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 gap between the limit buckle (7) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) of claim 3 and the gap between the limit nut (9) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) of claim 4 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 10: “bracket is” should be “bracket (3) is”;
in claim 1, line 14: “is” should be inserted before “embedded”;
in claim 1, line 16: “is” should be inserted before “clamped”;
in claim 5, line 2: “wherein the lap (11) is integrally formed with the inner shell bracket (1)” is a repeated element, corresponding to claim 1, lines 3-4; and
in claim 7, line 3: “APP” should be “application”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the shell body (5)” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a shell body (5)” would overcome the rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein there is a gap between the limit buckle (7) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3)” in lines 1-2; however, it is not clear how a gap is formed between the limit buckle (7) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3). From the specification of the present application, it appears as if the limit buckle (7) passes through the secondary rotating hole (12) of the secondary swing arm bracket (3) (see specification ¶[0043]; Figs. 1-2 and 9-10). From the disclosure, it appears a gap may be present between the lip (depicted but not labeled in Fig. 10) of the limit buckle (7) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) or between the shaft portion (depicted but not labeled in Fig. 10) of the limit buckle (7) and the secondary rotating hole (12). However, it is not clear how there could be a gap between the shaft portion and hole portion is possible, or the shaft would be free floating, and such details are not present in the claim or clarified in the specification, such that it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the term “actually” in line 3, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Deleting the term “actually” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 4-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the term “actually” in line 6, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Deleting the term “actually” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 5-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the patient” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a patient” would overcome the rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the primary bandage slot (21)” and “the secondary bandage slot (22)” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It appears as if claim 10 should depend from claim 9. Amending the claim as such would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 10 recites “the primary bandage slot (21) and the secondary bandage slot (22) are respectively arranged in a row with equal spacing” in lines 2-3; however, the primary bandage slot and the secondary bandage slot are only referred to be as being singular, not plural. It is not clearly how a singular “slot” may have “equal spacing”. Further clarifying that there are a plurality of slots, such as depicted in the drawings of the present application (see for example Fig. 1), would overcome this rejection. Amending the claim to recite “wherein the primary swing arm bracket (2) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) each comprise a plurality of primary bandage slots (21) and a plurality of secondary bandage slots (22), respectively, wherein each of the plurality of primary bandage slots (21) and the plurality of secondary bandage slots (22) are respectively arranged in rows with equal spacing” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (Chinese Patent Document CN114246721A – cited by Applicant, citing to translation from Espacenet), hereinafter Zhu, and in view of Pellis (US Patent Application Publication 2001/0056012), hereinafter Pellis.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu teaches an intelligent brace including a thigh brace, a lower leg brace, a pivot, and an angle sensor (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 7). Zhu teaches an assisted bracket for postoperative joint activity exercise (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 7), comprising:
an inner shell bracket (1) (¶[0038]-[0039] the code disk 19 and/or the fixed base 154; Figs. 3-4),
wherein the inner shell bracket (1) is provided with a primary installation hole (10) on a bottom surface (¶[0038]-[0039] the second through hole 191 and/or the first through hole 1542; Figs. 3-4),
the bottom surface of the inner shell bracket (1) is integrally formed with a lap (11) (see Fig. 4, the internal teeth or wall structures on the underside of the code wheel 19 and/or the ring about the first through hole 1542 of the fixed base 154 may each be considered an integrally formed lap),
and an outer surface of the inner shell bracket (1) is provided with a sensor clamping slot (20) at an edge position of the primary installation hole (10) (¶[0038]-[0039] the receiving groove 20 for receiving the buffer 21 and the fixing base 154 which receives the angle sensor 14 in the first accommodating groove 1541, the slot may be the groove 20 and/or the first accommodating groove 1541; Fig. 3);
a primary swing arm bracket (2) (¶[0032] the thigh brace 11; Fig. 1),
wherein the primary swing arm bracket (2) is fixedly connected to the inner shell bracket (1) (¶[0042] the thigh brace 11 is received by the slot 1931 and secured in between the first support arm 1521 and the second support arm 193; Fig. 3);
a secondary swing arm bracket (3) (¶[0032] the lower leg brace 12; Fig. 1),
wherein the secondary swing arm bracket is provided with a secondary rotating hole (12), and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) is rotatably connected to the primary swing arm bracket (2) through a primary fastener (6) (¶[0034] and ¶[0038] the lower leg brace 12 is provided with a through hole for the shaft 13 to pass through such that the thigh brace 11 and the lower leg brace 12 drive the rotation of the shaft, ¶[0038] the upper shell 151 and/or the lower shell 152, which are rotatably connected to the shaft 13, and/or other components about the shaft; Figs. 1-4);
an angle sensor (4) embedded in the sensor clamping slot (20) installed in the inner shell bracket (1) (¶[0034], ¶[0038], and ¶[0044] the angle sensor 14; Figs. 1-3); and
the shell body (5) clamped and installed on the inner shell bracket (1) (¶[0038] the housing 15 include the upper shell 151, the lower shell 152, and/or the fixed base 154; Figs. 1-3).
Zhu does not specifically teach that the primary swing arm bracket (2) is provided with a primary rotating hole (11) and a guide hole (13), and that the secondary swing arm bracket is provided with a secondary installation hole (14).
Pellis teaches an articulated joint for usage with the knee in the fields of medicine and sports (see abstract), including for a joint with usage on a knee tutor (see ¶[0150] and Fig. 29), in which the joint comprises two plates 1/2, in which the plate 1 has two holes for the pins 1.2/1.3 which correspond to the openings 2.2/2.3 of plate 2 for to set the rotation/limits of the joint, with the distance between the two plates 1/2 secured by the plates 1.4/1.5 (see ¶[0154]-[0156]; Figs. 8-14 and 29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the central pin and hole connection modality of Pellis with the thigh brace 11 and the shaft 13 of Zhu because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the thigh brace 11 having a hole for allowing the shaft 13 therethrough would further help to secure the thigh brace 11 to the pivot/lower leg brace 12.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the semi-circular hole and pin/corresponding hole for the rotational guide of Pellis with in place of the stops of the modified Zhu because (1) it is the simple substation of one known element for another to yield predictable results and/or (2) the usage of the specific openings 2.2/2.3 with the pins 1.2/1.3 and their corresponding holes would avoid anomalous tensions in the knee (see Pellis ¶[0156]).
Here, the opening 2.2 in the thigh brace 11 corresponds to the primary rotating hole (11), the opening 2.3 in the thigh brace 11 corresponds to the guide hole (13), the through hole for the pin 1.2 of the lower leg brace 12 (see Pellis Fig. 13) corresponds to the secondary rotating hole (12), and the hole for the pin 1.3 of the lower leg brace 12 (see Pellis Fig. 13) corresponds to the secondary installation hole (14).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhu in view of Pellis teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Zhu further teaches the primary installation hole (10), the primary rotating hole (11), and the secondary rotating hole (12) are correspondingly arranged (see Zhu ¶[0034] and ¶[0038], the lower leg brace 12 is provided with a through hole for the shaft 13 to pass through such that the thigh brace 11 and the lower leg brace 12 drive the rotation of the shaft, ¶[0038]-[0039] the second through hole 191 and/or the first through hole 1542, Figs. 3-4; see Pellis ¶[0154]-[0156], the opening 2.2 of plate 2, Figs. 8-14 and 29);
the primary fastener (6) is composed of a combination of a limit cap (15) (see annotated Zhu Fig. 3 below, any of the elements denoted A, B, or C), a limit rod (16) (see Zhu ¶[0038], the upper shell 151 and/or the lower shell 152, which are rotatably connected to the shaft 13, the limit rod is the connection), an installation part (17) (see annotated Zhu Fig. 3 below, the upper portion that interfaces with the sensor denoted R, the non-beveled portion), and a limit part (18) (see annotated Zhu Fig. 3 below, the upper portion that interfaces with the sensor denoted R, the beveled portion), and the limit rod (16) is tightened with a limit buckle (7) (see annotated Zhu Fig. 3 below, the shaft portion denoted S of the shaft 13). Here, claim 2 requires several structural components broadly stated without function, without positive recitations limiting the elements within the claim. While breadth is not itself indefiniteness, such claim elements therefore have a relatively broad, broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhu Fig. 3 annotated.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pellis as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Matsuura et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0190669), hereinafter Matsuura.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhu in view of Pellis teaches the device of claim 2 as stated above. Zhu does not specifically teach the order of the lower leg brace 12 and the lower shell 152 (i.e., the connection to the shaft 13), such that the modified Zhu is silent regarding that there is a gap between the limit buckle (7) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) when the limit buckle (7) is actually tightened.
Matsuura teaches a muscle toning garment with resistance elements (see abstract), in which a resistance element may comprise a lever 462 attached to the garment and a second lever 464 attached via a 474 within the axis of rotation 470 (see ¶[0138]-[0140] and ¶[0144]-[0145]; Figs. 14-22), in which a friction modifier 463 may be positioned between base/end (i.e., the lever 462) of post 474 and the second lever 464 (see ¶[0147]; Fig. 22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the friction modifier of Matsuura between the rotational elements of the modified Zhu because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) it would reduce the friction between the elements so that the user’s motion would be accurately measured and less interfered by the resistance of the pivot. Such a friction modifier between rotational elements, including between the lower leg brace 12 and the lower shell 152 of the modified Zhu, would itself be the gap between such elements.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu in view of Pellis and Matsuura teaches the device of claim 3 as stated above. The modified Zhu further teaches the guide hole (13) is a semi-circular groove, the secondary installation hole (14) is arranged corresponding to the guide hole (13) (see Pellis ¶[0154]-[0156], the plate 1 has two holes for the pins 1.2/1.3 which correspond to the openings 2.2/2.3 of plate 2 for to set the rotation/limits of the joint, the opening 2.3 is a semi-circular groove; Figs. 8-14 and 29),
a distance between the secondary installation hole (14) and the guide hole (13) is limited by a secondary fastener (8) and a limit nut (9) (see Pellis ¶[0154], the distance between the two plates 1/2 secured by the plates 1.4/1.5; Figs. 8-10 and 13-14), and
there is a gap between the limit nut (9) and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) when the limit nut (9) is actually tightened (see Matsuura ¶[0147], the friction modifier 463 may be positioned between base/end (i.e., the lever 462) of post 474 and the second lever 464; Fig. 22).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu in view of Pellis and Matsuura teaches the device of claim 4 as stated above. Zhu further teaches the lap (11) is integrally formed with the inner shell bracket (1) (see Fig. 4, the internal teeth or wall structures on the underside of the code wheel 19 and/or the ring about the first through hole 1542 of the fixed base 154 may each be considered an integrally formed lap),
the primary swing arm bracket (2) is installed on the lap (11) (¶[0042] the thigh brace 11 is received by the slot 1931 and secured in between the first support arm 1521 and the second support arm 193; Fig. 3),
a front end of the inner shell bracket (1) is integrally formed with a clamping protrusion (19) (¶[0042] the second support arm 193; Fig. 3), and
a front end of the primary swing arm bracket (2) is clamped and positioned through the clamping protrusion (19) (¶[0042] the thigh brace 11 is received by the slot 1931 and secured in between the first support arm 1521 and the second support arm 193; Fig. 3).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pellis and Matsuura as applied to claim 5 above, and in view of Alps Alpine (“Alps Alpine 12 ppr Pulse Mechanical Rotary Encoder with a 6 mm Flat Shaft (Not Indexed), Through Hole”, RS Components & Controls, accessed at https://in.rsdelivers.com/product/alps-alpine/ec12e1220401/alps-alpine-12-ppr-pulse-mechanical-rotary-encoder/6234186, accessed on 03/31/2026, date of product is at least 11/06/2006 as indicated by Alps Alpine Part EC12E1220401 Specifications Sheet), hereinafter Alps Alpine.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu in view of Pellis and Matsuura teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above. Zhu does not teach the specifics of the connection of the shaft 13 and the angle sensor 14; such that, the modified Zhu does not specifically teach that the installation part (17) is a rectangular seat structure, an installation groove on a rotation center axis of the angle sensor (4) corresponds to a cross-sectional size of the installation part (17), a limited protrusion is set on a side of the limit part (18), and the angle sensor (4) is clamped and positioned on the limit part (18) through the limited protrusion.
Alps Alpine teaches a known connection (i.e., flat shaft) used for rotary encoders (see pgs. 2-3 for product angles) that involves a rectangular seat structure (see annotated Alps Alpine encoder below, the portion of the installation part 17 with the flat rectangular structure annotated with R),
and a limited protrusion is set on a side of the limit part (18) (see annotated Alps Alpine encoder below, the limit part is the beveled portion, with the two protrusions on the top side annotated with P).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the shaft connection of Alps Alpine for the shaft 13 to the angle sensor 14 connection of the modified Zhu because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the modified Zhu requires a connection between the shaft 13 and the angle sensor 14 and Alps Alpine teaches one such known connection. Here, the angle sensor 14 would necessarily have a reciprocal connection portion to properly interface/clamp/secure with the shaft 13.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alps Alpine encoder annotated.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu in view of Pellis, Matsuura, and Alps Alpine teaches the device of claim 6 as stated above. The modified Zhu further teaches the angle sensor (4) is connected to a communication module through electrical signals, and the communication module is connected to a mobile APP through electrical signals (¶[0018] the knee joint angle may be displayed to the user and/or sent to an APP on a terminal, ¶[0047] and ¶[0035] the sensor is electrically connected to the main control board 16 which then sends the data to the terminal to the APP).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhu in view of Pellis, Matsuura, and Alps Alpine teaches the device of claim 7 as stated above. Zhu further teaches the communication module at least comprises a Bluetooth module, a wired network communication module, and a wireless network communication module (¶[0018] the knee joint angle may be displayed to the user and/or sent to an APP on a terminal, ¶[0047] the TYPE-C wired connection).
Alternatively and/or additionally, Matsuura further teaches that the resistance element, activity tracker and optionally sensors carried by the garment can be in communication using any of a variety of wired or wireless protocols, including Bluetooth (see ¶[0192]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize wired (i.e., TYPE-C) and/or wireless (i.e., Bluetooth) for the communication of the sensor angle data via the main control board 16 to the APP because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the modified Zhu requires a connection between the main control board 16 and the APP and Matsuura teaches known connections.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pellis, Matsuura, and Alps Alpine as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of McDavid et al. (WIPO Publication 2023/0336528 A1), hereinafter McDavid.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhu in view of Pellis, Matsuura, and Alps Alpine teaches the device of claim 6 as stated above. Zhu further teaches that the primary swing arm bracket (2) is positioned on a proximal limb of the patient (¶[0032] the thigh brace 11 is bound to the patient’s thigh; Fig. 1), and
the secondary swing arm bracket (3) is positioned on a distal limb of the patient (¶[0032] the lower leg brace 12 is bound to the patient’s lower leg; Fig. 1).
The modified Zhu does not specifically teach how the brackets are bound to the patient’s limbs, including that the primary swing arm bracket (2) is provided with a primary bandage slot (21), the secondary swing arm bracket (3) is provided with a secondary bandage slot (22), the primary bandage slot (21) and the secondary bandage slot (22) are respectively connected with a primary bandage and a secondary bandage, the primary swing arm bracket (2) is positioned on a proximal limb of the patient through the primary bandage, and the secondary swing arm bracket (3) is positioned on a distal limb of the patient through the secondary bandage.
McDavid teaches a wearable device for measuring the workload of a wearer (see abstract and Fig. 1), including a two-strap system 900-1 including pivot posts 904-1/904-2/1002, a sensing module 906-1, and straps 902/1006 (see ¶[0124]-[0134]; Figs. 9-1 – 10), in which each pivot post includes plurality of holes along their respective axial direction (see Fig. 9-4 for the multiple straps 902/1006) for securing the straps 902/1006 to the pivot posts 904/1002 via the fastener 1014 (see ¶[0124]-[0134]; Figs. 9-4 – 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the strap and pivot post limb connection of McDavid with the bracket bounding to the limbs of the patient of the modified Zhu because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Zhu requires a connection between the brackets and the patient’s limb and McDavid teaches one such connection modality; and/or (3) the multi-strap embodiment (i.e., the 4 straps total) may provide better fit to the patient depending on the patient’s size and their activity (see McDavid ¶[0134]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pellis, Matsuura, Alps Alpine, and McDavid as applied to claim 9 above, and in view of Rui et al. (Chinese Patent Document CN216318254U – citing to translation from Espacenet), hereinafter Rui.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhu in view of Pellis, Matsuura, Alps Alpine, and McDavid teaches the device of claim 9 as stated above. The modified Zhu does not specifically teach that the primary bandage slot (21) and the secondary bandage slot (22) are respectively arranged in a row with equal spacing.
Rui teaches about an orthopedic device for the wrist joint including a first bracket rotatably connected to a second bracket (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which the first and second brackets 1/2 comprise first and second components including first and second straps 5/7 to secure the brackets to the patient’s respective limbs (see ¶[0014] and ¶[0044]-[0045]; Fig. 5), in which the first and second brackets 1/2 comprise pluralities of equidistant first and second through holes 10/20 along their respective axial direction (see ¶[0037]-[0038]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the equidistant through hole grid of Rui with the brackets of the modified Zhu because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the plurality of through holes may increase the breathability and sweat wicking, thus improving the user’s comfort (see Rui ¶[0037]-[0038]); and/or (3) the additional holes provides flexibility in strap placement for the patient, providing better fit to those patients.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oguchi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0089085) teaches a sensor device for detecting hitting of a racket via a mounted sensor (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which various sensor connections are shown (see generally Figs. 3-6C) and the usage of fitting members 702, including a claw 702e for locking in the grip 10g (see ¶[0155]-[0163] and Figs. 34-35).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791