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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/02/2026 has been entered. Amendments to cancellation of claims 1-22 and new claims 23-30 are acknowledged. Claims 23-30 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/18/2025 (see arguments and rejections below).
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.
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:
“a scoliosis prediction-and-diagnosis unit” in claim 27
“a scoliosis preventer” in claim 27
“an information collector” in claim 28
“a galvanic skin response unit” in claim 29
“a feedback unit” in claim 30
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.
“a scoliosis prediction-and-diagnosis unit” will be interpreted as a “processor” per para [0136] of applicant’s disclosure.
“a scoliosis preventer” does not have a corresponding structure in applicant’s disclosure.
“an information collector” will be interpreted as a “processor” per para [0136] of applicant’s disclosure.
“a galvanic skin response unit” will be interpreted as a “processor” per para [0136] of applicant’s disclosure.
“a feedback unit” will be interpreted as a “processor” per para [0136] of applicant’s disclosure.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 23 and 27 recite the limitation “inclination through an increase-and-decrease prediction”. However, applicant’s disclosure does not include an adequate description of the “increase-and-decrease prediction”. Paras [0022] and [0028] of applicant’s specification restates the language of claims 23 and 27. Para [0165] states “the scoliosis preventer1350 may maintain muscle relaxation and joint range of motion and prevent scoliosis accordingly by intensively massaging the pain area or the portion with the relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination through an increase-and-decrease prediction and diagnosis of a curve that represents the degree of curvature of the vertebral column according to a monitoring result. For example, the scoliosis preventer1350 may intensively massage the pain area or the portion with the relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination by referring to information of Table 1.”. As table 1 refers to treatment and referral guidelines, it does not provide support for a “prediction”. Paras [0148] and [0165-0169] do not further provide support, as they either recite that a “prediction” occurs without describing how it is made, or as stated above refer to the table. In order to qualify as a prediction, there would need to be a calculation of increase/decrease that occurs prior to the actual increase/decrease.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 27 recites the limitation “scoliosis preventer”. Applicant’s specification para [0136] states “Here, the processor1240 may include a … a scoliosis preventer”. However, per claim 29 and paras [0028], [0030], and [0142], the scoliosis preventer is configured to massage a portion of the user. No corresponding structure for a massage element is disclosed.
Claims 24-26 and 28-30 are rejected due to dependency.
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 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “predicting pain likely to occur in the vertebral column through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column or comparing before and after and monitoring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column measured each time;”. It is unclear if the claim is reciting two separate clauses, wherein the method is either predicting pain or it is comparing before and after monitoring the degree of curvature, or if the claim is stating that the pain prediction depends on either the degree of curvature or the comparison. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as pain prediction occurring through either a degree of curvature or a comparison of the degree of curvature.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “measuring a degree of curvature of vertebral column” and subsequently recites “measured each time”. As only one measurement is disclosed, it is unclear where additional measurements over time are obtained.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “preventing scoliosis by massaging a pain area or a portion with a relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination through an increase-and-decrease prediction and diagnosis of a curve that represents the degree of curvature of the vertebral column according to a monitoring result.”. It is unclear if the claim is reciting two separate clauses, wherein the area massaged has either a great difference in pressure or an inclination determined through the prediction and additionally a diagnosis, or if the claim is reciting three clauses wherein the pain areas may be an area/portion of pressure difference, inclination, or a curve of scoliosis as diagnosed through monitoring. It is unclear if the claim is alternatively stating that the massaging occurs in an area of great pressure or an inclination, and the diagnosis of the curve is separate from the scoliosis prevention. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as three individual clauses for determining a region of pain massaging.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “using the inclination sensor connected to the pushing rod” in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The inclination sensor disclosed in the limitation prior is not stated to be connected to the pushing rod. For the purposes of examination, the inclination sensor connected to the pushing rod will be considered separate from the inclination sensor disclosed in the prior limitation.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “scanning the vertebral column using a device that moves along the vertebral column or a pushing rod”. However, the subsequent limitations state “measuring the degree of curvature using the pressure sensors connected to the device… and measuring the degree of curvature… using the inclination sensor connected to the pushing rod”. The scope of the claim is unclear as the first limitation implies that either the device or pushing rod may be used, but the subsequent limitation implies both are used.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “predict pain likely to occur in the vertebral column through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column or to compare before and after and monitor the degree of curvature of the vertebral column measured each time;”. It is unclear if the claim is reciting two separate clauses, wherein the method is either predicting pain or it is comparing before and after monitoring the degree of curvature, or if the claim is stating that the pain prediction depends on either the degree of curvature or the comparison. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, The claim will be interpreted as pain prediction occurring through either a degree of curvature or a comparison of the degree of curvature.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “measure a degree of curvature of vertebral column” and subsequently recites “measured each time”. As only one measurement is disclosed, it is unclear where additional measurements over time are obtained.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “prevent scoliosis by massaging a pain area or a portion with a relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination through an increase- and-decrease prediction and diagnosis of a curve that represents the degree of curvature of the vertebral column according to a monitoring result.”. It is unclear if the claim is reciting two separate clauses, wherein the area massaged has either a great difference in pressure or an inclination through the prediction and additionally a diagnosis, or if the claim is reciting three clauses wherein the pain areas may be an area of pressure, inclination, or a curve of scoliosis as diagnosed . It is unclear if the claim is alternatively stating that the massaging occurs in an area of great pressure or an inclination, and the diagnosis of the curve is separate from the scoliosis prevention. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as three individual clauses for determining a region of pain massaging.
Regarding claim 27, claim limitation “scoliosis preventer” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification para [0136] states “Here, the processor1240 may include a … a scoliosis preventer”. However, per claim 9 and paras [0028], [0030], and [0142], the scoliosis preventer is configured to massage a portion of the user. No corresponding structure for a massage element is disclosed. It is unclear by what means the processor massages the patient, therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “wherein the vertebral column scanning unit scanning the vertebral column using a device that moves along the vertebral column or a pushing rod”. However, the subsequent limitations state “measuring the degree of curvature using the pressure sensors connected to the device… and measuring the degree of curvature… using the inclination sensor connected to the pushing rod”. The first limitation implies that either the device or pushing rod may be used, but the subsequent limitation implies both are used.
Claims 24-26 and 28-30 are rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20210059886 A1) in view of Karunaratne et al. (US 9795322 B1) in further view of Cheng (CN 108478221 A).
Regarding claim 23, Yoon discloses an operating method of an electronic device for predicting and diagnosing scoliosis ([0001], [0050]: “detects a scoliosis state”), the method comprising: measuring a degree of curvature of vertebral column ([0076]: “The controller 70 may have a computerized processing unit (not illustrated) that collects signal values detected by the displacement sensor 37 and calculates information that allows the state of the curvature of the spine to be recognized.”) through pressure or inclination of left and right sides of the vertebral column using a sensor ([0058]: "The displacement sensor 37 may be any of a rotation sensor configured to detect a rotational speed and a rotation angle of the detection roller 31, an optical displacement sensor, and a motion recognition sensor, or a plurality of sensors may be applied in combination, Fig 1, [0084]: “moves in accordance with the curvature of the spine in the direction from the cervical vertebrae to the lumbar vertebrae”, wherein the roller moves with the inclination of the spine); predicting pain likely to occur in the vertebral column through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column or comparing before and after and monitoring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column measured each time ([0086]: “When the information about the curvature of the spine is transmitted to the controller 70 from the spine scanning unit 30, the controller 70 compares the information with information about a normal curvature of the spine and controls the amount of air to be supplied into the plurality of air bags 48 and the first and second lumbar traction tubes 61 and 65. In this case, the information about the normal curvature of the spine may be a predetermined value set in the controller.”, wherein detection of a region irregular curvature of the spine predicts that pain may be present in the detected region, see background information [0002]); and preventing scoliosis by massaging a pain area or a portion with a relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination through an increase-and-decrease prediction and diagnosis of a curve that represents the degree of curvature of the vertebral column according to a monitoring result ([0070]: “The lateral upper body pressing unit 50 is installed to be movable in the direction of the spine of the upper body in order to press the lateral portion of the upper body supported on the upper body support unit 10 and adjust a curvature of the spine with scoliosis.”, wherein the pressing occurs in the region where a curve representing a degree of curvature associated with scoliosis is detected).
While Yoon discloses wherein the measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column comprises: an inclination sensor ([0058]: “The displacement sensor 37 may be any of a rotation sensor configured to detect a rotational speed and a rotation angle of the detection roller 31”, wherein angle is inclination) and scanning the vertebral column using a device that moves along the vertebral column ([0084]: “moves in accordance with the curvature of the spine in the direction from the cervical vertebrae to the lumbar vertebrae”), Yoon fails to disclose a plurality of pressure sensors, measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and the right sides of the vertebral column using the pressure sensors connected to the device.
Karunaratne discloses providing a plurality of pressure sensors respectively disposed on both left and right sides of the vertebral column (Fig 3B elements 360, 365, 380, 385, 390, and 395), and an inclination sensor disposed at a center between the plurality of pressure sensors (Fig 3B element 370); and measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and the right sides of the vertebral column using the pressure sensors connected to the device (col 21 lines 9-18: “When a person with this condition sits down, his or her lumbar spine curves forward, making it highly likely that no contact would be made with the lower back sensors embedded in the smart seat cover. If all other parts of the body are positioned correctly and applying pressure to all sensors other than the lower back sensor, that is, when all sensors have acceptable values except LB sensor 325 or 375, then a “lower back not touched” error may be triggered, corresponding to posture 4 in FIG. 12”, wherein the curvature of the spine is determined by the amount of pressure distributed across the sensors).
As Yoon discloses that additional sensors may be used ([0058]), It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensors disclosed by Yoon to include the pressure sensors disclosed by Karunaratne in order to obtain a more robust data set.
Yoon as modified by Karunaratne fails to further disclose measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column comprises scanning the vertebral column using a pushing rod that is pressed along the vertebral column and measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and right sides of the vertebral column using the inclination sensor connected to the pushing rod.
Cheng discloses measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column comprises scanning the vertebral column using a pushing rod that is pressed along the vertebral column (page 2 para 9: “measuring rod”) and measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and right sides of the vertebral column using an inclination connected to the pushing rod (page 3 para 2: “the bending situation of the human back by the measuring rod to the displacement sensor,”, wherein the displacement of the spine from the sensor is an indication of an incline ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known rolling sensor disclosed by Yoon modified by Karunaratne to the known pushing rod disclosed by Cheng for the predictable result of measuring the curvature of the vertebral column.
Regarding claim 27, Yoon discloses an electronic device for predicting and diagnosing scoliosis ([0001], [0050]: “detects a scoliosis state”), the electronic device comprising: a vertebral column scanning unit configured to measure a degree of curvature of vertebral column ([0076]: “The controller 70 may have a computerized processing unit (not illustrated) that collects signal values detected by the displacement sensor 37 and calculates information that allows the state of the curvature of the spine to be recognized.”, Fig 4) through pressure or inclination of left and right sides of the vertebral column using a sensor ([0058]: "The displacement sensor 37 may be any of a rotation sensor configured to detect a rotational speed and a rotation angle of the detection roller 31, an optical displacement sensor, and a motion recognition sensor, or a plurality of sensors may be applied in combination", Fig 1, [0084]: “moves in accordance with the curvature of the spine in the direction from the cervical vertebrae to the lumbar vertebrae”, wherein the roller moves with the inclination of the spine); a scoliosis prediction-and-diagnosis unit configured to predict pain likely to occur in the vertebral column through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column or comparing before and after and monitoring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column measured each time ([0086]: “When the information about the curvature of the spine is transmitted to the controller 70 from the spine scanning unit 30, the controller 70 compares the information with information about a normal curvature of the spine and controls the amount of air to be supplied into the plurality of air bags 48 and the first and second lumbar traction tubes 61 and 65. In this case, the information about the normal curvature of the spine may be a predetermined value set in the controller.”, wherein detection of a region of irregular curvature of the spine predicts that pain may be present in the detected region, see background information [0002]); and a scoliosis preventer configured to prevent scoliosis by massaging a pain area or a portion with a relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination through an increase-and-decrease prediction and diagnosis of a curve that represents the degree of curvature of the vertebral column according to a monitoring result ([0070]: “The lateral upper body pressing unit 50 is installed to be movable in the direction of the spine of the upper body in order to press the lateral portion of the upper body supported on the upper body support unit 10 and adjust a curvature of the spine with scoliosis.”, wherein the pressing occurs in the region where a curve representing a degree of curvature associated with scoliosis is detected).
While Yoon discloses wherein the vertebral column scanning unit comprises an inclination sensor ([0058]: “The displacement sensor 37 may be any of a rotation sensor configured to detect a rotational speed and a rotation angle of the detection roller 31”, wherein angle is inclination) and wherein the vertebral column scanning unit scanning the vertebral column using a device that moves along the vertebral column ([0084]: “moves in accordance with the curvature of the spine in the direction from the cervical vertebrae to the lumbar vertebrae”), Yoon fails to disclose wherein the vertebral column scanning unit comprising a plurality of pressure sensors respectively disposed on both left and right sides of the vertebral column, and an inclination sensor disposed at a center between the plurality of pressure sensors, measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and the right sides of the vertebral column using the pressure sensors connected to the device.
Karunaratne discloses a vertebral column scanning unit comprising a plurality of pressure sensors respectively disposed on both left and right sides of the vertebral column (Fig 3B elements 360, 365, 380, 385, 390, and 395), and an inclination sensor disposed at a center between the plurality of pressure sensors (Fig 3B element 370); and measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and the right sides of the vertebral column using the pressure sensors connected to the device (col 21 lines 9-18: “When a person with this condition sits down, his or her lumbar spine curves forward, making it highly likely that no contact would be made with the lower back sensors embedded in the smart seat cover. If all other parts of the body are positioned correctly and applying pressure to all sensors other than the lower back sensor, that is, when all sensors have acceptable values except LB sensor 325 or 375, then a “lower back not touched” error may be triggered, corresponding to posture 4 in FIG. 12”, wherein the curvature of the spine is determined by the amount of pressure distributed across the sensors).
As Yoon discloses that additional sensors may be used ([0058]), It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensors disclosed by Yoon to include the pressure sensors disclosed by Karunaratne in order to obtain a more robust data set.
Yoon as modified by Karunaratne fails to further disclose measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column comprises scanning the vertebral column using a pushing rod that is pressed along the vertebral column and measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and right sides of the vertebral column using the inclination sensor connected to the pushing rod.
Cheng discloses measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column comprises scanning the vertebral column using a pushing rod that is pressed along the vertebral column (page 2 para 9: “measuring rod”) and measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the pressure or the inclination of the left and right sides of the vertebral column using an inclination connected to the pushing rod (page 3 para 2: “the bending situation of the human back by the measuring rod to the displacement sensor,”, wherein the displacement of the spine from the sensor is an indication of an incline ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known rolling sensor disclosed by Yoon modified by Karunaratne to the known pushing rod disclosed by Cheng for the predictable result of measuring the curvature of the vertebral column.
Claim(s) 24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Karunaratne in view of Cheng in view of Xie (CN 109875834 B).
Regarding claim 24, Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng discloses the method of claim 23 but fails to disclose collecting information on at least one of pain in the vertebral column, thoracic curve, neurological abnormal findings, and x-ray study prior to verifying the degree of curvature of the vertebral column, wherein the pain is predicted or the degree of curvature of the vertebral column is monitored through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column that is measured based on the collected information.
Xie discloses a spinal rehabilitation method (abstract) including collecting information on at least one of pain in the vertebral column, thoracic curve, neurological abnormal findings, and x-ray study prior to verifying the degree of curvature of the vertebral column, wherein the pain is predicted or the degree of curvature of the vertebral column is monitored through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column that is measured based on the collected information (page 2 para 2 - page 3 para 7: "the acquisition module is used for acquiring characteristic parameters of a user… the user characteristic parameters may include one or more of …. spinal pain, ").
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng to include the information collection disclosed by Xie in order to determine a scoliosis prevention method or treatment customized to the user (Xie page 6 para 2).
Regarding claim 28, Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng discloses the electronic device of claim 7 but fails to disclose an information collector configured to collect information on at least one of pain in the vertebral column, thoracic curve, neurological abnormal findings, and x-ray study, wherein the scoliosis prediction-and-diagnosis unit is configured to predict the pain or monitor the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column that is measured based on the collected information.
Xie discloses a spinal rehabilitation device (abstract) including an information collector configured to collect information on at least one of pain in the vertebral column, thoracic curve, neurological abnormal findings, and x-ray study, wherein the scoliosis prediction-and-diagnosis unit is configured to predict the pain or monitor the degree of curvature of the vertebral column through the degree of curvature of the vertebral column that is measured based on the collected information. (page 2 para 2 - page 3 para 7: "the acquisition module is used for acquiring characteristic parameters of a user… the user characteristic parameters may include one or more of …. spinal pain, ").
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng to include the information collection disclosed by Xie in order to determine a scoliosis prevention method or treatment customized to the user (Xie page 6 para 2).
Claim(s) 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Karunaratne in view of Cheng in view of Hori et al. (US 20020123704 A1), hereinafter Hori .
Regarding claim 25, Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng discloses the method of claim 23 but fails to disclose tracking an emotional or physiological change through a galvanic skin response wherein the scoliosis is prevented by massaging according to the tracked emotional or physiological change.
Hori discloses a massage machine for healthcare (abstract) including tracking an emotional or physiological change through a galvanic skin response ([0013]: “when the living body information sensor comprises a GSR sensor, a reduction in GSR can be interpreted as indicating a relaxed state, while a rise in GSR a tense state.”)), wherein the scoliosis is prevented by massaging according to the tracked emotional or physiological change ([0073] : “When a physiological quantity judging mode is selected first in step S5, step S6 checks whether fingers comes into contact with the GSR electrodes with reference to GSR output. If the output is not smaller than 0.5 mV, this indicates contact. The kneading balls are moved to the first part to be massaged in step S7, and a data collecting procedure is then performed in step S8”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng to apply the massaging according to the galvanic skin response detection as disclosed by Hori in order to increase the effectiveness of the deployed massage therapy (Hori [0005]: “the massage machine is capable of detecting the psychological state of the user by monitoring variations in physiological quantities of the user, so that an effective massage can be performed to realize an increased degree of relaxation or refreshment.”)
Regarding claim 29, Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng discloses the electronic device of claim 27, but fails to disclose a galvanic skin response unit configured to track an emotional or physiological change through a galvanic skin response, wherein the scoliosis preventer is configured to prevent the scoliosis by massaging according to the tracked emotional or physiological change.
Hori discloses a massage machine for healthcare (abstract) including a galvanic skin response unit configured to track an emotional or physiological change through a galvanic skin response, ([0013]: “when the living body information sensor comprises a GSR sensor, a reduction in GSR can be interpreted as indicating a relaxed state, while a rise in GSR a tense state.”)), wherein the scoliosis preventer is configured to prevent scoliosis by massaging according to the tracked emotional or physiological change ([0073] : “When a physiological quantity judging mode is selected first in step S5, step S6 checks whether fingers comes into contact with the GSR electrodes with reference to GSR output. If the output is not smaller than 0.5 mV, this indicates contact. The kneading balls are moved to the first part to be massaged in step S7, and a data collecting procedure is then performed in step S8”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the device disclosed by Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng to include the galvanic skin response unit as disclosed by Hori in order to increase the effectiveness of the deployed massage therapy (Hori [0005]: “the massage machine is capable of detecting the psychological state of the user by monitoring variations in physiological quantities of the user, so that an effective massage can be performed to realize an increased degree of relaxation or refreshment.”).
Claim(s) 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Karunaratne in view of Cheng in view of Ren (US 20140364910 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng discloses the method of claim 23 but fails to disclose reselecting and operating a previous process through feedback after preventing the scoliosis by massaging the pain area or the portion with the relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination, wherein the reselecting and the operating the previous process through the feedback comprises measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column again and comparing before and after and monitoring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column.
Ren discloses a system for adjusting a spinal therapy (abstract) including reselecting and operating a previous process through feedback after preventing the scoliosis by massaging the pain area or the portion with the relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination ([0004]: “the system also includes a tension measuring device (e.g., a loadcell) that is connected inline with the tension-producing actuator and patient to communicate tension metrics to a tension-producing actuator controlling device (e.g. computer). Thus, the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer.”), wherein the reselecting and the operating the previous process through the feedback comprises measuring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column again and comparing before and after and monitoring the degree of curvature of the vertebral column (Fig 4, [0037]: “FIG. 4 illustrates two side views of a coccyx, sacrum, and lumbar spine before and after the application of tension at a specific angle designed to align the sacrum and lowest lumbar vertebra (S1 and L5 respectively))”, Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Yoon to include the feedback system disclosed by Ren in order to allow for finetuning of the applied treatment (Ren [0011]).
Regarding claim 30, Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng discloses the electronic device of claim 27, but fails to disclose a feedback unit configured to reselect and operate a previous process through feedback after preventing the scoliosis by massaging the pain area or the portion with the relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination, wherein the feedback unit is configured to measure the degree of curvature of the vertebral column again and to compare before and after and monitor the degree of curvature of the vertebral column.
Ren discloses a system for adjusting a spinal therapy (abstract) a feedback unit. ([0004]: “the system also includes a tension measuring device (e.g., a loadcell) that is connected inline with the tension-producing actuator and patient to communicate tension metrics to a tension-producing actuator controlling device (e.g. computer). Thus, the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer.”), configured to reselect and operate a previous process through feedback after preventing the scoliosis by massaging the pain area or the portion with the relatively great difference in the pressure or the inclination, wherein the feedback unit is configured to measure the degree of curvature of the vertebral column again and to compare before and after and monitor the degree of curvature of the vertebral column (Fig 4, [0037]: “FIG. 4 illustrates two side views of a coccyx, sacrum, and lumbar spine before and after the application of tension at a specific angle designed to align the sacrum and lowest lumbar vertebra (S1 and L5 respectively))”, Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Yoon as modified by Karunaratne and Cheng to include the feedback unit disclosed by Ren in order to allow for finetuning of the applied treatment (Ren [0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)/(b) rejections of claim 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While claims 1-10 have been cancelled, the new claims 23-30 contain the same language with no amendment or alteration. As such, claims 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)/(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As disclosed in the prior Non-Final Rejection, Yoon fails to disclose a pushing rod. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 23 and 27 is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see above)
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 that Yoon fails to disclose an inclination sensor. However, Yoo discloses an angle sensor (see rejection above) for the angle of the roller pressed to the vertebral column. While the sensors are within the roller, the purpose of the roller is to measure the curvature of the vertebral column ([0076]: “that collects signal values detected by the displacement sensor 37 and calculates information that allows the state of the curvature of the spine to be recognized.”). Applicant further argues on pages 8 and 9 that Cheng fails to disclose a measuring of the vertebral column using a pushing rod. However, as cited by Applicant on page 9 and further above, Cheng disclose a measurement of the bending (i.e. curvature) of the back using a measuring rod and specifically discloses a sensor. MPEP 2183 states that a prior art element is equivalent when (A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As such, the limitation is disclosed by Yoon as modified by Cheng.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights