscope with a Hall effect sensor as taught by Pathak in order to provide contactless position sensing as a simple substitution of one known element with another to yield a predictable result (in this case the Chevalier/Herr grip gauge that utilizes a Hall effect sensor communicating with the control unit and wireless transmitter to provide position information of the control grip elements).
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 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