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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the objection to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the objection to Claims 1, 5, and 7-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claims 1, 5, and 7-8 has been withdrawn. However, a new objection to Claims 12-19 has been made.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection of Claims 12-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been made.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the drawings, the current drawings are not accepted as explained in the objections to the drawings below.
Regarding the objections to the specification, the word “cylinderical” is still misspelled and should read “cylindrical”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The microcontroller card cooperative with said plurality of magnetic rotary encoders so as to transmit data by wireless communication, said microcontroller card adapted to be worn on a wrist of the patient must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Examiner recommends the Applicant submit a new figure showing the microcontroller card worn on a person’s wrist for this purpose.
A force focuser adapted to focus a force applied by the patient while holding an object (specifically, a clear drawing showing how the device is worn while the fingers are holding an object, and what said object actually is) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Examiner recommends the Applicant submit a new figure for this purpose.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a person’s hand wearing the robotic device that also shows the relative size/scale of the wearable robotic device as described in the specification. The Examiner notes that Fig. 3 does not clearly show these details, as it is not labeled and it is unclear what the figure is supposed to depict. It is suggested a new Fig. 3 be added that shows a person’s hand (not a “robot” hand as per previous figure 3) holding the object with the microcontroller card worn on the wrist of the person with appropriate labels for each of the parts. It is also suggested that a figure of the wearable robot with the person’s finger fixed using the fixing slots be depicted as the “boxes” on previous fig 3 do not seem to match figs 1 and 2 so it was not clear they were the same thing.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Cancelation of Figures
If a drawing figure is canceled, a replacement sheet of drawings must be submitted without the figure (see 37 CFR 1.121(d) ). If the canceled drawing figure was the only drawing on the sheet, then only a marked-up copy of the drawing sheet including an annotation showing that the drawing has been cancelled is required. The marked-up (annotated) copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Sheet" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section of the amendment document which explains the changes to the drawings (see 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1) ). The brief description of the drawings should also be amended to reflect this change. See MPEP 608.02(t).
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The Examiner notes that translation issues may exist in this application. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any translation errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All instances of “cylinderical” should read “cylindrical” for proper spelling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 12:
“said upper part having a slot adapted to reeive a distal phalanx of the finger of a patient” should read “said upper part having a slot adapted to receive a distal phalanx of the finger of a patient”.
“vibration motor inserted into said upper part and adapted to simulate a finger tip of the patient” should read “a vibration motor inserted into said upper part and adapted to stimulate the tip of the finger
“a finger isolator adapted to contact a lower end of the finger” should read “a finger isolator adapted to contact the palm-side surface of the distal phalanx”
“a force focuser adapted to focus a force applied by the patient while holding an object” should read “a force focuser adapted to focus a force applied by the patient while holding an object with their fingers”.
In Claim 13:
“wherein said upper part has fixing slots thereon that allow the finger of the patient to be fixed to said upper part” should read “wherein said upper part has fixing slots thereon that allow the finger of the patient to be fixed to said upper part when hook-and-loop fasteners are passed through the fixing slots”. (The Examiner notes that the specification’s disclosure of “Velcro bands” on page 7 provides sufficient support for the non-copyright term “hook-and-loop fasteners”).
In Claim 14:
“wherein an upper surface of said intermediate has a slot into which said force sensing resistor is fixed and adapted to face a lower surface of the finger of the patient” should read “wherein an upper surface of said intermediate part has a slot into which said force sensing resistor is fixed and adapted to face the palm-side surface of the distal phalanx of the patient”.
In Claim 15:
“wherein said intermediate part has a semi-cylindrical slot on a lower surface thereof into which a half of said vertical slip sensor and said horizontal slip sensor are inserted” should read “wherein said intermediate part has a semi-cylindrical slot for each slip sensor on a lower surface thereof into which a half of said vertical slip sensor and said horizontal slip sensor are inserted, respectively”.
In Claim 16:
“wherein the semi-cylindrical slot has a spherical textured upper surface” should read “wherein each of the semi-cylindrical slots has a hemispherical textured upper surface”
In Claim 17:
“wherein said lower part has a semi-cylindrical slot on an upper surface thereof into which a half of said vertical slip sensor and horizontal slip sensor are inserted” should read “wherein said lower part has a semi-cylindrical slot on an upper surface thereof for each slip sensor into which a half of said vertical slip sensor and horizontal slip sensor are inserted, respectively”
In Claim 18:
“wherein the semi-cylindrical slot has a hemispherical textured upper surface” should read “wherein each of the semi-cylindrical slots has a hemispherical textured upper surface”.
In Claim 19:
“wherein said lower part an said upper part are connected by at least two screws” should read “wherein said lower part [[an]] and said upper part are connected by at least two screws”.
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.
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: “Internet connection module” in Claim 20.
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.
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 20 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “module” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“module” is linked with the transitional phrase “adapted to” and modified by the functional language “allow data from the patient to be periodically transmitted to a doctor for the patient”
“module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on page 6, lines 23-24 as a Wi-Fi module and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites “wherein said lower part and said upper part are connected by at least two screws”. While page 8, lines 12-14 of the instant specification and Fig. 1 of the instant drawings disclose wherein said lower part and said intermediate part are connected by at least two screws, there is nowhere in the specification that shows wherein said lower part and said upper part are connected by at least two screws. The Examiner recommends the applicant modify this limitation to read “wherein said lower part and said intermediate part are connected by at least two screws”.
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 12-22 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 12 recites “said upper part having a slot adapted to [receive] a distal phalanx of the finger of a patient”. As human patients have multiple fingers, it is unclear which finger “the finger” is referring to. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “said upper part having a slot adapted to [receive] a distal phalanx of [[the]] a finger of a patient”.
Claims 13-22 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 12.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner notes Claims 12-22 are not currently rejected under prior art.
Claim 12
The present invention discloses a wearable robotic device for measuring and monitoring Multiple Sclerosis disease with a novel and unique structure comprising at least an upper part having a U-shaped structure, a vibration motor, a finger isolator, a force focuser, a force sensing resistor, a vertical slip sensor and a horizontal slip sensor, a plurality of magnetic rotary encoders, and a microcontroller card.
The closest prior art of record, Yeakley (US 5226779 A), Silagy et al (US 20150190675 A1), or Hamdi et al (US 20170144312 A1), do not disclose or make obvious the limitations of independent Claim 12, including at least:
“a vertical slip sensor and a horizontal slip sensor having a cylindrical shape and having magnetic parts positioned between said intermediate part and said lower part;
a plurality of magnetic rotary encoders cooperative with said vertical slip sensor and said horizontal slip sensor so as to detect a movement of said vertical slip sensor and said horizontal slip sensor”
Thus, the prior art of record neither renders obvious nor anticipates the combination of claim elements in light of the specification.
Claims 13-22
Claims 13-22 are not rejected under prior art by virtue of dependence on independent Claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791