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 .
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Specifically, the examiner became aware of foreign filed patent publications, TW 2025/08674 A and TW I842618 B, and application number TW 112132342 A, which were filed on 8/28/2023, which is 1 month prior to the effective filing date, 9/28/2023, of instant application 18/476811.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A, claims 1, 2 and 7-10, in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species B-D, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the grip sensing module received the sensing signal from the sensing members and generates a gripping strength signal according to the sensing signals” and “the determining module generates an assessing result by comparing the gripping strength signal with a gripping strength threshold and comparing the pressing time with a time threshold, and assessing result is shown on the screen” which both appear to recite method steps within the apparatus claim. As the claims are drawn to an apparatus, the examiner recommends amending the claims to recite what the device is configured to do, rather than the active tense of what is does in order to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim and indefinite issues (see MPEP 2173.05(p) II). e.g. “the grip sensing module is configured to receive the sensing signal from the sensing members and generate a gripping strength signal according to the sensing signals” and “the determining module is configured to generate an assessing result by comparing the gripping strength signal with a gripping strength threshold and comparing the pressing time with a time threshold, and display the assessing result on the screen”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the communication module transmits the assessing result in a wireless way” appears to recite and active method step within an apparatus claim. As the claims are drawn to an apparatus, the examiner recommends amending the claims to recite what the device is configured to do, rather than in the active tense of what the device does in order to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim and indefinite issues (see MPEP 2173.05(p) II). e.g. “the communication module is configured to transmit the assessing result in a wireless way”.
Claims 2 and 7-9 are also objected as being dependent on independent claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit”, “sensing member”, “grip sensing module” and “determining module” in claims 1, 2 and 7-10;
“communication module” in claims 9 and 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure from the specification for these limitations are identified as follows:
“control unit” is described in paragraph [0032] as MCU, RAM, or ROM provided to execute all the processing and operation, or equivalents thereof.
“sensing member” is described in paragraph [0030] as buttons and sensors for generating signals when the subject exerts a hold on the buttons, or equivalents thereof.
“grip sensing module” corresponding structure does not appear to be recited within specification, see the 35 USC 112 rejections below.
“determining module” corresponding structure does not appear to be recited within the specification, see the 35 USC 112 rejections below.
“communication module” is described in paragraph [0038] as a wireless communication module to transmit the assessing result in a wireless way, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically independent claim 1 invokes 35 USC 112(f) interpretation in the recitation of the “grip sensing module” and the “determining module”, however the specification fails to provide corresponding structure to the 112(f) means plus function invocation. As such, the claims lack written description support as to what structure provides the claimed functions of “receives the sensing signal from the sensing members and generates a gripping strength signal according to the sensing signals” for the grip sensing module; and “generates an assessing result by comparing the gripping strength with a gripping strength threshold and comparing the pressing time with a time threshold, and assessing result is shown on the screen” for the determining module. In the absence of any structure as to what provides the claimed functional limitations, the specification fails to show written description support to show the applicant had possession at the time of filing. See MPEP 2181 II.
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, 2 and 7-10 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 limitations “grip sensing module receives the sensing signal from the sensing members and generates a gripping strength signal according to the sensing signals” and “determining module generates an assessing result by comparing the gripping strength with a gripping strength threshold and comparing the pressing time with a time threshold, and assessing result is shown on the screen” recited in independent claim 1 invoke 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. A review of the specification in paragraphs [0031]-[0038] appears to merely reiterate the function of the respective modules without providing any corresponding structure, thus making the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite as it is unclear as to what structure is required to provide said functions (e.g. is the grip sensing module and the determining module a piece of software, a piece of hardware, or combinations thereof configured to provide the claimed 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.
For the purpose of advancing prosecution and providing compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the grip sensing module and the determining module as any structure capable of providing said function.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (US 2013/0345524 A1) in view of Dromerick et al (US 2015/0245789 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 7-10; Meyer discloses a device for assessing early dementia (paragraph [0003] and [0019]) by testing gripping strength (paragraph [0076], [0094]; figure 12), comprising:
a main member (elements 101, 201, 701) having a display portion (elements 110, 207) and a gripping portion (handle elements 211, 212, 702) wherein the display portion has a screen to show information, and the gripping portion is connected to the display portion (paragraphs [0058]-[0059],[0061],[0071]; figures 1, 2a and 7);
a sensing member (elements 112, 213, and 703) connected to the gripping portion (elements 211, 212 and 702) to be pressed by a subject to generate a sensing signal (wherein pressure sensors are pressed when gripping to generate a grip force signal; paragraphs [0058]-[0061],[0071]);
a control system (figure 1) provided in the main member and having a control unit (element 104), a timer (inherent as it is recited that it performs tests for predetermined amounts of time, paragraph [0093]), a grip sensing module (combined 104 and 105), and a determining module (combined 104 and 105) (wherein the examiner notes that the processing unit and memory include software to perform tests which receive signals from pressure sensor elements 112, 213, 703 and assess neurological function; paragraph [0064]-[0067]; figures 1, 2a, 3 and 7);
wherein the timer is electrically connected to the control unit to record a time period of the subject pressing the sensing member (wherein the CPU and memory provide a time period to press the pressure sensors and record the corresponding signals; paragraphs [0076] and [0093]-[0094]; figure 12);
wherein the grip sensing module is electrically connected to the control unit and the sensing member; the grip sensing module receives the sensing signal from the sensing members (elements 112, 213 or 703) and generates a gripping strength signal according to the sensing signals (wherein CPU and corresponding programming on memory cause device to receive force signals from pressure sensor element 112, 213 and 703 to determine grip strength; paragraph [0076] and [0093]-[0094]; figures 1, 2a, 7 and 12)
wherein the determining module is electrically connected to the control unit to receive the pressing time and the gripping strength signal (Wherein CPU and corresponding programming on memory receive the gripping strength signal for the predetermined amount of time; paragraphs [0076] and [0093]-[0094]); the determining module generates an assessing result by comparing the gripping strength signal with a gripping strength threshold (compares grip force to threshold strength percentages based off of a baseline reading; paragraph [0094]), and the assessing result is shown on the screen; paragraph [0100]).
However, Meyer differs from the instant invention in that it does not explicitly disclose the timer is configured to record a pressing time of the subject pressing the sensing member and the determining module comparing the pressing time with a time threshold when making the assessment.
Dromerick teaches a similar system (figure 1) for assessing cognitive impairment through grip strength using a grip sensing device (hand dynamometer element 2) (paragraphs [0026]-[0029]; figure 1 and 2) which includes a timer to record a pressing time of the subject pressing the sensing member and provides a determining module which generates an assessing result by comparing the grip strength signal with a gripping strength threshold and comparing the pressing time with a pressing time threshold (wherein system receives grip strength and compares to normalized ranges and further records reaction times and error correction phase times to generates metrics to assess if cognitive ability is indicative of dementia ; paragraphs [0031]-[0037]; [0052]; figures 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Meyer to further record a pressing time of the subject pressing the sensing member and comparing the pressing time to a time threshold in addition to gripping strength and gripping strength thresholds as taught by Dromerick in order to provide additional metrics to assess the cognitive state/dementia screening of the user.
Further regarding claim 2; Meyer/Dromerick combination as described in the rejection of claim 1 discloses the gripping portions (handle elements 211 of Meyer) is provided with a plurality of grooves (elements 214 of Meyer) and the sensing member (combined elements 212 and 213 of Meyer) has a plurality of buttons mounted on sidewalls (element 213 of Meyer) of the grooves respectively to be pressed by fingers of the subject (wherein the examiner notes that soft grip elements 212 in which the pressure sensor elements 213 are disposed in to measure force define the sidewalls of the groove elements 214 and are pressed/gripped as buttons [i.e. there are at least 3 buttons in figure 2a] to be pressed by the fingers of the subject; Meyer paragraph [0061]; figure 2a).
Further regarding claim 7; Meyer further discloses the control system further includes a setting module (input elements 119, 209, 210) mounted on the display portion (figures 1 and 2a) and has at least two setting buttons (any of the input elements on the virtual keyboard act as buttons for setting/configuring the device) and that the device can be customized by the user to provide various settings via control by the display and/or buttons (paragraphs [0101]-[0108]). However, the Meyer/Dromerick combination does not explicitly disclose a power button. The examiner takes official notice power buttons are well known and conventional on handheld devices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a specific power button on the Meyer/Dromerick combination in order to power the device on and off when in use and not in use, respectively.
Further regarding claim 8; the Meyer discloses the control system further includes a storage unit (memory element 105) in which personal information, the gripping strength threshold, the gripping strength signal are stored, the storage unit electrically connected to the control unit (figure 1; paragraph [0023],[0112], claim 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the Meyer/Dromerick combination to further store the time threshold and pressing time as taught by Dromerick in order to store the information for use by the device.
Further regarding claims 9-10; Meyer further discloses the control system further includes a communications module to transmit the assessing result out (elements 103 and 116; paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the Meyer/Dromerick combination would include the same feature in order to transmit the information to central monitoring computer.
Further regarding claim 10; Meyer discloses the communications modules transmits the assessing result in a wireless way (paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the Meyer/Dromerick combination would include the same feature in order to transmit the information to central monitoring computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2006/0293615 A1 to Valero-Cuevas et al; discloses a device for quantifying and analyzing grasping forces.
US 2005/0177065 A1 to Ghajar; discloses a cognition and motor timing diagnosis and training system.
US 2004/0177686 A1 to Johansson; discloses an apparatus for evaluating manual dexterity.
US 2024/0237931 A1 to Hara; discloses a cognitive ability estimation apparatus.
US 2013/0060124 A1 to Zietsma; discloses an apparatus for use in diagnosing and/or treating neurological disorder.
US 2020/0386632 A1 to Yamada et al; discloses a gripping force measurement device.
US 2011/0137196 A1 to Kakei et al; discloses a quantitative motor function evaluation system.
US 2010/0113979 A1 to Sarrafzadeh et al; discloses a method and apparatus for quantitative assessment of neuromotor disorders.
US 2017/0265802 A1 to Bromm; discloses a device for measuring a hand grip pressure force.
US 2024/0130652 A1 to Li et al; discloses a system for assessing cognitive decline based upon monitored driving performance.
US 6,231,525 B1 to Paske; discloses a system and method for providing quantified hand analysis.
US 7,631,557 B2 to DeBeliso et al; discloses a grip force transducer and assessment system.
US 7,096,731 B1 to Lee; discloses a finger gripping force measuring device.
US 10,045,730 B2 to Fine et al; discloses a system for rapid screening of mild traumatic brain injury.
TW I730919 B to Lai et al; discloses a grip device with cognitive training function.
TW I793984 B to Chen et al; discloses a training device with cognitive and grip training.
CN 205795433 U to Li et al; discloses a system for monitoring grip strength in elderly patients.
CN 116672564 A to Yang et al; discloses a device for monitoring and training risk of senile dementia.
KR 10-2468972 to Hong et al; discloses a cognitive rehabilitation exercise device for improving cognitive ability using pressure sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 PM).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791