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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: a scan device for scanning the position of the person in claim 19. No structure is taught for this limitation.
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 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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation “a substantially flat reference plane” in line 4. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite flatness to meet the claim are not readily determinable.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “substantially equal” in line 3. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the similarity between the pressures to meet the claim are not readily determinable; e.g., is a 1% difference “substantially equal”? How about a 5% difference?
Claim 4 recites the limitation “driving means for displacing the at least one fill element” in line 2. This claim limitation 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. The specification notes that the driving means may be powered by a motor, but does not describe the driving means as comprising the motor, and provides no examples of what sort of structure the driving means may comprise. 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 4 also recites the limitation "the at least one fille element" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This has been taken to refer to the previously recited at least one fill element.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “substantially adapted to” in line 2. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite adaption to meet the claim are not readily determinable.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said displacement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “an optionally topped of pyramid” and “an optionally topped of cone” in line 3. It is not clear if this is intended to recite (i) a pyramid or a cone, wherein the pyramid or cone are optionally topped of; or (ii) that the pyramid or cone themselves are optional. It is further unclear what is meant by “topped of” in each instance.
Claim 11 also recites the limitation “or part thereof” in line 4. It is not clear what is meant by this.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one optionally releasable top layer” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to recite (i) a top layer, wherein the top layer is optionally releasable; or (ii) that the top layer itself is optional.
Also regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “registration means for registering at least one of the following data” in lines 2-3. This claim limitation 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. No structure is taught for the registration means. 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 16 also recites the limitation “a measured tension muscle” in line 5. It is not clear what is meant by this. For sake of compact prosecution, this will be taken herein to recite “a measured muscle tension.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation “computing means which is arranged to determine…” in lines 2-3. This claim limitation 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. No structure is taught for the computing means. 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 17 also recites the limitation "said registered data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation “provide in” in line 4. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation “a substantially equal pressure distribution” in line 4. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the similarity of the pressure distribution to meet the claim are not readily determinable; e.g., is a 1% difference “substantially equal”? How about a 5% difference?
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a scan device for scanning the position of the person” in line 2. As detailed supra, this claim limitation 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. No structure is taught for this device. 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 19 also recites the limitation "the position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a said person” in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the person recited in claim 1 (i.e., said person) or to a separate person (i.e., a person).
Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites three types of stimuli; however, these are not structural components of a device, and thus fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peled (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0133106 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peled discloses a system for at least supporting a treatment of a person (Abstract; Figs. 3, 4, 7, 14), comprising a base platform 33 for receiving said person, wherein said base platform comprises at least one upper surface which defines a substantially flat reference plane (Fig. 3; [0039]-[0040]), and at least one fill element 32A-D, and wherein said at least one fill element is displaceable between a first position and a second position, in which second position an upper surface of said at least one fill element extends above said reference plane with an adjustable distance, such that said at least one fill element fills a space between said reference plane and a lower side of a or each foot of said person ([0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Peled discloses a driving means 23 for displacing the at least one fill element between its first and second position, wherein said driving means are arranged for displacing the at least one fille element mechanically and/or by means of a gas and/or by means of a liquid ([0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Peled discloses that the upper surface of the at least one fill element defines a number of surface area zones 32A-D, wherein the adjustable distance is variable and/or individually adjustable per surface area zone ([0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Peled discloses that said at least one fill element has a shape that is substantially adapted to the or each foot of said person (e.g., Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Peled discloses that said displacement takes place using rotation and/or translation of the at least one fill element ([0054]; e.g. vertical translation).
Regarding claim 8, Peled discloses that said at least one fill element is arranged and/or a distance between at least two fill elements is chosen such that a straight line is defined between an outer side of a hip bone and a second toe of the person when said person stands on said base platform and said at least one or two fill element(s) fill(s) said space (Figs. 7, 14; capable of such; e.g., a straight line between a hip bone and a second toe can be drawn when the person stands on the platform).
Regarding claims 9-11, Peled discloses that said system comprises at least one treatment element 101 that extends out of said reference plane, wherein said at least one treatment element is optionally releasably connectable to the base platform, and wherein said base platform and said at least one treatment element optionally comprise mutually cooperating connecting elements, wherein said at least one treatment element has a shape that is chosen from the group comprising a spherical shape, an optionally topped of pyramid, an optionally topped of cone, a cuboid shape, a bar shape, a cylindrical shape, or part thereof (Fig. 13; [0053]; e.g., a bar shape; elements recited by claim 10 are optional).
Regarding claim 12, Peled discloses that said base platform comprises at least one optionally releasable top layer 33, which layer can be arranged on the upper surface or may define the upper surface, which layer is for example made of an elastically synthetic material ([0040]; does not have to be releasable or elastically synthetic; platform may be taken to include elements 38 and/or 4, so that element 33 would be the top layer thereof).
Regarding claim 14, Peled discloses at least one of: an auditive stimulus; a visual stimulus, and a tactile stimulus ([0048]; e.g., tactile).
Regarding claim 18, Peled discloses a control means 24 for controlling said system ([0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Peled discloses a use of the system according to claim 1, comprising the following steps: a) providing the system of claim 1, b) a said person standing on said base platform, and c) adjusting the adjustable distance of the at least one fill element ([0038]; [0048]; [0054]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248922 A1). Ochi discloses a system for at least supporting a treatment of a person (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2A-C), comprising a base platform 2 for receiving said person, wherein said base platform comprises at least one upper surface which defines a substantially flat reference plane, and at least one fill element 5, and wherein said at least one fill element is displaceable between a first position and a second position, in which second position an upper surface of said at least one fill element extends above said reference plane with an adjustable distance, such that said at least one fill element fills a space between said reference plane and a lower side of a or each foot of said person (Fig. 2; [0025]-[0030]).
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.
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 2, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krullaards (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0378277 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ochi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose measuring means for measuring a pressure of the or each foot of the person, and wherein said system is arranged to adjust the adjustable distance of said at least one fill element based on the measured pressure and/or comprises displaying means for displaying the measured pressure. Krullaards discloses a similar system (Abstract) comprising measuring means 16 for measuring a pressure of the or each foot of the person, and wherein said system is arranged to adjust the adjustable distance of said at least one fill element based on the measured pressure and/or comprises displaying means for displaying the measured pressure in order to display a difference in pressure between feet ([0047]; [0065]; [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochi with measuring means and displaying means, as taught by Krullaards, in order to display a difference in pressure between feet.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ochi and Krullaards discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Krullaards further discloses that said measuring means comprise at least eight pressure sensors (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Ochi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose registration means for registering at least one of the following data: a measured pressure; a measured tension muscle; at least one treatment element that is used and/or a position thereof, and at least one stimulus that is used and/or a setting thereof. Krullaards discloses a similar system (Abstract) comprising measuring means 16 for measuring a pressure of a foot of the person, along with registration means for registering the measured pressure in order to store the pressure measurements ([0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochi with measuring means and registration means, as taught by Krullaards, in order to store the pressure measurements.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Einav (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0234113 A1). Ochi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose at least one muscle tension sensor for measuring a muscle tension of said person. Einav discloses a similar system (Abstract) comprising a muscle tension sensor for measuring a muscle tension of a person in order to monitor the person’s physiological responses to rehabilitation ([0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochi with a muscle tension sensor, as taught by Einav, in order to monitor the person’s physiological responses to rehabilitation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0289893 A1). Ochi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose a scan device for scanning the position of the person. Yamaguchi discloses a similar system (Abstract) comprising a scan device for scanning the position of a person in order to monitor the person’s posture and determine whether the treatment is appropriate for the person ([0085]-[0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochi with a scan device, as taught by Yamaguchi, in order to monitor the person’s posture and determine whether the treatment is appropriate for the person.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 3, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests that the adjustable distance of such a displaceable fill element above such a reference plane is adjusted such that a pressure on both feet is substantially equal, and/or a pressure on a front part of the foot is equal to a pressure on a rear part of the foot, and/or a pressure on a left part of the foot is equal to a pressure on a right part of the foot. Regarding claim 17, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests a computing means arranged to determine based on such registered data which combination of treatment elements and/or stimuli and/or adjustable distance of the at least one fill element provide in a substantially equal pressure distribution of the or each foot and/or a low muscle tension.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791