DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species group A (claims 2-12 and 15-17) in the reply filed on 8/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 10 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US Pat. 6,645,126).
Regarding claim10, Martin et al. describes the same invention as claimed, including:
An integrated unweighted gait training system, comprising: an unweighting system (18) comprising a computer controller (12); a gait measurement system in communication with the controller (instrumented walking surface 20); and a display (14) in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system (col. 5, lines 18-23: “The treadmill 10 features an instrumented walking surface 20. Representations of actual footfalls 22 (FIG. 3) during walking are displayed on the screen display 14. The step length is the distance between successive foot falls. The control panel 12 provides the ability to control belt speed to match a patient’s step cycle.” Also see Figs. 7, 8 and 12).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the real-time feedback includes a video element adapted to show the user aspects of the user's gait (col. 5, lines 19-20 “Representations of actual footfalls 22 (FIG. 3) during walking are displayed on the screen display 14”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and dependents is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US Pat. 6,645,126) in view of Kuehne et al. (US PGPub 2012/0238921).
Regarding claim 2, Martin et al. describes the same invention as claimed, including: An integrated unweighted gait training system, comprising: an unweighting system (18) comprising a computer controller (12); and a gait measurement system in communication with the computer controller (instrumented walking surface 20), wherein the computer controller is configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighted system (col. 5, lines 18-23: “The treadmill 10 features an instrumented walking surface 20. Representations of actual footfalls 22 (FIG. 3) during walking are displayed on the screen display 14. The step length is the distance between successive foot falls. The control panel 12 provides the ability to control belt speed to match a patient’s step cycle.” Also see Figs. 7, 8 and 12)
Martin et al. does not show, but Kuehne et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the gait measurement system comprises: an enclosure (Kuehne et al. chamber 102); a pair of sensors (Kuehne et al. load sensors 145) supported by the enclosure (Kuehne et al. Fig. 1A) and positioned such that when the enclosure is coupled to a treadmill (Kuehne et al. 112) of the integrated unweighting system a portion of the tread is within the detectable range of the pair of sensors (Kuehne et al. Fig. 1A); and a processor in communication with the pair of sensors and having computer readable instructions to receive and process an output from the pair of sensors and to perform calculations related to obtaining gait parameters based on the input from the sensors (Kuehne et al. para. 113: “In addition, the access assist device may have one or more load sensors 141 equipped to measure the load supported by the access assist device when the user is connected or attached to the assist device. As shown in FIG. 1A, the load sensor may be affixed to a portion of an overhead suspension assist device. Depending on the location of the load sensor on the DAP system or the access assist device, any number of suitable sensors may be used. For example, a sensor designed to measure compression may be used under the exercise device to measure the weight exerted from above the exercise device. For an overhead suspension system such as the access assist device shown in FIG. 1A, the sensor may be designed to measure tension exerted against the access assist device as the device supports the weight of the user from above.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the unweighting system of Kuehne et al. for that of Martin et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of assisting the user in gait training, by using one art-recognized unweighting system in place of another. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Martin et al. as taught by Kuehne et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Martin shows further comprising a display (14) configured to show the real-time feedback to the user.
Regarding claim 4, Martin shows where the display is in communication with the computer controller (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Martin shows wherein the real-time feedback includes a video element adapted to show the user aspects of the user's gait (col. 5, lines 19-20 “Representations of actual footfalls 22 (FIG. 3) during walking are displayed on the screen display 14”).
Regarding claim 6, Martin et al. does not show, but Kuehne et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the unweighting system is a differential air pressure (DAP) unweighting system (Kuehne et al. ABSTRACT: “The differential air pressure systems may comprise an access assist device configured to help a mobility impaired user to stand in a pressure chamber configured to apply a positive pressure on a portion of the user's body in the seals pressure chamber.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the unweighting system of Kuehne et al. for that of Martin. Doing so provides the predictable result of assisting the user in gait training, by using one art-recognized unweighting system in place of another. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Martin et al. as taught by Kuehne et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Martin et al. does not show, but Kuehne et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the DAP unweighting system is operated based on a user specific differential air pressure calibration factor (Kuehne et al. para. 9: “Optionally, in any of the preceding embodiments, a processor may be configured to receive the output signals from the load sensors and to calibrate the system for use by the disabled user.”). See rationale in claim 6 above for combining Martin et al. and Kuehne et al.
Regarding claim 9, Martin et al. shows wherein the computer controller is configured to perform calculations to obtain tread belt speed, time of foot impact and left/right foot indication (Martin et al. Figs. 7-10).
Claims 11-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US Pat. 6,645,126) in view of Kuehne et al. (US PGPub 2012/0238921).
Regarding claim 12, Martin et al. does not show, but Kuehne et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the unweighting system is a differential air pressure (DAP) unweighting system (Kuehne et al. ABSTRACT: “The differential air pressure systems may comprise an access assist device configured to help a mobility impaired user to stand in a pressure chamber configured to apply a positive pressure on a portion of the user's body in the seals pressure chamber.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the unweighting system of Kuehne et al. for that of Martin et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of assisting the user in gait training, by using one art-recognized unweighting system in place of another. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Martin et al. as taught by Kuehne et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Martin et al. does not show, but Kuehne et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the DAP unweighting system is operated based on a user specific differential air pressure calibration factor (Kuehne et al. para. 9: “Optionally, in any of the preceding embodiments, a processor may be configured to receive the output signals from the load sensors and to calibrate the system for use by the disabled user.”). See rationale in claim 11 above for combining Martin et al. and Kuehne et al.
Regarding claim 16, Martin et al. does not show, but Kuehne et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the gait measurement system comprises: an enclosure (Kuehne et al. chamber 102); a pair of sensors (Kuehne et al. load sensors 145) supported by the enclosure (Kuehne et al. Fig. 1A) and positioned such that when the enclosure is coupled to a treadmill (Kuehne et al. 112) of the integrated unweighting system a portion of the tread is within the detectable range of the pair of sensors (Kuehne et al. Fig. 1A); and a processor in communication with the pair of sensors and having computer readable instructions to receive and process an output from the pair of sensors and to perform calculations related to obtaining gait parameters based on the input from the sensors (Kuehne et al. para. 113: “In addition, the access assist device may have one or more load sensors 141 equipped to measure the load supported by the access assist device when the user is connected or attached to the assist device. As shown in FIG. 1A, the load sensor may be affixed to a portion of an overhead suspension assist device. Depending on the location of the load sensor on the DAP system or the access assist device, any number of suitable sensors may be used. For example, a sensor designed to measure compression may be used under the exercise device to measure the weight exerted from above the exercise device. For an overhead suspension system such as the access assist device shown in FIG. 1A, the sensor may be designed to measure tension exerted against the access assist device as the device supports the weight of the user from above.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the unweighting system of Kuehne et al. for that of Martin et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of assisting the user in gait training, by using one art-recognized unweighting system in place of another. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Martin et al. as taught by Kuehne et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Martin et al. shows wherein the computer controller is configured to perform calculations to obtain tread belt speed, time of foot impact and left/right foot indication (Martin et al. Figs. 7-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892 for cited art of interest.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights