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 .
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 12/12/23. Claims 1-6 are pending in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the language “a popliteal stimulation module includes a lifting spring” (line 22) is objected to for grammatical/formatting reasons; Examiner suggests amending to read –a popliteal stimulation module including a lifting spring--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “the first and second air pressure pumps” (line 34) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the first and second air pumps--.
Regarding claim 3, the language “the upper and lower air cells” (line 6) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the upper and lower limb air cells--.
Regarding claim 3, the language “to controls the stimulation” (line 15-16) is objected to for a grammatical/typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –to control the stimulation--.
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: “stimulation generation unit” in claim 1 line 25. The specification para. 74-76 sets forth structure for generating stimulation including vibration motor, electrode, and a plunger driven by a coil for example.
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.
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 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 1-6 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 1, the language “plate-shaped” (line 3) is indefinite as a ‘plate’ can take many shapes and thus this claim limitation, and the ‘shape’ of the base plate is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the language “base plate that is placed on a floor” (line 3) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use, placement on the floor of the base plate. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –base plate that is configured to be placed on a floor--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “air cells … are inflated under air pressure” (line 8-10) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use, inflation of the air cells. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –air cells … are configured to be inflated under air pressure--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “contact pads … float according to the shape of the body” (line 12-13) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation, if this is a method step intended to be claimed as noted above with similar language. Examiner suggests amending to read –contact pads … are configured to float according to the shape of the body--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “expandable air cell … and is inflated” (line 15-17) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use, inflation of the expandable air cell. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –expandable air cell … and is configured to be inflated--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “a return spring … and exerts an elastic force” (line 19-20) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use, exertion of the elastic force by the spring. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –a return spring … and is configured to exert an elastic force--.
Regarding claim 3, the language “ controller … that receives a detection signal” (line 3-4) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use, receipt of a detection signal by a controller. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –controller … configured to receive a detection signal--.
Regarding claim 3, the language “… that applies a control signal to the first solenoid valve so that the upper and lower air cells are filled with air” (line 5-6) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use. Examiner suggests amending to use intended such as ‘configured to’ or ‘adapted to’ as noted above with similar deficiencies. Furthermore, this language is unclear in light of the disclosure as the first solenoid valve functions to exhaust or empty the air cells of air and not fill the air cells with air. It appears that the term ‘first solenoid valve’ should be –first air pump—as it is the first air pump that functions to fill the upper and lower limb air cells with air.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the supply" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the language “traction control unit … applies a control signal” (line 9-10) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –traction control unit … configured to apply a control signal--.
Regarding claim 3, the language “… applies a control signal” (line 12) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –… configured to apply a control signal--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the supply" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the language “popliteal stimulation control unit that applies power” (line 15) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –popliteal stimulation control unit that is configured to apply power--.
Regarding claim 4, the language “a repeated traction control unit … applies a control signal” (line 4-5) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –a repeated traction control unit … configured to apply a control signal--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the supply" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the language “and then applies a control signal” (line 7-8) is unclear as this appears to be a use method step whereas the claim sets forth an apparatus-type claim and it is thus unclear if Applicant is intending to claim the actual use. Examiner suggests amending to use intended use type language such as –and is then configured to apply a control signal--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the preset value" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 1-6 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 1, the language “an open upper surface that accommodates a thigh” (line 5) appears to claim the human body, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the open upper surface to accommodate the thigh, the thigh and thus the human, must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –an open upper surface that is configured to accommodate a thigh--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “an open upper surface that accommodates a calf” (line 6-7) appears to claim the human body, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the open upper surface to accommodate the calf, the calf and thus the human, must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –an open upper surface that is configured to accommodate a calf--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “air cells … and come into contact with the body” (line 12-13) appears to claim the human body, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the air cells to come into contact with the body, the body and thus the human, must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –air cells and configured to come into contact with the body--.
Regarding claim 1, the language “stimulation generation unit … comes into contact with the popliteal part of the body” (line 25-26) appears to claim the human body, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the stimulation generation unit to come into contact with the popliteal part of the body, the body and thus the human, must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –stimulation generation unit … configured to come into contact with the popliteal part of the body--.
Regarding claim 5, the language “a body temperature sensor that detects a user’s body temperature” (line 3) appears to claim the human body, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the sensor to detect a user’s body temperature, the user/human, must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –a body temperature sensor that is configured to detect a user’s body temperature--.
Regarding claim 6, the language “a blood pressure sensor that detects a user’s blood pressure” (line 3) appears to claim the human body, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the sensor to detect a user’s blood pressure, the user/human, must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –a blood pressure sensor that is configured to detect a user’s blood pressure--.
Claims 2-4 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 as well as the objections set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
When read in light of the limitations of the claimed exercise apparatus for helping growth through stretching and stimulation of a knee joint area, the prior art does not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination, an apparatus including a main body having a base plate for placement on a floor and having an upper limb holder provided on the base plate for sliding movement forward and backward with an open upper surface configured to accommodate a thigh of a body and a lower limb holder disposed at a distance on one side of the upper limb holder and having relative displacement and an open upper surface configured to accommodate a calf; upper and lower air cells provided inside the limb holders to wrap the thigh and calf and inflated under air pressure from a first air pump and a first solenoid valve pipe-connected to the air cells to exhaust air and upper and lower limb close contact pads provided respectively on outer surfaces of the air cells and which are configured to float according to the shape of the body and come into close contact therewith and have therein filled with 30-90% of fluid substance in a liquid, gel, or granular state; a stretching module having an expandable air cell disposed between the limb holders and is inflated via a second air pump to displace the upper and lower limb holders apart from each other, a second solenoid valve to exhaust air therefrom, and a return spring disposed between the limb holders to exert an elastic force to bring the limb holders close to each other; and a popliteal stimulation module including a lifting spring provided between the limb holders to exert an elastic support force vertically, a popliteal close contact pad provided above the lifting spring and filled therein with a fluid substance, a stimulation generation unit provided on one side of the upper surface of the popliteal close contact pad and configured to contact the popliteal part of the body to apply one of vibration, electricity, or tapping stimulation thereto, and a capacitive touch sensor provided on one side of the stimulation generation unit to detect contact with the touch sensor with the skin; and a controller circuit-connected to first and second air pressure sensors which are installed on pipes of the solenoid valves to measure internal air pressure of the limb air cells and expandable air cell, and the touch sensor, and pressure sensors to receive detected information to apply operation control signals to the air pumps and solenoid valves as set forth in independent claim 1.
The closest prior art references of record are: Anderson (2017/0172839), Peach (2012/0022410), Baek et al. (KR 10-0676747), Buckman et al. (2012/0271215), Ruetenik (2021/0106452), Graham (2007/0293796), Schaeffer (2010/0313897), Kong et al. (KR 10-1915898), and KR 10-1916664.
While the above mentioned prior art references of record are related to the claimed invention, they do not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination, the limitations discussed above and set forth in independent claim 1.
Prinz zu Salm-Horstmar et al. (2023/0050651) discloses a similar device for stimulating grown of a knee joint area, but does not qualify as prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights