DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 4 and 8-10 were amended in a preliminary amendment. Claims 1-11 are remain pending.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kowalczewski et al. (US 2007/0265146, hereinafter referred to as “K”).
Regarding claim 1, K discloses a motion motor test system (Abstract – “The invention provides a method and apparatus to enable a user to perform upper extremity exercises. The apparatus includes an arm with one end connected to a base to securely support the arm while locating the other end adjacent to the user, proximate the user's upper extremities ... A manipulandum assembly including a plurality of manipulanda is attached to the free end of the arm, each manipulandum being positioned within hand grasping range of the user, and each manipulandum being or representing an object encountered in an upper extremity activity of the user's daily life. Sensors on the arm, joints or manipulanda sense movement or force, and relay signals to a processing device in order to sample, display, store and process the signals into kinematic or kinetic variables. These variables may be processed to control software programs such as computer games and to allow quantification of performance for outcome evaluation of therapy regimes.”) comprising:
a simulated key portion which is rotatable around a rotational axis (Fig. 2, #58 and [0055]);
a rotational resistive load mechanically coupled to the simulated key portion (see Figs. 1 and 4; [0050] – “The manipulandum assembly 14 is comprised of an electrically instrumented set of manipulanda which are self-supporting and provide resistance”; [0051] –“Without being limiting in any manner, the manipulandum assembly 14 may include … a key-grip manipulandum 40”; [0055] – “The key-like tab 58 can be twisted in a movement which mimics the turning of a key in a lock”); and
a sensor subsystem coupled to the simulated key portion configured to measure force and / or torque applied to the simulated key portion ([0050] – “As described in more detail below, additional sensors (i.e., in addition to sensors 34 located on the arm 12, segments 20, 22 and/or joints 28, 30 and 32) are preferably included to measure displacements of different manipulanda within the manipulandum assembly 14, from which secondary variables (for example, kinematic variables) are computed”; claim 9 describes the key grip manipulandum and claim 11, which depends from claim 9 states that sensors associated with the manipulandum includes ones to detect force).
Regarding claim 8, K discloses wherein the sensor subsystem comprises a torque sensor mechanically coupled to the simulated key portion and configured to measure a torque around the rotational axis applied to the simulated key portion ([0046] discloses the use of sensors that can be used to derive torque applied by the user, it would inherently require mechanical coupling to the key to measure the parameter).
Regarding claim 9, K discloses wherein the rotational resistive load is a lock and a key (see end of [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, K discloses the motion motor test system further comprising a data acquisition unit configured to collect signals from the sensor subsystem and generate kinetic data for the subject based on the signals from the sensor subsystem (see [0056] and [0061]).
Claims 1-11 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al. ("An Asian-centric human movement database capturing activities of daily living," Scientific Data, 8 September 2020, Vol. 7, 13 pages, see entire document). Note this reference may fall under the 102(b)(1) exception to 102(a)(1).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczewski et al. (US 2007/0265146, hereinafter referred to as “K”) in view of Shah et al. (US 5184628) and MIE spec sheet.
Regarding claim 2, K does disclose wherein the simulated key portion comprises a key bow (expanded flat surface of the key gripping part shown in Fig. 2/area 58 is pointing to). K does not disclose that the sensor subsystem comprises a load cell provided in the key bow configured to measure a pinch force applied to the key bow (K discloses in [0055] that rotational forces on the key bow are measured). However, the measurement of pinching forces on keys were known parameters in assessing physical ability at the time of the filing of the invention. Shah et al. teach a key grip assessment system and method (Abstract and col. 4, lines 59-60). Shah et al. teach that the system may incorporate a known digital pinch/grip analyzer such as that supplied my MIE Medical Research (col. 2, lines 54-65, particularly lines 61-65). The spec sheet of the MIE pinch force measurement device (pg. 5) states that a force transducer is connected for measurement of the pinch forces between flat surfaces q. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify K to include additional hardware for measuring pinch force as taught by Shah et al. on a key because it can provide additional assessments of the physical ability of a patient.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczewski et al. (hereinafter referred to as “K”) in view of Shah et al. and MIE spec sheet as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ellis (US 4674330).
Regarding claim 3, K as modified in view of Shah et al. and MIE disclose wherein the key bow comprises two flat portions (the MIE spec sheet noted previously in the claim 2 rejection includes two flat portions that would be incorporated into the key bow design in K). MIE does not teach that the load cell is provided between the two flat portions. However, Ellis teaches an apparatus for measuring pinch strength (see Abstract) that includes two flat pieces 24 separated by a gap (Fig. 4 and 5). Strain gauge 22 in Fig. 5 is shown located between 24 for measuring forces. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify the MIE pinch tester such that the load cell is provided between the two flat portions as taught by Ellis for measuring pinch/key grip strength because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczewski et al. (US 2007/0265146, hereinafter referred to as “K”).
Regarding claim 4, K does not expressly disclose the motion motor test system further comprising: an arm portion mechanically coupled to the key portion and extending radially from the rotational axis, and wherein the sensor subsystem comprises a first load cell mounted in a position offset from the rotational axis and configured to measure a force applied by the arm portion. K discloses that the types of sensors are not limited as many can be applied for measurement purposes needed ([0047]). In this case, the Office takes Official Notice that measuring rotational force (i.e. torque) this way is notoriously known in the art. The mathematical formula for measuring torque (τ) is: τ = Fd or τ = Fr where d or r is the perpendicular distance from the pivot point (the shaft in this case). This a straightforward application of mechanical principles. The force measured by the load cell, combined with the length of the arm, allows you to calculate the torque exerted by the rotating shaft. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify K to use the claimed rotational force measurement setup in view of the Official Notice taken by the Office because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, K as modified above does not disclose wherein the first load cell is mounted in a rotational position at which a key turning action is completed. However, setting up how far a key can turn without exceeding a typical human’s maximum wrist rotation amounts to routine optimization that would have been an obvious modification in view of MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczewski et al. (US 2007/0265146, hereinafter referred to as “K”) in view of Martin (US 83786909)
Regarding claim 6, K does not disclose the motion motor test system further comprising a second load cell mounted in a position offset from the rotational axis and configured to measure a force applied by the arm portion. This limitation would have been an obvious modification as the second load cell amounts to accommodating rotation in the opposite direction which would be beneficial for testing ability to rotate in both directions as well as accommodating right and left handed persons. For example, Martin teaches a therapy evaluation machine that can measure the amount of torque a person can exert on grip/torque bar. The grip can be rotated in a clockwise or counterclockwise motion (see Fig. 5 and col. 3, lines 38-51). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify K to provide an additional load cell as claimed for measuring rotational force in a second direction in view of Martin’s teachings of measuring rotational ability in opposite directions because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, K does not disclose wherein the first load cell is mounted in a rotational position at which a key turning action is completed in a first rotational direction and the second cell is mounted in a rotational position at which a key turning action is completed in a second rotational direction opposite from the first rotational direction. This is rejected using the same argument for claim 5 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczewski et al. (US 2007/0265146, hereinafter referred to as “K”) in view of Berme et al. (US 9916011).
Regarding claim 11, K discloses acquiring kinetic and kinematic data during patient testing (Abstract – “Sensors on the arm, joints or manipulanda sense movement or force, and relay signals to a processing device in order to sample, display, store and process the signals into kinematic or kinetic variables. These variables may be processed to control software programs such as computer games and to allow quantification of performance for outcome evaluation of therapy regimes”; [0046] – “The electrical signals are then transmitted to a suitable processing device, such as the computer 16, which then samples, displays, stores and processes the signals into kinematic or kinetic variables”; [0061] – “computer 16, which then samples, displays, stores and processes the signals into kinematic or kinetic variables”) but does not disclose the motion motor test system further comprising a data synchronization unit configured to synchronize the kinetic data for the subject with kinematic data for the subject captured from a motion capture system. However, synchronizing such data was known in the arts. Berme et al. teach a force measurement system that collects kinetic and kinematic data. Bermes teaches that, “[a]ll of this data is synchronized in real-time to process and display information, such as joint kinematics and kinetics…” (col. 17, lines 29-31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify K to include data synchronization feature for kinetic and kinematic data as taught by Bermes for displaying the results to the user because it can help provide insight into the patient’s physical abilities.
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 are cancelled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
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 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791