DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/24/2026, 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. Applicant has amended their claims, filed 02/24/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, “the test performance” should read “a test performance”.
Claim 1, lines 21-22, 24, and 25 refer to a “balance-state” data. It should read “balance information” as first recited in line 13.
Claim 1, line 29 should read “directly configured to the harness”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“First/second/third fixing part” first recited in claim 7.
The identified structure for the corresponding claim limitations are as follows:
“First/second/third fixing part” is identified as “the harness may include a pair of first and second fixing parts configured to fix an upper portion of the subject, and a third fixing part connected to the first and second fixing parts, and configured to fix an abdomen portion of the subject” (Paragraph 0015).
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 1-3 and 7-8 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 claims 1 and 8, it is unclear what “disposed at” is claiming and what is required to meet the claim. For examination purposes, the joint sensors will be interpreted as “configured to be on a femoral region of the subject”. Claims 2-8 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how the posture controller adjusts a posture of the plate to fit a posture of the subject. Does the plate change shape? Does the plate move? Applicant should clarify what the posture controller is, and how it adjusts the plate’s posture to fit to the posture of a subject. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted in that a controller initializes measurement of the pressure measurement unit.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear how the balance information initializer initializes the wearable sensor assembly to fit a posture of the subject. Does the sensor assembly change shape? Does the sensor assembly move? Applicant should clarify what the balance information initializer is, and how it adjusts the sensor assembly to fit a posture of a subject. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted in that a controller starts measurement of the sensor assembly.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the balance measurement unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of Applicant’s amendment, it appears Applicant intends to recite the “wearable sensor assembly” as first recited in claim 1, line 12. For examination purposes, that is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim limitations “First/second/third fixing parts” invoke 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs these functions in the claim. As an example, the “first, second, and third fixing parts” are interpreted to fix portions of the harness together and to fix an abdomen to a harness. However, the above elements do not recite any structure to perform the functions they are configured to perform in the claims.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barralon (US 10376222), Liu (US 8608479), and Lee (US 20120116258).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Barralon discloses a posture balance measurement system comprising:
a plate on which a subject is located with standing upright (Fig. 1, platform 13);
a pressure sensor array mounted on the plate, and configured to measure a plantar pressure of the subject (Col 7, lines 40-48);
a wearable sensor assembly configured to measure a balance information of the subject (Fig. 1, wearable module 11; Col 7, lines 19-30);
controller circuitry comprising at least one processor (Col 3, lines 10-29, including a processing means) and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller circuitry to (Col 5, lines 39-44):
receive the plantar pressure data from the pressure sensor array and the balance-state data from the wearable sensor assembly; and determine posture balance information of the subject based on the plantar pressure data and the balance-state data (Col 8, line 61 – Col 9, line 7, wherein the stability index is calculated from the plantar pressure and position/orientation of the wearable sensors);
wherein the wearable sensor assembly is configured to measure a balance state of the subject in which the subject's standing posture or balance posture changes according to the test performance (Col 8, line 61 – Col 9, line 7, wherein the stability index is calculated from the plantar pressure and position/orientation of the wearable sensors);
wherein the wearable sensor assembly comprises at least one of accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer (Col 7, lines 19-35).
With regards to the claim limitations of claims 1 and 7, Barralon discloses wearable sensors fixed to a belt (Fig. 1) or another wearable device for alternative fixing or attaching means (Col 6, lines 32-38) for use in other stabilometric platforms (Col 1, lines 20-25), Barralon fails to explicitly disclose a harness with fixing parts that are fixed to a body of the subject to a support frame. Barralon further fails to disclose the wearable sensor assembly further comprises a first joint sensor disposed at a femoral region of the subject to measure a joint angle, a second joint sensor disposed at a shin of the subject to measure a joint angle, and a third joint sensor disposed at a foot of the subject.
However, Liu teaches a gait training system concerned with restoring gait of patients going through rehabilitation, wherein a support frame (Fig. 5A, patient support 86 connected to treadmill 82 with vertical beam 88 and horizontal beam 90) supports a user with cables attached to the harness worn by the user with two straps to affix to the cables and a third part affixed around the abdomen (Fig. 5A, cables 96 connected to harness 98), which is an important design for supporting a patient who cannot fully support themselves (Col 1, lines 13-20; Col 4, lines 49-63). The system of Barralon is concerned with assessing motion, balance, and movement to aid in rehabilitation of a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Barralon to incorporate the harness and support frame taught by Liu to support a user in rehabilitation who cannot fully support themselves.
Additionally, Lee teaches a lower-limb rehabilitation apparatus for measuring joint angles wherein the apparatus includes a first joint sensor disposed at a femoral region of the subject, a second joint sensor disposed at a shin of the subject, and a third joint sensor disposed at a foot of the subject and wherein the sensors measure angles at the joints (Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0066-0067; Paragraph 0062, wherein the joint goniometers are placed at the hip, knee and ankle; Paragraphs 0062, wherein the hip joint goniometer measures the angle of the hip, the knee joint goniometer measures the angle of the knee, and the ankle joint goniometer measures the angle of the ankle). Lee discusses this configuration is useful for rehabilitation of the lower limbs (Paragraphs 0013-0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rehabilitation system of Barralon and Liu to incorporate the joint goniometers of Lee to aid in lower-limb rehabilitation.
Regarding claim 2, Barralon further discloses wherein the pressure sensor array comprises:
a posture controller configured to adjust a posture of the plate to fit a posture of the subject and to initialize the pressure measurement unit, when the subject stands upright on the plate (Col 3, lines 10-29, wherein the platform is configured for use when having a person on it);
a pressure change analyzer configured to analyze a pressure change based on the measured plantar pressure (Col 7, lines 40-54, wherein pressure distribution is measured); and
a pressure information storage configured to store the measured pressure and the pressure change (Fig. 5, data management 682; Col 13, line 65; While Barralon does not explicitly disclose a means of storage, Barralon requires storing and retrieving data. Thus, Barralon discloses a storage part).
Regarding claim 3, Barralon further discloses wherein the balance measurement unit comprises:
a balance information initializer configured to initialize the wearable sensor assembly to fit a posture of the subject, when the subject stands upright on the plate (Col 3, lines 38-44, wherein the stability index is determined by the position and orientation of at least on senor connected to the person while situated on the platform);
a balance change analyzer configured to analyze a balance change based on the measured balance state (Fig. 1, wearable module 11; Col 6, lines 15-29, wherein there are two wearable devices); and
a balance information storage configured to store the measured balance state and the balance change (Fig. 5, data management 682; Col 13, line 65; While Barralon does not explicitly disclose a means of storage, Barralon requires storing and retrieving data. Thus, Barralon discloses a storage part).
Regarding claim 8, Barralon as modified further discloses wherein the balance measurement unit is disposed at the third fixing part (Fig. 1, wearable sensor 11 fixed to belt).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the specification per the suggestion of the Examiner. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims per the suggestion of the Examiner. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has canceled claims 4-5. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has canceled claims 4-6 and 9-10; thus, the rejections of these claims are withdrawn. However, Applicant has provided no argument against the remaining 112(b) rejections remaining as described above. Thus, claims 1-3 and 7-8 remain rejected.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant replacing the “unit/part” elements that were interpreted under 112(f) as laid out in the Office Action mailed 11/28/2025. Examiner notes that the “fixing parts” have not been amended and are still interpreted under 112(f) as described above. Consequently, these terms are still rejected under 112(b) as lacking structural language as described above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that Barralon and Yu fail to teach the newly added limitations of a support frame, a plurality of wires fixed to the upper frame, and the sensor assembly with joint sensors positioned at a femoral region, shin, and foot of the subject. Examiner agrees; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Barralon in view of Liu and Lee.
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 NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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 (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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791