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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-15 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2A-2C, 3-14, and 16A-17C are grayscale drawings or photographs. The details of these grayscale drawings and/or photographs are such that they are not clearly reproducible in the printed application. According to 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), black and white photographs are not permitted unless they are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Grayscale drawings will be treated as black and white photographs. In the instant case, each of Figures 2A-2C, 3-14, and 16A-17C could be represented by line drawings. Therefore, the photographs and/or grayscale drawings are not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Thus, the drawings are objected to, and line drawings should be provided instead.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 recites “processor (700) coupled to the memory (700)” which appears to be a mistake, as reference character 700 should not correspond to both the processor and memory.
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 6-7 and 14 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 6, line 4 recites “the plunger” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 does not depend from claim 4.
Claim 7, lines 2-3 recite “the lock-in” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 14, lines 2-4 recite “wherein the therapy tool is inserted to the hand of the user and connected to an intermediate base, wherein the intermediate base is connected to the plug-in apparatus” which is a method step. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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.
Claim 14 is 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).
Claim 14, lines 2-3 recite “wherein the therapy tool is inserted to the hand of the user” which recites a human. The Examiner suggests --wherein the therapy tool is configured to be inserted into the hand of the user--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond et al. (5,597,373) in view of Maxwell (5,201,772).
Regarding claim 1, Bond discloses a modular and portable plug-and-train robot for providing hand rehabilitation (Fig. 1, which is modular as seen in Figs. 3-8b and portable as stated in col. 8, lines 43-49), wherein the modular and portable plug-and-train robot comprising: a memory (computer processor 180, Fig. 9, includes a memory at least to store data, see col. 22, lines 22-25); a processor coupled to the memory (processor 180, Fig. 9); a housing (physical casing 30, Fig. 2); a power source for powering the modular and portable plug-and-train robot to provide the hand rehabilitation (there is necessarily a power source for powering the computer 180 and motor 28, Fig. 9); an actuator (magnetic particle variable resistance element 22, Fig. 2) mounted within the housing (within casing 30, Fig. 2) and connected to the power source (“electronic control circuitry in conjunction with a computer controlled, pulse width modulated current mode drive is utilized to provide a variable torque in opposition to the rotation of rotational element 10” see col. 11, lines 23-26. The electronic control circuitry is connected to the electrical power source) for providing movements to the modular and portable plug-and-train robot (“magnetic particle resistance element 22 as the main resistance element of the system to provide controlled resistance on shaft 18, and thus rotational element 10” see col. 12, lines 12-14. The resistance provides a counter movement to the rotation of the robot); a plug-in apparatus (arm 16, including bores 17, 19, see Figs. 3-8b; “Bores 17 and 19 are included on arm 16 to allow the various different attachments to be quickly interchanged in the testing sequence of the system of the present invention” see col. 13, lines 3-8) for coupling the actuator (22) and a therapy tool (various different therapy tools are attachable, such as rotating element 10, Figs. 3-4, curved element 44, Figs. 5-5a, handle accessory 60, Fig. 6, handle 71, Fig. 7, vertical rotation element 80, Figs. 8-8b), wherein the therapy tool provides a single degree of freedom (DOF) movement to a hand for the hand rehabilitation (the therapy tool only provides rotation about rotational axis 12, Fig. 2. The device is used “for isolating, evaluating, and exercising muscle groups of the human hand, wrist, arm and shoulder” see the Abstract); and an armrest (forearm support accessory 65, Fig. 6) connected to the housing (connected at least indirectly via bores 321 and 322 and mounting posts 661 and 662, Fig. 6).
Bond is silent regarding the armrest (65) being an instrumented armrest for determining compensatory forces applied by a forearm of the user during the hand rehabilitation.
Maxwell teaches a related system for resisting limb movement for rehabilitation (Fig. 2; see col. 9, lines 33-37), including an instrumented armrest (limb coupling cuff 376 includes a force-torque sensor 374, Fig. 3; “force-torque sensor 374 attached to the limb coupling cuff 376 worn by the subject” see col. 5, lines 15-16) for determining compensatory forces applied by the arm of the user during the rehabilitation (force-torque sensor 374 is used “to measure the load applied by the limb coupling cuff 376” see col. 7, lines 41-46 …. and the system “resists forces exerted by the subject’s limb … microcomputer 104 primarily used to process data and adjust resistive forces within the manipulator” see col. 3, lines 3-12. Additionally, see Fig. 2, illustrating that the force torque sensor is fed to the processor 106, which controls the actuation of brake 202. Thus, the forces applied at the cuff are detected, and the microcomputer is able to adjust resistive forces to resist the current forces applied at the cuff by the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the armrest of Bond to include a force-torque sensor to measure loads applied by the limb as taught by Maxwell so the system receives additional data regarding the amount of force/exertion being applied by the user, to help determine how much resistance to apply.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the actuator (22, Bond) is a gearless direct current (DC) motor (Model B150 available from Placid Industries, Inc. “with no active moving mechanical parts … the torque resistance is proportional to the magnetic field and thus the applied DC input current” see col. 11, lines 12-34 of Bond).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the therapy tool (i.e. 60, Fig. 6) provides training to the hand in order to induce at least one of wrist movements and hand movements (“However, during the constant passive motion (CPM) mode, motor 28 is utilized to direct the motion of element 10 responsive to the particular control program implemented by the control system. During this mode, motor 28 supplies the force of movement of element 10, and motor 28 effectively guides movement of the patient's hand, or other appendage” see col. 12, lines 20-26 of Bond; “wrist accessory 60 allow for testing of the radial/ulnar deviation of the test subject. A test subject's forearm is supported in support member 65 while the subject is instructed to grip handle 61. In this manner, isometric, isotonic, isokinetic and proprioceptive testing of the wrist may be effected” see col. 14, lines 21-26 of Bond).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the therapy tool (i.e., 60, Fig. 6) comprises one of an armature hub and a plunger (mounting post 63, Fig. 6) to connect at a top portion of the plug- in apparatus (at bore 19, at the top of arm 16, Fig. 6 of Bond).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the instrumented armrest (65, Fig. 6 of Bond, as modified by Maxwell to include force-torque sensing) is connected to the housing using a plate arrangement (the plate arrangement is considered the metal trough 66 connected to plate 32 via bores 321 and 322, see Fig. 6 of Bond) and wherein the plate arrangement comprises a load cell assembly to measure the compensatory forces applied on the armrest by the forearm of the user during the hand rehabilitation (the force-torque sensor taught by Maxwell has been incorporated into the armrest to measure compensatory forces. This sensor reads on a load cell), wherein the compensatory forces comprises vertical forces and lateral forces (force-torque sensor 374 measures forces in each of six DOF’s, see col. 7, lines 41-56 of Bond).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the instrumented armrest (65 of Bond, as modified by Maxwell to include force-torque sensing) comprises a first force transducer placed on a bottom portion (a “bottom portion” is relatively broad, and as long as the transducer is in armrest 65 below the forearm, it will be considered a bottom portion) of the instrumented armrest to measure the vertical forces applied by the forearm of the user, and a second force transducer placed on a left portion and a right portion of the instrumented armrest to measure the lateral forces applied by the forearm of the user (“first and second wheatstone bridge circuits for the horizontal and vertical components of the applied load” see Figs. 12a-12b and col. 2, lines 57-59 of Maxwell. The wheatstone bridge would have at least a left portion and right portion, as these “portions” are broadly recited).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the compensatory forces measured by the instrumented armrest (65, as modified by Maxwell) is used for real-time modification of the hand rehabilitation (the compensatory forces from Maxwell’s force-torque sensor 374 are used “to measure the load applied by the limb coupling cuff 376” see col. 7, lines 41-46 …. and the system “resists forces exerted by the subject’s limb … microcomputer 104 primarily used to process data and adjust resistive forces within the manipulator” see col. 3, lines 3-12. Additionally, see Fig. 2, illustrating that the force torque sensor is fed to the processor 106, which controls the actuation of brake 202. Thus, the forces applied at the cuff are detected, and the microcomputer is able to adjust resistive forces to resist the current forces applied at the cuff by the user).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the therapy tool (i e., 60, Fig. 6 of Bond) is inserted to the hand of the user and connected to an intermediate base (shaft 63, Fig. 6 of Bond), wherein the intermediate base is connected to the plug-in apparatus (connected to arm 16 by bore 19, Fig. 6 of Bond).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Bond/Maxwell device discloses wherein the wrist movements and hand movements comprises at least one of a wrist flexion-extension, a wrist ulnar-radial deviation, a Forearm pronation-supination, a gross hand opening and closing movement, an instrumented hand opening-closing, a tripod pinch, a thumb flexion-extension, a Finger stretching and Individual finger flexion-extension and abduction-adduction training mechanism (“wrist accessory 60 allow for testing of the radial/ulnar deviation of the test subject. A test subject's forearm is supported in support member 65 while the subject is instructed to grip handle 61. In this manner, isometric, isotonic, isokinetic and proprioceptive testing of the wrist may be effected” see col. 14, lines 21-26 of Bond).
Claim(s) 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond et al. (5,597,373) in view of Maxwell (5,201,772) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sapin et al. (2017/0095391).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Bond/Maxwell device is silent regarding the plug-in apparatus is one of an electromagnetic clutch, Bowden cable and a mechanical shutter lock, wherein the electromagnetic clutch uses an electromagnetic force to connect the therapy tool to the actuator.
Sapin teaches a related upper limb rehabilitation device (Fig. 1) wherein a plug-in apparatus includes a mechanical shutter lock (spring-loaded locking part 5.21, Fig. 9) to releasably lock the therapy tool (handle part 5.1, Fig. 9) to the resistance mechanism. This allows the therapy tool to be quickly and easily locked into place, and detached as needed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection between the therapy tool and the plug-in apparatus of Bond/Maxwell to include a mechanical shutter lock as taught by Sapin because this provides an expected result that the therapy tool can be quickly and easily locked into place, and detached as needed.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Bond/Maxwell/Sapin device discloses wherein the mechanical shutter lock comprises a motor shaft coupler (arm 16 of Bond, which connects to motor shaft 18, see Fig. 2 of Bond), a spring (spring-loaded locking part 5.21, Fig. 9 of Sapin) and a lock-pin (pin 5.22, Fig. 9 of Sapin), wherein the lock-pin comprises a profile matched with the plunger of the therapy tool (pin 5.22 is inserted into a corresponding opening, see Figs. 10B-10C).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Bond/Maxwell/Sapin device discloses wherein the spring in the mechanical shutter lock pushes the lock-in against the plunger of the therapy tool to lock the plunger in a specific position (see para. [0189]-[0191] and Figs. 9-10C of Sapin, the spring-loaded locking part 5.21 pushes a lockable part to lock a corresponding structure into place, and that structure in the modified device would be the plunger such as shaft 63, Fig. 6 of Bond) and the locked plunger couples the therapy tool (60, Fig. 6 of Bond) with the motor shaft coupler (arm 16 that couples to motor shaft 18, Fig. 2 of Bond) of the mechanical shutter lock, wherein the motor shaft coupler rotates and transfers the rotation to the therapy tool (see Fig. 2 and col. 12, lines 10-42 of Bond, the motor 28 rotates the motor shaft 18 to provide rotation to the element 10).
Regarding claims 8-10, it is noted that these claims do not actually require the plug-in apparatus to be an electromagnetic clutch. For example, claim 5 only recites the electromagnetic clutch as an alternative. Therefore, the modified Bond/Maxwell/Sapin device of the claim 5 rejection with the mechanical shutter lock reads on claims 8-10 because these are further modifications of an optional configuration (the electromagnetic clutch).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Masia et al. (2016/0270999) discloses a related hand/wrist training device with an armrest. Maeda et al. (2017/0132947) discloses a related hand rehabilitation device with an armrest. Johnson et al. (2026/0165899) discloses a related hand rehabilitation handle with different attachments. Aviles et al. (2014/0240109) discloses a related modular force feedback controller with different hand attachments. Choi et al. (2017/0326405) discloses a related hand rehabilitation device. Roh et al. (2017/0340502) discloses a related hand rehabilitation device with an armrest. Makiyama et al. (2018/0085616) discloses a related upper limb rehabilitation device with different modular attachments. Sajiki et al. (2022/0198956) discloses a related upper limb rehabilitation device with force sensor(s). Shim et al. (2017/0119615) discloses a related joint assembly with a rotor providing rotational forces to a joint. Wunderly et al. (2003/0028130) discloses a related upper limb rehabilitation device with armrests and having force sensors and position sensors to modify the amount of resistance applied. Pompile et al. (2018/0264312) discloses a related arm rehabilitation device with an armrest that has touch or pressure sensors to determine if the device is being used properly. Preumont et al. (2010/0298097) discloses a related joint rehabilitation device with an armrest and a rotor providing resistance forces. Lequeux (2011/0224583) discloses a related rehabilitation device with modular attachments to treat different body parts, and a rotor providing the resistance force(s). Mukhin (2024/0148593) discloses a related upper limb rehabilitation device with an armrest and a torque sensor to measure the resistance applied. Schnapp et al. (6,149,612) discloses a related hand/wrist rehabilitation device with a single degree of freedom. Larsen (5,050,618) discloses a related rehabilitation device with an armrest having a load cell connected. Tong et al. (2009/0259338) discloses a related upper limb rehabilitation device with a torque sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights