DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 02/26/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed on 02/26/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 21-30 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 10, “with each of the quadrants contains” should read “with each of the quadrants containing”
In claim 21, line 26, “applied on surface” should read “applied on the surface”
In claim 21, line 38, “COP” should read “the COP” in two places
In claim 21, line 38, “sway” should read “the sway”
In claim 21, line 39, “sway” should read “the sway”
In claim 22, line 1, “wherein the calibrating comprising” should read “wherein the calibrating comprises”
In claim 22, line 2, “the readings” should read “readings”, as there is improper antecedent basis in the claims for this limitation
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-30 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “at least one force sensor” in lines 10-11. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from line 9, or a different force sensor. If it is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from line 9, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different force sensor, it needs to be distinguished from the plurality of force sensors from line 9. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the plurality of force sensors from line 9. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a secondary force sensor” in line 12. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from line 9, or a different force sensor. If it is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from line 9, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different force sensor, it needs to be distinguished from the plurality of force sensors from line 9. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the plurality of force sensors from line 9. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a load “ in line 32. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the load from line 20, or a different load. If it is meant to refer to the load from line 20, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different load, it needs to be distinguished from the load from line 20. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the load from line 20. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a COP” in line 34. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the COP from line 22, or a different COP. If it is meant to refer to the COP from line 22, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different COP, it needs to be distinguished from the COP from line 22. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the COP from line 22. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a sway” in line 34. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the sway from line 25, or a different sway. If it is meant to refer to the sway from line 25, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different sway, it needs to be distinguished from the sway from line 25. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the sway from line 25. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a load “ in line 35. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the load from line 20, the load from line 32, or a different load. If it is meant to refer to the load from line 20 or 32, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different load, it needs to be distinguished from the load from line 20 and 32. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the load from line 20. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “at least one portion of a body of a subject” in lines 35-36. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the at least one portion of the body of the subject from lines 32-33, or a different portion of a different body of a different subject. If it is meant to refer to the portion from lines 32-33, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different portion of a different body of a different subject, it needs to be distinguished from the portion from lines 32-33. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the portion of the body of the subject from lines 32-33. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a COP” in line 37. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the COP from line 22, the COP from line 34, or a different COP. If it is meant to refer to the COP from line 22 or line 34, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different COP, it needs to be distinguished from the COP from line 22 and line 34. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the COP from line 22. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “a sway” in line 37. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the sway from line 25, the sway from line 34, or a different sway. If it is meant to refer to the sway from line 25 or line 34, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different sway, it needs to be distinguished from the sway from line 25 and line 34. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the sway from line 25. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “postural stability” in line 39. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the postural stability from line 1, or a different postural stability. If it is meant to refer to the postural stability from line 1, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different postural stability, it needs to be distinguished from the postural stability from line 1. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the postural stability from line 1. Claims 22-30 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites the limitation “the force sensor” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from claim 21, line 9, the at least one force sensor from claim 21, lines 10-11, the secondary force sensor from claim 21, line 12, or a different force sensor. If it is meant to refer to any of the previously introduced force sensors, it needs to refer back to the specific sensor clearly. If it is meant to refer to a different force sensor, it needs to be distinguished from all of the previously introduced force sensors. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the at least one force sensor, which is interpreted as being included in the plurality of force sensors.
Further regarding claim 24, the claim recites the limitation “a load” in line 5. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the load from claim 21, line 20, the load from claim 21, line 32, the load from claim 21, line 35, or a different load. If it is meant to refer to any of the previously introduced loads, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different load, it needs to be distinguished from all of the previously introduced loads. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the load from claim 21, line 20.
Further regarding claim 24, the claim recites the limitation “the force sensor” in lines 10-11. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from claim 21, line 9, the at least one force sensor from claim 21, lines 10-11, the secondary force sensor from claim 21, line 12, the force sensor from claim 24, line 1, or a different force sensor. If it is meant to refer to any of the previously introduced force sensors, it needs to refer back to the specific sensor clearly. If it is meant to refer to a different force sensor, it needs to be distinguished from all of the previously introduced force sensors. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the force sensor from claim 24, line 1.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “a load” in line 6. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the load from claim 21, line 20, the load from claim 21, line 32, the load from claim 21, line 35, or a different load. If it is meant to refer to any of the previously introduced loads, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different load, it needs to be distinguished from all of the previously introduced loads. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the load from claim 21, line 20.
Further regarding claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “the force sensor” in lines 11-12. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from claim 21, line 9, the at least one force sensor from claim 21, lines 10-11, the secondary force sensor from claim 21, line 12 and claim 25, line 1, or a different force sensor. If it is meant to refer to any of the previously introduced force sensors, it needs to refer back to the specific sensor clearly. If it is meant to refer to a different force sensor, it needs to be distinguished from all of the previously introduced force sensors. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the secondary force sensor from claim 21, line 12 and claim 25, line 1.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites the limitation “the force sensor” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the plurality of force sensors from claim 21, line 9, the at least one force sensor from claim 21, lines 10-11, the secondary force sensor from claim 21, line 12, or a different force sensor. If it is meant to refer to any of the previously introduced force sensors, it needs to refer back to the specific sensor clearly. If it is meant to refer to a different force sensor, it needs to be distinguished from all of the previously introduced force sensors. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the at least one force sensor, which is interpreted as being included in the plurality of force sensors.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the limitation “the optional secondary force sensor” in line 1. It is unclear what this is referring to, as the secondary force sensor is not optional in claim 21, and no additional optional secondary force sensor has been introduced. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the secondary force sensor from claim 21, and it is being interpreted as not being optional.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites the limitation “the optional secondary force sensor” in line 3. It is unclear what this is referring to, as the secondary force sensor is not optional in claim 21, and no additional optional secondary force sensor has been introduced. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the secondary force sensor from claim 21, and it is being interpreted as not being optional.
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 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 21 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardy (US 20200047032) in view of Berme (US 11540744), Berme ‘451 (US 9526451), ASTM (“Standard Test Method for Verification of Multi-Axis Force Measuring Platforms”), and Patel (GB 2589138).
Regarding independent claim 21, Vardy teaches a method of determining and monitoring postural stability ([0010]: “Disclosed herein is a system for patient rehabilitation. The system can include a balance plate for measuring Center of Pressure (COP) dynamic weight distribution data of the patient”).
However, Vardy does not teach calibrating a force measurement platform comprising a force measurement assembly.
Berme discloses a force measurement system. Specifically, Berme teaches calibrating a force measurement platform comprising a force measurement assembly (Column 54, lines 50-52: “it is presumed the sensor devices of the inertial measurement units (IMUs) provide calibrated data”). Vardy and Berme are analogous art as they are both related to force measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the calibration from Berme into the method from Vardy as it allows the device to calibrate the data it is receiving, which can ensure a more accurate and consistent measurement to use for analysis.
The Vardy/Berme combination teaches (1) a surface plate having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Vardy, balance plate 102, Fig. 1).
However, the Vardy/Berme combination does not teach a base plate having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side.
Berme teaches (2) a base plate having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Fig. 4, base plates 162), wherein the second side of the surface plate is above and opposite to the first side of the base plate (Fig. 4, plate components 110 and 112 are above the base plates 162).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the base plate from Berme into the Vardy/Berme combination as the combination is silent on the specific structure of the force plate, and Berme discloses a base plate to provide more stability and a structure for the force sensors to rest on to provide an accurate measurement result.
The Vardy/Berme combination teaches (3) a plurality of force sensors mutually diagonally arranged in four quadrants of the force measurement assembly with each of the quadrants contains at least one force sensor (Vardy, [0036]: “Referring to FIG. 2, balance plate 102 can include an upper surface 108 on which the patient stands, and four quadrants 110, 112, 114, 116 which intersect at a centre point 118 … Each quadrant may include a load cell to measure dynamic weight distribution on plate 102 when a patient is standing on the plate”. The load cell in each quadrant are the plurality of force sensors, and one located in each quadrant will arrange them diagonally from each other.).
However, the Vardy/Berme combination does not teach a secondary force sensor located in a geometric center of the force measurement assembly.
Berme ‘451 discloses a force measurement system. Specifically, Berme ‘451 teaches (4) a secondary force sensor located in a geometric center of the force measurement assembly (Page 6, lines 14-16: “A grid of mechanical switches (223, 224, 225, 226, 227) provide position sensors which are activated by a force on the upper plate member (221) and are disposed between the upper and lower plate member (221, 222)”; Fig. 3 shows a mechanical switch in the geometric center.). Vardy, Berme, and Berme ‘451 are analogous art as they are all related to force measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the secondary force sensor located in the geometric center from Berme ‘451 into the Vardy/Berme combination as it allows the combination to provide an additional force sensor, which can provide more information to the method and allow for a more comprehensive and accurate result by incorporating more measurements.
The Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451 combination teaches wherein the surface plate is supported on the base plate via the plurality of force sensors and the secondary force sensor (Berme, Fig. 4 shows the plate being supported by the force sensors, which can include the additional sensor from Berme ‘451.);
(5) a data acquisition and processing unit (Vardy, [0035]: “Data, such as Centre of Pressure (COP) data is obtained from balance plate 102 and processed by processor 106 in tandem with the progression of a test presented in display 104”. The processor is the data acquisition and processing unit.), comprising:
(6) a plurality of signal conditioners (Vardy, [0063]: “Data can be analyzed, compared and exported using custom filters”. The custom filters are the signal conditioners.);
(7) a controller (Vardy, [0040]: “processor 106 is described in reference to laptop computer 130, though other configurations can be used. For example, processor 106 may be formed as a variety of mobile and/or stationary computing devices, such as, but not limited to a tablet, a smart device (e.g., smartphone), a desktop computer, and/or a wearable device such as eyewear or bracelet. As would be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art, a processor such as described above includes a chip and associated memory. Laptop computer 130 can include wireless communications capabilities, such as one or more wireless radios configured for communication via a peer-to-peer communications technology (e.g., Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi Direct) and/or non peer-to-peer communications such as WLAN.”).
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451 combination does not teach the controller being a microcontroller.
Berme teaches the controller being a microcontroller (Column 44, lines 47-50: “the data acquisition/data processing device 104 coupled to the head-mounted visual display device 344 may have a high performance microprocessor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the controller being a microcontroller from Berme into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451 combination as it is a different type of controller that can be used in an analogous device, therefore is a simple substitution to use a microcontroller as the controller.
The Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451 combination teaches (8) a computing device (Vardy, Fig. 1, computer 130);
wherein the data acquisition and processing unit is configured to receive one or more signals that are representative of a load being applied to a surface of the force measurement assembly and to record a location of the applied load on the surface of the force measurement assembly by computing a center of pressure (COP) for the applied load (Vardy, [0035]: “Data, such as Centre of Pressure (COP) data is obtained from balance plate 102 and processed by processor 106”).
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451 combination does not teach determining by ASTM F3109-16.
ASTM discloses the standards for verification of multi-axis force measuring platforms (ASTM F3109-16). Vardy, Berme, Berme ‘451, and ASTM are analogous art as they are all related to force measurement platforms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to follow the standards from ASTM F3109-16 for the method from the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451 combination as it allows the method to follow certain standards to ensure the most accurate measurement from the force plate.
The Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches wherein the data acquisition and processing unit is further configured to monitor the signals of the applied load over time to visualize a sway or a change in location of the load being applied on surface of the force measurement assembly by computing the COP (Vardy, [0044]: “Processor 106 presents the balance data on a screen 200, with the patient's COP shown as a dot or icon 202. Various data may be obtained through the balance test, such as, but not limited to sway velocity”; [0045]: “Balance plate 102 can measure the COP of the subject and communicate the COP data to laptop 130, which can be configured to graphically depict the subject's COP as an icon on the display screen”; [0046]: “In order to facilitate the display of the subject's COP, processor 106 can be configured to portray the subject's COP as icon 308 moving across the screen of display 104 in tandem with the movement of the subject's COP detected and measured by balance plate 102”. The plate can record the movement of the user’s COP, which includes a change in location of the load being applied to the plate. Additionally, a balance test can be performed, which can detect the sway velocity of the user, which is the sway of the user.);
wherein the computing device has a communications interface coupled to the data acquisition and processing unit (Vardy, [0039]: “balance plate 102 can be connected to processor 106, which can be in the form of a laptop computer 130, with a suitable interface device 128 to facilitate communication between plate 102 and computer 130. Interface device 128 may contain one or more wireless radios with transceivers configured for use with peer-to-peer communications (e.g., Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi Direct), and/or WLAN communications through a dedicated Access Point. Interface 128 may be configured for wired communications in addition to, or instead of, wireless communications”. The interface device is the communications interface.); and
wherein the force measurement platform removably retains the computing device (Vardy, [0039]: “balance plate 102 can be connected to processor 106, which can be in the form of a laptop computer 130, with a suitable interface device 128 to facilitate communication between plate 102 and computer 130. Interface device 128 may contain one or more wireless radios with transceivers configured for use with peer-to-peer communications (e.g., Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi Direct), and/or WLAN communications through a dedicated Access Point. Interface 128 may be configured for wired communications in addition to, or instead of, wireless communications”. The plate and the computing device are connected through wired or wireless means, which can both be removably connected.);
applying a load to the surface of the force measurement assembly via at least one portion of a body of a subject with eyes open and running the force measurement platform to calculate a COP and record a sway, and applying a load to the surface of the force measurement assembly via at least one portion of a body of a subject with eyes closed and running the force measurement platform for 10 to 30 seconds to calculate a COP and record a sway (Vardy, [0044]: “Various data may be obtained through the balance test, such as, but not limited to sway velocity and entropy data. In some cases, a first test is conducted with eyes open, then a second test with eyes closed”).
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination is silent on the length of the tests.
Berme teaches testing for 10 to 30 seconds (Column 34, lines 47-48: “the SOT protocol may be performed for approximately 20 seconds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the test length from Berme into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the combination is silent on the length of the testing, and Berme discloses a suitable length in an analogous device.
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination does not teach comparing the results of COP and sway with eyes open and the results of COP and sway with eyes closed against a reference database to determine and monitor postural stability.
Patel discloses a force plate. Specifically. Patel teaches comparing the results against a reference database to determine and monitor postural stability (Column 5, lines 48-56: “the data processing device is further configured to determine a postural sway of the subject using the center of gravity determined from the one or more position data signals, to determine how closely the postural sway of the subject conforms to one or postural sway baseline values, and to additionally generate the sensory output signal for the biofeedback based upon the conformity of the postural sway of the subject to the one or postural sway baseline values”. The baseline values are the reference database, and the sensory output signal is the comparison of the postural sway to baseline values, and therefore can be used to determine and monitor postural stability.). Vardy, Berme, Berme ‘451, and Patel are analogous art as they are all related to force measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the comparison of results to a baseline from Patel into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the combination is silent on the specific steps of the balance test, and Patel discloses suitable steps for determination of posture in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 24, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21.
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination does not teach wherein the force sensor comprises: a beam portion having a first end and a second end; wherein the first end of the beam portion is connected to the second side of the surface plate around at least one first pivot axis that is perpendicular to the surface plate, and is configured to receive at least a portion of a load that is applied to the surface plate; wherein the second end of the beam portion is mounted to the first side of the base plate around at least one second pivot axis that is perpendicular to the base plate; wherein the at least one first pivot axis is parallel to the at least one second pivot axis; and a plurality of deformation sensing elements disposed on the beam portion of the force sensor along a longitudinal axis between the first end and the second end of the beam portion, and wherein the plurality of deformation sensing elements can covert an input mechanical load to an electrical signal representative of the load that is applied to the surface plate.
Berme teaches wherein the force sensor comprises: a beam portion having a first end and a second end; wherein the first end of the beam portion is connected to the second side of the surface plate around at least one first pivot axis that is perpendicular to the surface plate, and is configured to receive at least a portion of a load that is applied to the surface plate; wherein the second end of the beam portion is mounted to the first side of the base plate around at least one second pivot axis that is perpendicular to the base plate; wherein the at least one first pivot axis is parallel to the at least one second pivot axis (Fig. 4, load cells 154 are the beam portion. The top side is the first end, and the and the bottom side is the second end. The pivot axis are the axis of the center of the load cells, which are perpendicular to the surface plate and the base plate, and parallel to each other.); and a plurality of deformation sensing elements disposed on the beam portion of the force sensor along a longitudinal axis between the first end and the second end of the beam portion (Column 14, lines 30-36: “Each of the eight (8) illustrated pylon-type force transducers has a plurality of strain gages adhered to the outer periphery of a cylindrically-shaped force transducer sensing element for detecting the mechanical strain of the force transducer sensing element imparted thereon by the force(s) applied to the surfaces of the force measurement assembly”), and wherein the plurality of deformation sensing elements can covert an input mechanical load to an electrical signal representative of the load that is applied to the surface plate (Column 22, lines 12-14: “the preamplifier board 170 additionally could be used to convert the analog voltage signals into digital voltage signals”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the structure of the force sensor from Berme into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the combination is silent on the structure of the force sensors, and Berme discloses a suitable structure in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 25, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21.
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination does not teach wherein the secondary force sensor comprises: a beam portion having a first end and a second end; wherein the first end of the beam portion is connected to the second side of the surface plate around at least one first pivot axis that is perpendicular to the surface plate, and is configured to receive at least a portion of a load that is applied to the surface plate; wherein the second end of the beam portion is mounted to the first side of the base plate around at least one second pivot axis that is perpendicular to the base plate; wherein the at least one first pivot axis is parallel to the at least one second pivot axis; and a plurality of deformation sensing elements disposed on the beam portion of the force sensor along a longitudinal axis between the first end and the second end of the beam portion, and wherein the plurality of deformation sensing elements can covert an input mechanical load to an electrical signal representative of the load that is applied to the surface plate.
Berme teaches wherein the secondary force sensor comprises: a beam portion having a first end and a second end; wherein the first end of the beam portion is connected to the second side of the surface plate around at least one first pivot axis that is perpendicular to the surface plate, and is configured to receive at least a portion of a load that is applied to the surface plate; wherein the second end of the beam portion is mounted to the first side of the base plate around at least one second pivot axis that is perpendicular to the base plate; wherein the at least one first pivot axis is parallel to the at least one second pivot axis (Fig. 4, load cells 154 are the beam portion. The top side is the first end, and the and the bottom side is the second end. The pivot axis are the axis of the center of the load cells, which are perpendicular to the surface plate and the base plate, and parallel to each other.); and a plurality of deformation sensing elements disposed on the beam portion of the force sensor along a longitudinal axis between the first end and the second end of the beam portion (Column 14, lines 30-36: “Each of the eight (8) illustrated pylon-type force transducers has a plurality of strain gages adhered to the outer periphery of a cylindrically-shaped force transducer sensing element for detecting the mechanical strain of the force transducer sensing element imparted thereon by the force(s) applied to the surfaces of the force measurement assembly”), and wherein the plurality of deformation sensing elements can covert an input mechanical load to an electrical signal representative of the load that is applied to the surface plate (Column 22, lines 12-14: “the preamplifier board 170 additionally could be used to convert the analog voltage signals into digital voltage signals”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the structure of the force sensor from Berme into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the combination is silent on the structure of the force sensors, and Berme discloses a suitable structure in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 26, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21.
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination does not teach wherein the force sensor is at least one selected from the group consisting of a capacitive displacement sensor, an inductive force sensor, a strain gauge, a piezoelectric force sensor, a force sensing resistor, a piezoresistive force sensor, a thin film force sensor, and a quantum tunnelling composite-based force sensor.
Berme teaches wherein the force sensor is at least one selected from the group consisting of a capacitive displacement sensor, an inductive force sensor, a strain gauge, a piezoelectric force sensor, a force sensing resistor, a piezoresistive force sensor, a thin film force sensor, and a quantum tunnelling composite-based force sensor (Column 14, lines 30-36: “Each of the eight (8) illustrated pylon-type force transducers has a plurality of strain gages adhered to the outer periphery of a cylindrically-shaped force transducer sensing element for detecting the mechanical strain of the force transducer sensing element imparted thereon by the force(s) applied to the surfaces of the force measurement assembly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensor type from Berme into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the combination is silent on the type of sensor used, and Berme discloses a suitable sensor type in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 27, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21.
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination does not teach wherein the optional secondary force sensor is at least one selected from the group consisting of a capacitive displacement sensor, an inductive force sensor, a strain gauge, a piezoelectric force sensor, a force sensing resistor, a piezoresistive force sensor, a thin film force sensor, and a quantum tunnelling composite-based force sensor.
Berme teaches wherein the optional secondary force sensor is at least one selected from the group consisting of a capacitive displacement sensor, an inductive force sensor, a strain gauge, a piezoelectric force sensor, a force sensing resistor, a piezoresistive force sensor, a thin film force sensor, and a quantum tunnelling composite-based force sensor (Column 14, lines 30-36: “Each of the eight (8) illustrated pylon-type force transducers has a plurality of strain gages adhered to the outer periphery of a cylindrically-shaped force transducer sensing element for detecting the mechanical strain of the force transducer sensing element imparted thereon by the force(s) applied to the surfaces of the force measurement assembly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensor type from Berme into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the combination is silent on the type of sensor used, and Berme discloses a suitable sensor type in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 28, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21, wherein: each of the plurality of signal conditioners is operatively connected to each of the plurality of force sensors and the optional secondary force sensor of the force measurement assembly; and the plurality of signal conditioners are operatively connected to the microcontroller (Vardy, [0035]: “Data, such as Centre of Pressure (COP) data is obtained from balance plate 102 and processed by processor 106 in tandem with the progression of a test presented in display 104”. The processor, which includes the microcontroller, is where the data is processed, including the filters (the signal conditioner), is connected to the force plate including the force sensors through wired or wireless connection, which is operatively connected.).
Regarding claim 29, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of signal conditioners comprises filters ([0063]: “Data can be analyzed, compared and exported using custom filters”. The custom filters are the signal conditioners.).
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination does not teach wherein the signal conditioners comprise at least one amplifier, at least one high-pass filter, and at least one low-pass filter.
Berme teaches the signal conditioners comprising at least one amplifier (Column 21, lines 63-65: “The preamplifier board is used to increase the magnitudes of the transducer analog output voltages”), at least one high-pass filter, and at least one low-pass filter (Column 3, lines 35-40: “the one or more data processing devices are configured to determine the difference between the center of pressure and the center of mass for the subject by using a combination of a high pass filter and a low pass filter on center of pressure data determined from the output force and/or moment data.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the amplifier from Berme into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the it allows the method to amplify the signals to ensure the signals are strong enough for processing, which can allow for easier processing steps. Additionally, it would have been obvious to use the filter types from Berme in the combination as the combination is silent on the types of filters used, and Berme disclose suitable filters in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 30, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the microcontroller comprises a memory for saving or installing an application program, or a software program (Vardy, [0040]: “processor 106 is described in reference to laptop computer 130, though other configurations can be used. For example, processor 106 may be formed as a variety of mobile and/or stationary computing devices, such as, but not limited to a tablet, a smart device (e.g., smartphone), a desktop computer, and/or a wearable device such as eyewear or bracelet. As would be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art, a processor such as described above includes a chip and associated memory. Laptop computer 130 can include wireless communications capabilities, such as one or more wireless radios configured for communication via a peer-to-peer communications technology (e.g., Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi Direct) and/or non peer-to-peer communications such as WLAN.”), and wherein the application program or the software program from an internet or a cloud server is downloaded for interpreting and executing digital signals (Vardy, [0041]: “It will be appreciated that data may be stored in a variety of ways, for example, in the hard disc of laptop 130, USB 132, one or more remote servers, and/or the Cloud”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of FSEL (“Calibration of Load Cells”).
Regarding claim 22, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination teaches the method of claim 21.
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination is silent on the calibration steps.
FSEL discloses how to calibrate load cells. Specifically, FSEL teaches wherein the calibrating comprising: removing any loads on the force measurement assembly and zeroizing the readings of the platform; placing a known mass on the force measurement assembly, running the platform, and recording a displayed mass (Steps 4.7-4.11); and calculating a calibration factor via a mathematical formula (Step 4.11.1 includes calculating calibration factors, which includes using a mathematical formula) and setting the calibration factor in the data acquisition and processing unit (Step 4.4.6: “Configure the force indicator for the master load cell to comply with the parameters listed within the calibration records”). Vardy, Berme, Berme ‘451, and FSEL are analogous art as they are all related to load cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the calibration steps from FSEL into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM combination as the combination is silent on the calibration steps, and FSEL discloses suitable calibration steps in an analogous device.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM/FSEL combination as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Renesas (“Weight Measurement Example Using a Load Cell”).
Regarding claim 23, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM/FSEL combination teaches the method of claim 22.
However, the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM/FSEL combination is silent on the mathematical formula used to determine the calibration factor.
Renesas discloses weight measurement using a load cell. Specifically, Renesas teaches wherein the mathematical formula (I) is:
C
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
I
=
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
(
g
)
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
m
V
v
x
E
x
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)
(Page 13 discloses the equation
V
=
R
O
*
V
c
c
*
M
M
m
a
x
. When this equation is rearranged, it shows the calibration factor being
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
(
g
)
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
m
V
v
x
E
x
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)
, since RO is the sensitivity,
V
c
c
is the excitation voltage, and
M
m
a
x
is the capacity.). Vardy, Berme, Berme ‘451, FSEL, and Renesas are analogous art as they are all related to load cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the formula from Renesas into the Vardy/Berme/Berme ‘451/ASTM/FSEL combination as the combination is silent on the formula, and Renesas discloses a suitable formula in an analogous art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant cancelled claims 1-20 and introduce new claims 21-30 to overcome the claim objections, however the same concerns are present in the newly added claims, therefore the claim objections are reiterated. Additionally, the newly added claims have introduced new claim objections and 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-30 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.
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 ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights