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 .
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 system and / or sensors, as well as the remote optical sensors, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 further objected to because in Figure 1, Detail 10 lacks a lead line, making it impossible to discern which element is represented by Detail 10.
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 still further objected to because they include photographs, which are not the only practical medium for illustrating the invention.
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 still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “9” has been used to designate an attachment assembly, an assembly, and a joint.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “18” has been used to designate a movement limiter, a motion limiter, and a limiter.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “27” has been used to designate a forearm cradle and a forearm lodgement.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “41” has been used to designate an axle, a shaft, and a forearm cradle.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “15” has been used to designate a forearm cradle and a forearm lodgement.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “39” has been used to designate a handle and a telescopic handle.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “19” has been used to designate moving elements and encoders
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “29” has been used to designate a stopper and a latch.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate an emergency stop and a drive operation control unit.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate a guiding rail and a guide.
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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected for exceeding 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 12, the phrase “stand (1)” is incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 3, proper ending punctuation has been omitted.
In regards to Claim 19, proper ending punctuation has been omitted.
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 1-24 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.
In regards to Claim 1, the phrase “the device elements” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 2, it is unclear what the term “it” refers to.
In regards to Claim 3, the phrase “base support” is unclear. Is this the same as the “supports” of Claim 1? If so, these are never referred to as base supports.
In regards to Claim 4, the phrase “base support” is unclear. Is this the same as the “supports” of Claim 1? If so, these are never referred to as base supports.
In regards to Claim 5, the phrase “base supports” is unclear. Is this the same as the “supports” of Claim 1? If so, these are never referred to as base supports.
In regards to Claim 7, the phrase “the exercise” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 12, it is unclear what the term “it” refers to.
Further in regards to Claim 12, the phrase “the folded state” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 14, the phrase “the assembly elements” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 15, the phrase “the assembly elements” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 16, the phrase “the drive to set in motion the base of the middle limb” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 17, the phrase “the assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further in regards to Claim 17, the phrase “the elements” is unclear. What are considered the elements? What is included?
In regards to Claim 18, the phrase “the assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further in regards to Claim 18, the phrase “the elements” is unclear. What are considered the elements? What is included?
Still further in regards to Claim 18, the phrase “principle of action” is unclear. What does this mean?
In regards to Claim 19, the term “removable” is unclear. Removable from what? The user?
In regards to Claim 21, the phrase “cradle of the middle segment of the limb” is unclear. Is this the same as the middle limb segment?
In regards to Claim 22, the phrase “cradle of the extreme segment of the limb” is unclear. Is this the same as the extreme limb segment?
In regards to Claim 23, the phrases “the upper and middle joints”, “the natural range of motion”, “the middle and/or extreme segments of the limb”, “limb’s joints”, “the longitudinal axis”, “the cradle of the middle segment”, “the cradle”, and “the hinge” all lack proper antecedent basis.
Further in regards to Claim 23, the phrase “the joint” is unclear. Which joint? The phrase “and/or” could be plural joints.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19-22 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malosio et al (20130237883).
In regards to Claim 15, Malosio teaches a limb holding assembly for a robotic device of a rehabilitation system, comprising:
a base (Detail 3) with a cradle (Detail 41) for a middle limb segment;
a base (Detail 2) with a cradle (Detail 30) for an extreme limb segment hinged to the base of the middle limb segment cradle (at Detail 6);
a drive (Paragraph 57) to set in motion the base of the extreme limb segment cradle; and
a system and / or sensors (Paragraph 66) for detecting the position of the assembly elements.
In regards to Claim 16, Malosio teaches the drive to set in motion the base of the middle limb segment base with a hand cradle has movement limiters to stop movement of the base (Figure 1 shows the components would hit each other if rotation continued, stopping the movement).
In regards to Claim 17, Malosio teaches the system and / or sensors for determining the position of the elements of the assembly are fixed on the corresponding elements of the assembly (Paragraph 66).
In regards to Claim 19, Malosio teaches the cradles are made removable (can be attached and removed from the user).
In regards to Claim 20, Malosio teaches at least one of the cradles is made adjustable (the joints can rotate, which would adjust the location of the cradle).
In regards to Claim 21, Malosio teaches the base of the cradle of the middle segment of the limb is made with the possibility of moving along its longitudinal axis (Details 3, 3a).
In regards to Claim 22, Malosio teaches the cradle of the extreme segment of the limb is made in the form of an exoskeleton (end would be on the outside of the hand, like an exoskeleton).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malosio.
In regards to Claim 18, while Malosio essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it is silent as the myriad different sensor types which could be utilized. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized any known sensor, including but not limited to remote optical sensors, so as to properly sense and monitor the invention. It should be noted, Applicant provides no criticality of unexpected results arising from the specific use of remote optical sensors, and as such, the choice of which sensor to utilize would be obvious and well within the abilities of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732