DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 3/26/26. Claims 13 is new. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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 1-13 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. It is unclear how and when a weight vector and activity coefficient are determined. It is unclear if “using images having various shapes for allowing the user to perform activities in particular directions on a weak part or a part from which abnormal muscle synergy is extracted” is reciting an actual feedback displayed to guide the user to work on a weak part or an abnormal synergy or just that images having various shapes are displayed.
Claim 6 is 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. It is unclear what is an activity degree of the muscle synergy for each time zone. It is unclear what the time zone is. It is also unclear if the “an activity coefficient” is the same or different than the one recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 is 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. It is unclear how a synergy weight is evaluated in a spatial dimension and a activity coefficient in a temporal dimension.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tropea et al. “Effects of early and intensive neuro-rehabilitative treatment on muscle synergies in acute post-stroke patients: a pilot study” in view of Sanford et al. “Investigating features in augmented visual feedback for virtual reality rehabilitation of upper-extremity function through isometric muscle control”.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 12 and 13, Tropea discloses an apparatus for evaluating XR-based upper limb motion control and motion control ability, the apparatus comprising:
a display for providing visual cues and visual feedback information capable of monitoring a visual cue and a repetitive motion of muscle synergy or a direction and magnitude of a force that are contents for multi-joint rehabilitation training of an upper limb ([FIG. 1][PG. 3] the rehabilitation device uses computer and screen display for processing the data and providing visual feedback);
a measurement device including electromyography electrodes configured to measure activation of the user's muscle or a direction and magnitude of a force applied by the user and provide tactile biofeedback ([pg. 4] EMG electrodes collect signals and the synergies are determined in relation to activity over time);
a processor configured to;
evaluate the user's muscle synergy on the basis of an electromyogram measured by the EMG electrodes, a measured motion of a joint angle or the measured direction and magnitude of the force ([FIG. 2][pg. 5] synergies are extracted from the signal data);
to control the visual cue on the basis of the evaluated muscle synergy ([pg. 3] visual feedback was provided); and
a composite biofeedback part configured to control the visual feedback and tactile biofeedback on the basis of the evaluated muscle synergy([pg. 3] visual feedback was provided).
Tropea does not specifically disclose a head mount display (HMD) configured to be worn on a user's head part and including a display for providing visual feedback information for XR (eXtended Reality)-based multi-joint rehabilitation training of an upper limb. Sanford teaches a similar rehabilitation device that uses a VR headset in a manner including virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR), or augmented reality (AR) ([FIG. 1][pg. 7] the rehabilitation device uses a VR headset for processing the data and providing visual feedback) and the visual cues that show the user a target force direction and allow the user to perform various operations including drawing circles and rectilinear motions ([pgs. 5-6][FIG2-3] the direction and path length are shown to the user with the goal of moving in a rectilinear motion. Tropea in FIG1 shows a circular task) wherein the visual feedback information visualizes, on the display of the HMD, a number of muscle synergies, a weight vector, and an activity coefficient by analyzing, in real time, a muscle synergy of the user ([pg. 13] the synergies can be presented to the user and more information presented like the activity improves training. Tropea in FIG 3-4 determines weight and activity coefficients) and using images having various shapes for allowing the user to perform activities in particular directions on a weak part or a part from which abnormal muscle synergy is extracted ([pgs. 5-6][FIG2-3] various shapes like the balls and cue are presented to allow a user to work on particular weak or affect muscle groups). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine Tropea with the VR headset of Sanford in order to customize the guidance ([pg. 2]).
Tropea does not disclose a vibrator configured to provide tactile feedback to the user. Brokaw teaches a similar rehabilitation and muscle synergy monitoring system that provides either visual or tactile cues ([C5 L19-C6 L3] the system can use vibrational feedback and cues). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Tropea with the teachings of Brokaw in order to allow for the customization of the cues to the user ([C5 L65-C6 L3]).
Tropea discloses a force measurement tool configured such that the user grips the force measurement tool with a hand and applies a force, the force measurement tool being equipped with a sensor capable of detecting a change in an inclination direction, a velocity, and torque ([pg.3] an InMotion2 is used which has a grip and six axis sensor for determining velocity, torque and direction).
Regarding claim 2, Tropea discloses the multi-joint rehabilitation training of the upper limb is a repetitive activity related to the user's daily life ([PG. 3] the users tracked an object with their arms which is repetitive and a daily movement).
Regarding claim 3, Tropea discloses the processor is configured to extract abnormal muscle synergy by comparing the evaluated muscle synergy and a normal muscle synergy indicator pre-stored in a database and recognize a degree of the user's upper limb disability ([pg. 12] abnormal muscle activation and recruitment is used to determine impairment).
Regarding claim 4, Sanford teaches the processor is configured to create a training task suitable for the user's upper limb rehabilitation training on the basis of a recognized disability degree of the user’s upper limb disability ([pg. 2 and 17]).
Regarding claim 5, Tropea discloses the measurement device is configured to receive information related to the direction and magnitude of the force from a force measurement tool configured such that the user grips the force measurement tool with hand and apply a force ([pg. 3] the trajectory of the end-effector or grip was recorded).
Regarding claim 6, Tropea discloses the processor evaluates, in real time, the muscle synergy by analyzing the number of user's muscle synergies, a synergy weight in a spatial dimension, and an activity coefficient in a temporal dimension, wherein the muscle synergy is expressed as a weight for each muscle depending on a combination of muscles used to perform a particular activity, and the activity coefficient indicates an activity degree of the muscle synergy for each time zone ([pgs. 2 and 5] the muscle synergies are determined based on muscle activity).
Regarding claim 7, Tropea discloses the synergy evaluation part analyzes the muscle synergy at a cortical level, a spinal level, and a muscular level wherein the at least one processor evaluates a motor program shown at the cortical level and the spinal level on the basis of the electromyogram measured by the EMG electrodes, and evaluates a proprioception of the user based on a coordination between agonistic and antagonist muscles at the spinal level ([pg. 2] the determination of muscle synergies is considered an indicator of cortical function, spinal function and muscle function).
Regarding claim 8, Tropea discloses the visual feedback information includes diagnosis information related to a part with a weakened motion control ability based on the user's abnormal muscle synergy or information related to an abnormal muscle synergy mitigation degree and a disability mitigation degree according to a process of a rehabilitation exercise performed by the user using the upper limb ([pgs. 3 and 5] visual feedback of the task is provided and the movement of the end-effector is indicative of weakened control or abnormal muscle activation).
Regarding claim 9, Tropea does not disclose the tactile biofeedback is based on a vibrator that induces the user to perform a repetitive task. Brokaw teaches a similar rehabilitation and muscle synergy monitoring system that provides either visual or tactile cues ([C5 L19-C6 L3] the system can use vibrational feedback and cues). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Tropea with the teachings of Brokaw in order to allow for the customization of the cues to the user ([C5 L65-C6 L3]).
Regarding claim 10, Tropea discloses a fixing strap configured to be attachable to the user's body or clothes to fix a part of the user’s body so that a force, which is applied by a body part, except for an upper limb under muscle synergy evaluation, does not intervene ([pg. 7] the device has an arm brace. FIG 1 part a shows straps securing the users body to the chair).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 103 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that neither Tropea or Sanford disclose the visual feedback visualizes a number of muscle synergies, a weight vector, and an activity coefficient. However, Sanford teaches at pg. 13 that synergies can be provided as feedback and it is shown that this, and providing more feedback information in general, improves motor learning. The weight vector and activity coefficient under a broadest reasonable interpretation could be the weight and activity determined by Tropea in FIG 3-4.
Applicant argues that neither Tropea or Sanford disclose visual cues that show the user a target force direction and allow the user to perform various operations including drawing circles and rectilinear motions. However, Sanford discloses displaying the force direction in its visual feedback, see FIG 2-3, and these visual clues “allow” the user to make any motion the device arm can perform. More specifically though, Tropea discloses visual cues for a central target with eight targets placed around it and the user moves the from one target to another thus making circular and rectilinear movements. Similarly, Sanford teaches a visual display of moving a arm or cue to various spheres using rectilinear motions.
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose controlling visual cues having various shapes for allowing the user to perform activities in particular directions on a weak part or a part from which abnormal muscle synergy is extracted. However, Sanford teaches presenting a task with visual cues and shapes, the spheres and arm in FIG 2-3, to allow a user to work on particular weak or affect muscle groups.
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 MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights