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 because Figs. 6-10 have improper shading (see MPEP 608.02(V)(m)). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “a Relationship Formula, <Relationship Formula>” in lines 3-4 and is suggested to read --a Relationship Formula as follows:-- in order to be grammatically correct.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a determination unit configured to recognize” in claim 1 line 9 and “a position module on which a user is positioned” in claim 11 line 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification page 11 in the fourth paragraph, “a position module on which a user is positioned” in claim 11 line 2 is being interpreted as a general chair and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 1-24 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.
Claim 1 limitation “a determination unit configured to recognize” in line 9 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a plurality of joints” in lines 4-5 is confusing, as it is unclear whether or not this limitation is meant to include “a joint portion” in line 2. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as different limitations.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “transfers” in line 2 is confusing, as this is a method step while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to-- or --adapted for-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “measured and transmitted” in lines 2-3 is confusing, as this is a method step while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to-- or --adapted for-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “determines” in lines 2 and 4 is confusing, as this is a method step while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to-- or --adapted for-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “exercises” in line 2 and “determines” in line 2 are confusing, as these are method steps while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to-- or --adapted for-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “determines” in line 2 is confusing, as this is a method step while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to-- or --adapted for-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “determines” in line 2 is confusing, as this is a method step while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to-- or --adapted for-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “determines” in lines 2 and 4 is confusing, as this is a method step while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to-- or --adapted for-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a joint portion” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “a joint portion” recited in claim 1 from which this claim depends. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same limitation.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “upward/downward” in line 3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the “/” is meant to mean “and”, “or”, or “and/or”, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 1-13 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Einav et al. (US 2007/0282228 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Einav discloses an exercise effect maintenance module (apparatus for rehabilitating a paretic body part) (abstract) comprising:
a joint exercise unit configured to exercise a joint portion positioned between a first portion and a second portion (apparatus is for moving a joint such as a shoulder, wrist, or elbow, and joints are between two other user body parts such as an upper arm portion and a torso portion for the shoulder, or the upper and lower arm portions for the elbow, or the hand and the lower arm portion for the wrist) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0370]; para. [0586]; para. [0604]) and including a main body part (table or pedestal 104 and weighted base 106, optionally including the section 110/joint 112 directly connected to the weighted base 106 and/or a chair 514) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0355]; para. [0358]; para. [0588]), an articulate part extending from the main body part toward the first portion and including a plurality of joints (arm 102 with sections 110 and joints 112 extends from the table/pedestal 104, weighted base 106, and/or the bottom section 110/joint 112 directly attached to the weighted base 106) (Fig. 1; para. [0357]), the articulate part being configured to exercise the first portion within a preset range by moving the first portion by multiple angles relative to the joint portion (arm 102 moves the user’s body part, e.g. their arm, in a supported range of motion, which would thus include multiple angles relative to the joint, e.g. shoulder, wrist, or elbow) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0361]; para. [0368]; para. [0370]), and a holding part configured to hold the first portion so that the first portion is rotated by being moved by the articulate part (tip 108 used to connect to the part of the body to be moved; tip 108 can optionally be connected to a structure such as a base 602) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0370]; para. [0604]); and
a determination unit configured to recognize a position of the joint portion based on the main body part and correct the preset range that varies depending on a variation of the joint portion (controller 114 controls the arm 102 movements, and so would have to receive movement information from the position sensors used to determine the relative positions of device 100, arm 102 joints 112, and/or chair 514, and from there used to determine the relative position of the tip 108 at the user’s joint; correct trajectory motion of parts of the body can be provided by detecting the position of the tip 108 at the user’s joint as it moves; additionally, if the chair 514 moves during the session, the patient would also have moved including their joint at tip 108, and the exercise, i.e. the trajectory range, is corrected on the fly to account for the new relative position) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0357]; para. [0368]; para. [0375]; para. [0572]; para. [0574]; para. [0586]; paras. [0592-0593]).
Regarding claim 2, Einav discloses wherein the holding part is partially bent to define a first direction and a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction define a preset angle based on the bent portion (base 602 with hinge joint 604 to form a bend at an angle between first part 606 and second part 608 in two different directions as controlled by an actuator) (Fig. 6; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Einav discloses wherein the holding part has a direction detecting member and transfers direction information on the first and second directions based on the bent portion to the main body part (joint 604 has an angle sensor to determine the angle between the first part 606 and second part 608 that are in two different directions, and so it would have information on those directions relative to the reference position on device 100, arm 102 joints 112, and/or chair 514) (Fig. 6; para. [0574]; para. [0593]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Einav discloses wherein the main body part defines a reference point, and the position of the holding part is consistently measured and transmitted to the determination unit (the device 100, arm 102 joints 112, and/or chair 514 are used as a reference to determine the position of the tip 108 via the position sensors) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0357]; para. [0375]; para. [0572]; para. [0574]; para. [0586]; paras. [0592-0593]).
Regarding claim 5, Einav discloses wherein the joint exercise unit further includes a fixing part configured to fix the second portion to minimize a variation of a position of the joint portion while exercising the first portion (strap or rest to restrict motions for tip 108 at the user’s moving joint during use; additionally or alternatively, rest 508 and bar 510 to prevent motion of chest/shoulder, and thereby help to minimize position variations of the moving joint/limb during use) (Fig. 5; para. [0571]; para. [0585]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Einav discloses wherein the determination unit determines a distance between the main body part and the holding part on the basis of information transmitted from the main body part, and the determination unit determines that the joint portion is positioned in one of the first direction and the second direction that is directed toward the reference point (controller controls the movement of arm 102 and tip 108 along a trajectory, and so would receive information from sensors such as distance, position, angle, and orientation sensors to determine relative positions of the tip 108 and the reference point for the device 100, arm 102 joints 112, and/or chair 514) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0274]; para. [0357]; para. [0375]; para. [0572]; para. [0574]; para. [0586]; paras. [0592-0593]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Einav discloses wherein the determination unit initially exercises the first portion by controlling the articulate part and determines a length from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion by means of the initial exercise (controller can actively assist a user’s movement of their limb along a trajectory by controlling the arm 102 and tip 108 along the trajectory; the length of the limb portion being exercised, which is between the tip 108 with the bent first and second parts 606, 608 and a joint such as the shoulder, can be determined with reverse kinematics) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0368]; para. [0390]; para. [0586]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Einav discloses wherein the determination unit determines a position of the joint portion on the basis of the direction information on the first and second directions transferred to the main body part and the length from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion (controller 114 controls the motion of the arm 102 and tip 108 along a trajectory, and so would have to be able to determine the relative positions and orientations of the user’s joint, the user’s limb, the arm 102, the tip 108, the first part 606, the second part 608, etc. in order to ensure the trajectory is being followed; angle sensor at joint 604 to determine the angle between the first part 606 and the second part 608, and thus their directions; reverse kinematics can be used to estimate the motions and/or dimensions of the patient’s joints and bones, and so would be able to estimate the length from the tip 108 to the user’s shoulder joint as this is the length of the upper arm when the tip 108 is at the elbow joint) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0168]; para. [0358]; para. [0375]; para. [0586]; para. [0593]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Einav discloses wherein the determination unit determines whether the position of the joint portion varies by consistently measuring the direction information and the position of the holding part while rotating the first portion (when the tip 108 for moving the user’s joint is not on the correct trajectory, a corrective force can be applied, and thus the controller 114 must consistently measure the trajectory information, i.e. the direction and position of tip 108, in order to ensure the trajectory is correct; tip 108 can provide a rotation movement) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0365]; para. [0375]).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Einav discloses wherein the determination unit consistently determines the position of the joint portion while the first portion is rotated relative to the joint portion by the articulate part, and wherein when the determination unit determines that the position of the joint portion is varied, the determination unit corrects the preset range based on the varied position of the joint portion (tip 108 for moving the user’s joint relative to the shoulder joint along a trajectory, and so the controller 114 would determine the associated position and direction information of that trajectory; if the chair 514 moves during the session, the patient would also have moved including their joint at tip 108, and the exercise, i.e. the trajectory range, is corrected on the fly to account for the new relative position; tip 108 can provide a rotation movement; tip 108 is moved by the arm 102) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0355]; para. [0358]; para. [0365]; para. [0375]; para. [0508]; paras. [0592-0593]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Einav discloses a joint exercise device comprising: a position module on which a user is positioned to rotate a joint portion (a chair 514 on which a user is positioned to rotate their joint with tip 108) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0365]; para. [0585]; para. [0588]); the exercise effect maintenance module of claim 1 disposed adjacent to the position module (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above; specifically, the table or pedestal 104 and weighted base 106, optionally including the section 110/joint 112 directly connected to the weighted base 106, would be disposed adjacent to the chair 514) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0355]; para. [0358]; para. [0588]); and a power providing module configured to provide power for allowing the exercise effect maintenance module to rotate the joint portion (electronics used to power the arm 102 which rotates the user’s limb) (Fig. 1; para. [0355]; para. [0365]).
Regarding claim 12, Einav discloses the joint exercise method comprising: a determination step of determining a position of the joint portion positioned between the first portion and the second portion; an exercise step of rotating the first portion within a preset range relative to the joint portion; and a correction step of consistently correcting the preset range on the basis of the position of the joint portion that varies in accordance with an exercise (tip 108 for moving the user’s joint between a hand and the shoulder along a known trajectory, i.e. a known range of motion, and so the controller 114 would determine the associated position and direction information of that trajectory; if the chair 514 moves during the session, the patient would also have moved including their joint at tip 108, and the exercise, i.e. the trajectory range, is corrected on the fly to account for the new relative position; tip 108 can provide a rotation movement; tip 108 is moved by the arm 102) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0355]; para. [0358]; para. [0365]; para. [0375]; para. [0508]; para. [0593]).
Regarding claim 13, Einav discloses wherein the determination step comprises: an initial process of positioning a user on the position module, mounting the holding part on the first portion of the user, and starting an initial exercise (user is initially positioned in a chair 514 with the tip 108, optionally with the base 602, mounted to the limb of the user to be moved; controller can actively assist a user’s movement of their limb along a trajectory by controlling the arm 102 and tip 108 along the trajectory) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0368]; para. [0370]; para. [0390]; para. [0573]; para. [0593]; para. [0604]); a calculation process of calculating length information by computing a distance from the holding part to the joint portion by means of the initial exercise (the length of the limb portion being exercised along the trajectory, wherein the exercised limb is between the tip 108 and a joint such as the shoulder, can be determined with reverse kinematics) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0413]; para. [0586]); a position tracking process of creating position information by consistently determining a position of the holding part based on the main body part (the position of the tip 108 is tracked continuously over the trajectory of motion relative to the reference position on device 100, arm 102 joints 112, and/or chair 514) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0357]; para. [0574]; para. [0593]); and a determination process of determining a position of the joint portion on the basis of the length information and the position information created by the calculation process and the position tracking process (when a chair 514 and/or a patient moves during a session, such that they would no longer follow the original exercise trajectory, the resulting patient joint position would be calculated using the actual trajectory followed by tip 108 and patient posture changes; patient posture or position change information would be determined by patient kinematics, which would include the lengths of user body parts) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0586]; paras. [0592-0593]; para. [0599]).
Regarding claim 23, Einav discloses wherein the determination process consistently performs the calculation process and the position tracking process in the exercise step and continuously determines the position of the joint portion on the basis of the length information and the position information (whenever a chair 514 and/or a patient moves during a session, such that they would no longer follow the original exercise trajectory, the resulting patient joint position would be calculated using the actual trajectory followed by tip 108 and patient posture changes; patient posture or position change information would be determined by patient kinematics, which would include the lengths of user body parts) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0586]; paras. [0592-0593]; para. [0599]).
Regarding claim 24, Einav discloses wherein the correction step rotates the joint portion so that the holding part moves within a preset range, and the correction step consistently corrects the preset range to prevent a variation of the position of the joint portion, a variation of the preset range, and a deterioration in exercise effect (if the chair 514 moves during the session, the patient would also have moved including their joint at tip 108, and the exercise, i.e. the trajectory range, is corrected on the fly to account for the new relative position; tip 108 can provide a rotation movement; this trajectory range correction would thus function to help prevent a variation of the position of the joint portion, a variation of the preset range, and a deterioration in exercise effect as claimed) (Figs. 1, 5-6; para. [0365]; para. [0593]).
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.
Claims 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einav as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of commonly known mathematical principles involving right triangles and vectors on a coordinate plane.
Regarding claim 14, Einav discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the calculation process comprises an angle computing process of calculating a first angle between a first imaginary line, which adjoins a bent portion of the holding part, and a second imaginary line formed in one of first and second directions in which the joint portion is positioned in a state in which the holding part is bent at a preset angle so as to have the first and second directions.
However, Einav does teach a bent portion of the holding part (tip 108 on a base 602 with hinge joint 604 to form a bend at an angle between first part 606 and second part 608) (Einav; Fig. 6; para. [0604]), reverse kinematics can be used to calculate the patient’s motions and the dimensions of the patient’s joints and bones (Einav; para. [0586]), and that each point in space can have associated speed, force, and rotation vectors (Einav; para. [0392]). Moreover, Image 1 below illustrates mathematical concepts regarding right triangles and vectors on a coordinate plane that can be used to calculate the dimension and position of an object that is moved relative to a reference point. One of ordinary skill in the art would know how to apply such mathematical concepts for the reverse kinematics calculations. This mathematical process includes an angle computing process of calculating a first angle between a first imaginary line, which adjoins a bent portion of the holding part, and a second imaginary line formed in one of first and second directions in which the joint portion is positioned in a state in which the holding part is bent at a preset angle so as to have the first and second directions (to find an angle of a right triangle other than the 90 degree angle, the sides of the triangle can be used; the sides of one triangle forming the first angle “a1” would correspond to the imaginary lines having associated directions and the 1st position would correspond to a position of the holding part or Einav tip 108 relative to a reference point) (see Image 1 below).
Therefore, 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 Einav reverse kinematics calculations to include an angle computing process of calculating a first angle between a first imaginary line, which adjoins a bent portion of the holding part, and a second imaginary line formed in one of first and second directions in which the joint portion is positioned in a state in which the holding part is bent at a preset angle so as to have the first and second directions, as taught by the commonly known right triangle and vector mathematical concepts in Image 1 below, for the purpose of providing the Einav method with a specific mathematical means of performing its reverse kinematic calculations which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to yield correct patient dimension and position values.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Basic right triangle and vector mathematical principles on a coordinate plane which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process determines, as y1 and z1, a position from the holding part to the main body part before the first portion is initially exercised in a state in which one axis is fixed, and the calculation process divides a distance L from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion into a Y-axis component and a Z-axis component to recognize the first position of the joint portion (assuming the patient’s limb is fixed so that there is no movement in the x-direction but with rotation movement in the y and z-directions, a y-z coordinate plane would be used, wherein the 1st position of the Einav tip 108 on base 602 relative to a reference point can be defined by y and z coordinates; the 1st position would be the initially moved position of the patient’s joint at Einav tip 108; the distance L of the patient limb portion between the reference point and the Einav tip 108 can be divided into separate y and z-vectors to yield the position of the patient’s joint at Einav tip 108) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process specifies the position of the joint portion by dividing the distance L from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion into the Y-axis component and the Z-axis component based on the first angle derived by the angle computing process (the position of the patient’s joint at Einav tip 108 can be found by breaking up the L vector into its y and z-axis component vectors using the angle a1 and the vector length L as variables for the calculations) (see Image 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process comprises a variable angle computing process of rotating the first portion by a predetermined angle in an upward/downward direction and calculating a second angle between the first imaginary line and the second imaginary line (when the patient’s limb is moved up or down by an angle according to the trajectory such that the joint at the Einav tip 108 is in a 2nd position, the angle a2 can be found between two new imaginary lines on the y-z coordinate plane used to form a second triangle relative to the reference point) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process determines, as y2 and z2, a position from the holding part to the main body part that is varied in a state in which the first portion is moved by the second angle (the patient limb was moved or varied to a 2nd position such that the 2nd position of the Einav tip 108 relative to a reference point can be defined by y and z coordinates and angle a2) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]), and the calculation process recognizes a second position of the joint portion by dividing the distance L from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion into the Y-axis component and the Z-axis component by using the second angle calculated by using the variable angle computing process (the position of the patient’s joint at Einav tip 108 with base 602 in the 2nd position can be found by breaking up the L vector into its y and z-axis component vectors using the angle a2 and the vector length L as variables for the calculations) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process calculates, at the second position, a difference between the axial components at the first position (the triangles on the y-z coordinate plane can be used to find y2 - y1 as illustrated, and would be able to similarly determine z2 - z1 using sine instead of cosine) (see Image 1 above), defines a state in which no external force is applied in the initial exercise state (since only a 2D y-z coordinate plane is used in these calculations, it is assumed there is no external x-direction force moving the patient limb along its trajectory) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]), and computes the distance L from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion (the distance L can be computed from the position of the Einav tip 108 with base 602 at the patient’s joint and the position of the reference point) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process calculates the distance L from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion in proportion to a difference between y2 and y1 (as illustrated in Image 1 above, the distance L can be computed from the following equation: L = (y2-y1)/(cos(a2) - cos(a1)), and so uses a proportion to the difference between y2 and y1) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process calculates the distance L from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion in inverse proportion to a difference between the axial component at the second angle and the corresponding axial component at the first angle (as illustrated in Image 1 above, the distance L can be computed from the following equation: L = (y2-y1)/(cos(a2) - cos(a1)), and so uses an inverse proportion to the difference between cos(a1) and cos(a2), with cos(a1) being the axial component at the first angle and cos(a2) being the axial component at the second angle) (see Image 1 above; Einav, Figs. 1 and 5-6, para. [0365]; para. [0375]; para. [0604]).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Einav teaches wherein the calculation process calculates a length of the distance L from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion through a Relationship Formula, <Relationship Formula>
L
=
y
2
-
y
1
cos
a
2
-
c
o
s
(
a
1
)
L : the distance from the bent portion of the holding part to the joint portion,
y1: the position of the holding part at the first position,
y2: the position of the holding part at the second position,
a1: the first angle, and
a2: the second angle
(see the y-z coordinate plane and the bottom five equation lines in the Image 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0181917 A1 by Ohta et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses an assist device that uses a controller and sensors to calculate a distance in an x-direction to a joint based on an angle.
US 2004/0067832 A1 by Hassler is considered to be relevant as it discloses a therapy device in which a length of an upper arm extension can be calculated after a movement.
US 11,123,608 B2 by Hsieh et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses an upper limb training system that can calculate positions of joints and distances between them using a 3D coordinate plane, angles, sine, and cosine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights