DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits based on the 18/416,123 application filed on 01/18/2024 and which claims as originally filed have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention II in the reply filed on11/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The Applicant elected Invention II directed to an apparatus attached to a leg comprising the ability to set resistance to motion around at least one central area that has two extended arms attached to a central area. Claim 1 directed to Invention I has been withdrawn.
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
Ratchet means (at least claim 6)
Electromagnetism means (at least claim 8)
An electromagnetism means and a ratchet means together (claim 9)
A ratchet means with two dog latches (claim 9); it appears that the dog latches are used with the clutch not a ratchet means
A silent clutch or ratchet means (claim 10)
Pressure adjustment means (at least claim 12)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Strap means in claim 5; the strap means has been disclosed as the straps denoted 6A, 6B, 6C; the Examiner suggests amending the claim language of claim 5 to ---through the use of straps attached to the apparatus----
Ratchet means in claims 6, 9, 10; the ratchet means has not been disclosed in the specification, please see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
Silent clutch means in claim 7, 10; the clutch has been disclosed as the components in fig. 15-16, specifically the clutch has a clutch hex, a clutch cover, and friction washers
Electromagnetism means in claim 8; the electromagnetism means has not been disclosed in the specification, please see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
Friction means claim 11, 12, 13; the friction means has been disclosed as friction washers
Pressure adjustment means claim 12, 14; the pressure adjustment means has not been disclosed in the specification, please see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
Means to adjust pressure adjustment means claim 13; the means to adjust pressure adjustment means has not been disclosed in the specification, please see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
Means to adjust the amount of resistance claim 15; means to adjust the amount of resistance has not been disclosed in the specification, please see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
Resistance to movement means claim 16; the resistance to movement has been disclosed as a ratchet, a clutch, friction disks or electromagnetism means
Means to adjust the length of the apparatus claim 17; the means to adjust the length of the device is a telescopic member with apertures
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the ability” should be corrected to ---an ability---
On lines 4-5, “the said arms” should be corrected to ---said two extended arms--- in both instances
Claim 3-18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “An apparatus” should be corrected to ---The apparatus—
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “can be” should be corrected to ---is configured to be---
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the arms” should be corrected to ---the two extended arms--- in both instances
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “the friction means” should be corrected to ---the at least one friction means---
On line 3, “the arms” should be corrected to ---the two extended arms---
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “pelvis” should be corrected to ---pelvis of a user---
On line 5, “the arms” should be corrected to ---the two extended arms---
On line 5, “the leg” should be corrected to ---the left leg---
On line 6, “user” should be corrected to ---the user---
On line 6, “the leg” should be corrected to ---the left leg---
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 2-20 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 claim 2, the limitations “the leg” on line 1, “the knee joint” on line 2, and “the knee” on line 5 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2,the limitation “said arm movement” on line 7 lacks antecedent basis and clarity. Claim 2 claims two extended arms, it is unclear if the arm movement is related to the two extended arms, if so, it is further unclear if the limitation refers to a single arm or to both arms.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of “the back of the thigh structure” on line 3 lacks antecedent basis. Neither a thigh structure or a back of a thigh structure has been previously claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the thigh and calf” on line 2 and “the thigh and calf base” on line 3 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the thigh, calf and ankle” on line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “the flexion direction” on line 2 and “the extension direction” on line 3 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of “the flexion direction” on line 2 and “the extension direction” on line 3 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the flexion and extension direction” on lines 2-3 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of “the flexion direction” on line 2 and “the extension direction” on line 3 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “said friction means” on line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “said friction means” and “the user” on line 2 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the friction disks” on lines 5-6 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation of “arms” on line 1 lacks clarity, as it is unclear if this limitation refers to the previously claimed “two extended arms” or additional components. Similarity, “said arms” on line 3 is unclear.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the back of the leg” on line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of “the left pelvis” on line 1, “the left leg” on line 2, “the knee joint” on lines 2-3 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of “the hamstring muscle” on lines 1-2, and “the resistance to movement” on line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, 10, 12-13, 15, claim limitation “ratchet means” and “electromagnetism means”, “pressure adjustment means”, “means to adjust pressure adjustment means”, or “Means to adjust the amount of resistance” 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. 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of “to the leg” on line 1, “at the knee joint” on line 2, “to the leg above the knee” on line 5, “the leg below the knee” on line 6 are all encompassing a human organism. Further, dependent claims also claim a human organism at least claim 3 line 2, claim 4 lines 2 and 3, claim 5 line 2, claim 16 lines 2, 3 and 4, claim 17 on line 2, and claim 18 on line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 2, 5, 7-8, 10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joutras (US 2019/0175045).
Regarding claim 2:
Joutras discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1A) attached to the leg (“To provide a wearable neuromuscular training apparatus comprised of a rigid sections that is worn on a user's left leg and provides asymmetric resistance to the movement of the leg” see abstract) comprising a central area of rotation (see annotated Fig. below) to allow bending at the knee joint (see Fig. 1A), that includes the ability to set a resistance to motion around at least one central area of rotation (“The apparatus provides a controllable range of resistance to the motion of the user's knee. ” abstract) that has two extended arms (see annotated Fig. below; the apparatus has a pair of arms above the knee and a pair of arms below the knee) attached to the central area of rotation, in which one of the said arms is attached to the leg above the knee and the other of the said arms is attached to the leg below the knee (see annotated Fig. below), whereas said apparatus has the capability to increase the resistance of said arm movement from essentially no resistance to at least 12 in/lbs of resistance through the 0 to 30 range of motion, and increasing to at least 18 in/lbs through 30-60 degrees range of motion, and increasing to at least 24 in/lbs through 60-90 degrees range of motion (Joutras discloses that the apparatus can bend up to 90 degrees, see claim 1, and has a resistance ranging from 0 to 20ft/lbs [240 in/lbs], see paragraph [0019]; therefore the apparatus would be capable of the recited movement/resistance; the Examiner notes that the claim language merely states that the device is capable of performing the specific measurements).
[AltContent: textbox (Arms below the knee)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Arms above the knee)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Central area of rotation)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
214
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5:
Joutras discloses the device that allows for circumference adjustment of the apparatus around the thigh, calf and ankle through the use of strap means attached to the apparatus (Joutras discloses that the straps are adjustable to change the circumference of the apparatus, see paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 7:
Joutras discloses the device that includes a silent clutch means to apply resistance to motion in the flexion direction and essentially no resistance in the extension direction (“In a second method, the resistance core (FIG. 2A) resists movements of crossbars 3A and 3B in relation to each other through resistance component 2A, which is controlled by a spring or elastic band that increases in resistance as one crossbar moves in relation to the other, and then uses a clutch to disengage resistance caused by the spring or elastic band when the user reverses limb direction from flexion to extension. ” see paragraph [0036], Joutras discloses a clutch, equivalent to Applicant’s silent clutch means, see 35 USC 112(f) above, that causes resistance in the flexion direction and disengages resistance in the extension direction).
Regarding claim 8:
Joutras discloses the device that includes an electromagnetism means to control the amount of resistance to movement throughout the flexion and extension directions (“In a fourth method, the resistance core (FIG. 2A) resists movements of crossbars 3A and 3B in relation to each other through resistance component 2A, which uses magnetics including rigid or fluidic elements that is controlled by the amount of electrical input into component 2A.” see paragraph [0036], magnets that are controlled through electrical input are electromagnetism means, please see 35 USC 112(f) and 112(b) above. Further, as disclosed elsewhere in paragraph [0036] the resistance is engaged during flexion and extension).
Regarding claim 10:
Joutras discloses the device that includes a spring or elastic band to create resistance in the flexion direction and a silent clutch or ratchet means to eliminate resistance in the extension direction (“In a second method, the resistance core (FIG. 2A) resists movements of crossbars 3A and 3B in relation to each other through resistance component 2A, which is controlled by a spring or elastic band that increases in resistance as one crossbar moves in relation to the other, and then uses a clutch to disengage resistance caused by the spring or elastic band when the user reverses limb direction from flexion to extension. ” see paragraph [0036], Joutras discloses a clutch, equivalent to Applicant’s silent clutch means, see 35 USC 112(f) above, that causes resistance in the flexion direction and disengages resistance in the extension direction).
Regarding claim 18:
Joutras discloses the device that includes arms extending from a central area of rotation to the back of the leg above and below the knee (see Fig. 1A), whereas said arms allow for easier movement from an extension position to a flexion position (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 19:
Joutras discloses method of repositioning the left pelvis by first attaching an apparatus to the left leg with a central area of rotation to allow bending at the knee joint (“To provide a wearable neuromuscular training apparatus comprised of a rigid sections that is worn on a user's left leg and provides asymmetric resistance to the movement of the leg.” See abstract, please also see the annotated Fig. below), that includes the ability to set a resistance to motion around at least one central area of rotation (“The apparatus provides a controllable range of resistance to the motion of the user's knee.” See abstract), whereas said central area of rotation has two extended arms attached (see annotated Fig. below), in which one of the arms is attached to the leg above the knee and the other arm is attached to the leg below the knee (see annotated Fig. below), whereas user then performs at least one of four repositioning exercises in which the user performs a leg curl against a certain resistance to motion and for a certain amount of repetitions (Joutras discloses that the user flexes and extends the knee, which is a leg curl, against resistance, which is at least one repositioning exercise for a number of repetitions (see paragraph [0044]).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 3-4, 6, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joutras (US 2019/0175045) in view of Joutras et al (US 2008/0108918). Joutras discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 3:
Joutras (US 2019/0175045) fails to specifically disclose that includes a bolster pad that is attached to the apparatus at the back of the thigh structure and can be removable or permanent.
Joutras et al (US 2008/0108918) teaches a leg exercise apparatus having a thigh structure analogous to Joutras (US 2019/0175045) structure, having a removable bolster pad attached around the entire thigh of the user(see annotated Fig. below).
[AltContent: textbox (Bolster pad)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
422
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Joutras (US 2019/0175045) to have a bolster pad, as disclosed by Joutras (US 2008/0108918), for the comfort of the user.
Regarding claim 4:
Although Joutras (US 2019/0175045) discloses adjustable straps to attach to the thigh and calf of the user and that said arms also attached to the central area of rotation, Joutras (US 2019/0175045) fails to specifically disclose that allows for width adjustment of the apparatus at the thigh and calf through the use of adjustable screws that clamp down on the position of the arms within the thigh and calf base.
Joutras (US 2008/0108918) discloses a strap/cushion (908) and side support 904 attached around the leg of the user, with threaded screws 910 that allow the circumference of the cushion and side support to be adjustable in circumference and locked in place. Joutras (US 2008/0108918) further discloses the strap is adjustable through hook and loop fasteners (928)
PNG
media_image4.png
402
471
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the overall circumference of the thigh and calf members of Joutras (US 2019/0175045) to be adjustable in the manner disclosed by Joutras (US 2008/0108918), to better keep the device locked in place (see paragraph [0201] of Joutras (US 2008/0108918)).
Regarding claim 6:
Although Joutras (US 2019/0175045) discloses that the resistance is applied in the flexion direction and not in the extension direction, Joutras (US 2019/0175045) fails to specifically disclose that includes a ratchet means to apply resistance to motion in the flexion direction and essentially no resistance in the extension direction.
Joutras (US 2008/0108918) discloses different means for resistance including a ratchet system (“ In some embodiments, frictional members are moved with respect to each other as the two levers move. The amount of friction is controlled: (1) in some embodiments, by mechanical means such as ratchets, ramps or the like in accordance with the direction of movement and/or the position of the levers with respect to each other; ” see paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Joutras (US 2019/0175045) to have a ratchet means as resistance, as taught by Joutras (US 2008/0108918) as ratchet means as resistance are well known in the exercise art.
Regarding claim 11:
Joutras (US 2019/0175045) fails to specifically disclose that includes at least one friction means moving against a solid surface whereas the pressure of the friction means against the solid surface creates the resistance to movement of the arms around the central axis of rotation.
Joutras (US 2008/0108918) teaches that the axis of rotation has a frictional means (friction discs, see Figs. 18-19) that apply friction against a solid surface to create resistance against moving the arms (see paragraphs [0033-0036]). The frictional means further includes pressure members (“One technique for adjusting the amount of resistance is to adjust the pressure normal to frictional surfaces that move with respect to each other.” See paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Joutras (US 2019/0175045) to have the frictional means as taught by Joutras (US 2008/0108918) to allow for variety of resistance. The examiner notes that frictional force resistance mechanisms are well known in the exercise art.
Regarding claim 12:
Joutras (US 2019/0175045) fails to specifically disclose that includes pressure adjustment means to apply pressure against said friction means.
Joutras (US 2008/0108918) teaches that the axis of rotation has a frictional means (friction discs, see Figs. 18-19) that apply friction against a solid surface to create resistance against moving the arms (see paragraphs [0033-0036]). The frictional means further includes pressure members (“One technique for adjusting the amount of resistance is to adjust the pressure normal to frictional surfaces that move with respect to each other.” See paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Joutras (US 2019/0175045) to have the frictional means as taught by Joutras (US 2008/0108918) to allow for variety of resistance. The examiner notes that frictional force resistance mechanisms are well known in the exercise art.
Regarding claim 13-16 :
Joutras (US 2019/0175045) fails to specifically disclose that includes means to adjust pressure adjustment means against said friction means as the user moves through the range of motion (claim 13), the pressure adjustment means includes a threaded pressure adjustment cap (claim 14), means to adjust the amount of resistance to motion which is dependent on the position of the user throughout the range of motion, is accomplished through the use of a release mechanism that engages with a pressure adjustment cap to rotate the pressure adjustment cap during motion which creates more or less pressure on the friction disks (claim 15), and there is a central area of rotation on each side of the knee that includes resistance to movement means, said adjustment cap is threaded clockwise on one side of the knee, and counter-clockwise on the other side of the knee (claim 16).
Joutras (US 2008/0108918) teaches that the axis of rotation has a frictional means (friction discs, see Figs. 18-19) that apply friction against a solid surface to create resistance against moving the arms (see paragraphs [0033-0036]). The frictional means further includes pressure members (“One technique for adjusting the amount of resistance is to adjust the pressure normal to frictional surfaces that move with respect to each other.” See paragraph [0033]), that the pressure adjustment can be adjust through the movement of the exercise (“ in some embodiments, by mechanical means such as ratchets, ramps or the like in accordance with the direction of movement and/or the position of the levers with respect to each other; (2) in other embodiments, a microprocessor-controlled pressure device controls both a basic overall pressure or minimum pressure and variations in pressure to create variations in resistance to motion in different directions of movement. An overall bias pressure may be established by a tightening mechanism that applies normal pressure between two friction members.” See paragraph [0035]), a threaded adjustment cap (74F), said adjustment cap is threaded clockwise on one side of the knee, and counter-clockwise on the other side of the knee (since the adjustment caps are facing each other when on the device, the adjustment caps would be threaded on opposite each other).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Joutras (US 2019/0175045) to have the frictional means as taught by Joutras (US 2008/0108918) to allow for variety of resistance. The examiner notes that frictional force resistance mechanisms are well known in the exercise art.
Regarding claim 20:
Joutras (US 2019/0175045) discloses the device is used when walking (see paragraph [0044]). Joutras (US 2019/0175045) fails to specifically disclose that the device that allows for retraining the hamstring muscle to activate properly after performing repositioning exercises in which the user lowers the resistance to movement used for repositioning to accommodate retraining by walking with the apparatus attached for a certain period of time, then removing the apparatus prior to functional or sports activities.
Joutras (US 2008/0108918) teaches that the device is used when walking and the resistance can be activated such that the resistance is different in the different phases of walking (see paragraph [0210]) which results in the resistance being lowered to accommodate walking.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Joutras (US 2019/0175045) to include the resistance changing through different phases of walking, as taught by Joutras (US 2008/0108918) to better suite the needs of the user.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Joutras (US 2019/0175045) in view of Alvarez (US 10,682,543). Joutras discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 17:
Joutras fails to disclose that includes means to adjust the length of the apparatus between the calf and the ankle of the user.
Alvarez teaches a leg exerciser with a thigh, calf and ankle portion with a rotational joint at the knee of the user. Alvarez further discloses that the distances between the calf and ankle portion is adjustable through a telescopic member (see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
215
549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joutras to have an ankle portion that is adjustably connected to the calf portion, as taught by Alvarez, to allow for the device to more securely attach to the leg of the user.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Joutras (US 2019/0175045) in view of Mullin (US 8,007,420) Joutras discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 9:
Joutras fails to disclose in which said ratchet means includes two dog latches that interlock with the ratchet gear to increase the holding ability of the ratchet means. The Examiner notes that the ratchet means has not been defined by the specification and that the specification states that the dog latches are used in the clutch configuration, shown in Fig. 16.
Mullin discloses an exercise device comprising a resistance mechanism that has two dog latches that engage with a clutch mechanism.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resistance mechanism of Joutras to additionally have the resistance mechanism similar to Mullin, as it is a well-known resistance mechanism for rotatable parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784