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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s 3/4/26 amendments and accompanying remarks are accepted. Claims 12-20 are rejoined, claim 12 now depending from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims may be addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qu (US 20170231533 A1).
For claim 1, Qu teaches An orthopedic brace system, comprising:
a first brace member, arranged to be externally affixed to a first musculoskeletal portion of a subject; a second brace member, arranged to be externally affixed to a second musculoskeletal portion of the subject; a pivot point, affixing the first brace member to the second brace member to permit angular motion therebetween and about a rotational axis defined by the pivot point; [¶¶28-29 ¶33 ¶¶39-41]
and an angular range of motion sensor, arranged configured to measure an angular motion of the orthopedic brace along an angular range of motion of the pivot point about the rotational axis defined by the pivot point, the angular range of motion sensor including: a magnetic field sensor and a magnet, arranged to indicate the angular range of motion by sensing a magnetic field of the magnet that varies with the angular motion of the pivot point. [Fig(s). 1-3 Fig(s). 11]
For claim 2, Qu teaches The orthopedic brace system of claim 1,
wherein the magnet is affixed to one of the first brace member or the second brace member to define the magnetic field that varies with the angular motion of the pivot point, and wherein the magnetic field sensor is affixed to at least one of the first brace member or the second brace member, [¶¶28-29 ¶33 Fig(s). 2]
and wherein at least one of:
(a) the magnet defines a fixed magnetic field central axis that passes through the rotational axis of the pivot point throughout the angular range of motion of the pivot point; [¶¶31-41]
or (b) the magnetic field sensor includes or is coupled to compensation circuitry configured to adjust for a secondary component of variation in the magnetic field through a range of the angular motion of the pivot point.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, and 8-10 are further limitations on an optional limitation (b) of the list of alternates (a) and (b) in claim(s) 2 and as such are moot in view of Qu teaching alternate (a) in claim(s) 2. See MPEP § 2143.03.
For claim 4, Qu teaches The orthopedic brace system of claim 2,
wherein the magnetic field sensor is a single axis magnetic field sensor. [¶¶31-39]
For claim 7, Qu teaches The orthopedic brace system of claim 2,
wherein the magnetic field sensor is multi-axis sensor that produces at least a first signal and a second signal. [¶31 ¶49]
For claim 11, Qu teaches The orthopedic brace system of claim 1,
wherein the angular range of motion sensor includes a wireless transceiver configured to communicate with a handheld or console portion of a gaming controller to use angular range of motion data for gamified physical therapy. [Fig(s). 2 ¶28]
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.
Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims may be addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of Mahfouz (US 20130217998 A1).
For claim(s) 12, while Qu generally teaches the use of a gyroscope as in Qu ¶6 ¶26 ¶31 ¶49, Qu does not teach the specifically claimed first and second gyroscope.
Mahfouz teaches an orthopedic brace system [entire disclosure – see at least abstract] comprising a first gyroscope [48a] that produces a first signal, affixed to the first brace member; and a second gyroscope [48b] that produces a second signal, affixed to the second brace member. [¶¶43-45]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the brace system of Qu to incorporate the
For claim(s) 13, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
wherein the first gyroscope is a multi-axis gyroscope, the second gyroscope is a multi-axis gyroscope, and the pivot point is configured with one or more axis of rotation. [¶¶43-46 ¶¶71-80] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
For claim(s) 14, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
wherein the angular motion is measured as a relative angular motion determined using the signal of the first gyroscope and the signal of the second gyroscope. [¶¶45-46 ¶¶71-72] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
For claim(s) 15, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
memory location storing an indication of a starting angle used as a reference for measuring the angular motion of the pivot point relative to the starting angle used as the reference. [¶¶45-46, more generally starting angles as reference is/are central inventive feature(s) detailed throughout the majority (if not the entirety) of the disclosure of Mahfouz — see throughout ¶¶71-89 et seq.] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
For claim(s) 16, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
circuitry configured to automatically enter the stored indication of a starting angle when the system is powered on. [¶75] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
For claim(s) 17, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
a mechanical feature defining an angle limit of the pivot point and circuitry configured to automatically enter the stored indication of a starting angle when the pivot point reaches the defined angle limit. [¶63 ¶¶151-157] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
For claim(s) 18, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
circuitry configured to automatically enter the stored indication of a starting angle when a signal is detected. [¶75 ¶¶151-157] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
For claim(s) 19, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
circuitry configured to enter the stored indication of starting angle when manually triggered. [¶75 ¶¶151-157] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
For claim(s) 20, Mahfouz teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 12)
circuitry configured to compensate for gyroscopic drift. [¶102 ¶144] As motivated in claim(s) 12.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided in the Notice of References Cited (form PTO-892) herewith.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S MELHUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/BENJAMIN S MELHUS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights