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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-4 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 6-8 and 12 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 6-8 has rendered the previous drawing objections moot. Therefore, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 7 has rendered the previous claim objection moot. Therefore, the claim objection of claim 7 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claim 1 has overcome the previous claim objection of claim 1. Therefore, the claim objection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancelations of claims 6 and 7 has rendered the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Mirza (US 2022/0008237 A1) in view of Sessler (US 2017/0086671 A1) moot. Therefore, the claim rejections of claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, and 13-14 are pending in the current Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Applicant has applied the suggestions for claims 1-4 and the rejections of 112(b) should be withdrawn. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The offending limitations of claim 1 have not been amended, and claims 2-4 have been amended to include new offending limitations. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 1 is maintained, and new rejections of claims 2-4 are described below.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Mirza is unable to achieve the outcome of the newly amended claim 1 limitations, including the production of an animation to assist the healthcare practitioner in understanding the limb and joint dynamics at the time of an injury. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mirza explicitly recites in paragraph [0030] that “the brace feedback system 120 (a computing device) analyzes movements of the joint based on changes in a contour digital map describing the movement and performance of the joint (joint dynamics) …The brace feedback system 120 may analyze the measured data to represent the knee visually as an image (or an animation) … the datasets and patterns are collected sequentially and serially over time to provide analytics of the knee, which may be reviewed by a patient or medical provider.” Thus, Mirza is clearly able to achieve computation of computation of the relative position of a limb to a joint at a period of time in order to draw an animation to assist the healthcare practitioner in understanding the limb and joint dynamics at the time of an injury. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained and updated in view of the new amendments.
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 1-5, 9-11, and 13-14 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 1 recites the limitation “a spatial position of each of different limbs”. This limitation is considered unclear due to only a single target limb being claimed earlier in claim 1. Therefore it is unclear as to if the each of different limbs is in addition to, or a part of the target limb presented earlier in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “sensing a spatial position of an upper and a lower portion of the target limb positioned oppositely across the mammalian joint”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a target one of the limbs” in line 2. This limitation is unclear in view of claim 1 which recites “a target limb”. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the “a target one of the limbs” of claim 2 includes the target limb of claim 1, or if this is a new limb. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a target one of the limbs” in line 2. This limitation is unclear in view of claim 1 which recites “a target limb”. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the “a target one of the limbs” of claim 3 includes the target limb of claim 1, or if this is a new limb. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a target one of the limbs” in line 2. This limitation is unclear in view of claim 1 which recites “a target limb”. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the “a target one of the limbs” of claim 4 includes the target limb of claim 1, or if this is a new limb. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claims 5, 9-11, and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on a rejected claim and therefore, contain the same offending limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mirza et al. (US 2022/0008237 A1) (hereinafter Mirza) in view of Bond et al. (US 2024/0130882 A1) (hereinafter Bond).
In regards to claim 1, Mirza discloses A black box joint brace (plyowrap; see [0048]; see figure 2) comprising:
a flexible sleeve (200; see [0048]; see figure 2) defining a hollow channel with a circumference that is equal to or less than a circumference of a target limb encapsulating a mammalian joint (see [0045]);
a power source (240; see [0048]; see figure 2) fixed to the sleeve (200);
a set of positional sensors (230a and e; see [0048]; see figure 2) disposed opposite to one another on the sleeve (200) and adapted to sense a spatial position of each of different limbs positioned oppositely across the mammalian joint (See [0056] in reference to “the sensors 230 measure physiological properties of the body around the knee and the knee itself” thus measuring upper and lower portions of the target limb positioned oppositely across the joint; see [0053] in reference to sensors embedded elsewhere in 200 (i.e. 230a and e) being used to measure velocity, direction, location, or any other relevant characteristic of the movement of the knee); and,
memory (memory of 220 as suggested by [0022] which states “measurements and data may be stored locally on a controller embedded into the brace” thereby disclosing 220 comprises memory for storing data locally) powered by the power source (240; see [0055] in reference to 240 powering 220 and thereby powering the memory of 220) and storing data sets (datasets; see [0030]) of the spatial position sensed by the set of positional sensors (230a-e; see [0022] and [0030]) at different times and in association with different timestamps (see [0030] in reference to datasets and patterns are collected sequentially and serially over time to provide analytics of the knee; thereby disclosing data sets with different timestamps over the disclosed time); and
short range radio frequency communications circuitry (communication circuit; see [0048] in reference to WiFi® or Bluetooth® (shortwave radio frequencies) being utilized by the communication circuit) fixed to the flexible sleeve (200) and transmitting the data sets to a communicatively coupled computing device (120; see [0030]; see figure 1) which in turn uploads the data set to a cloud service (150; see [0026], and [0038]; see figure 1) which generates a visualization for each one of the timestamps showing a relative position of each portion of the limbs relative to the joint and then aggregates the visualizations into a video clip viewable by a health care practitioner and demonstrative of the movement of the limbs relative to the joint over a time span reflective of the timestamps of the visualizations (see [0030] in reference to the data sets (which were taken by data measured sequentially over time; i.e. timestamped), being used in an animation to provide analytics of the knee (and associated limbs) for review by the user and healthcare practitioner).
In regards to claim 2, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the spatial position is a position of a lower one of a target one of the limbs relative to the mammalian joint (See [0056] in reference to “the sensors 230 measure physiological properties of the body around the knee and the knee itself” and [0053] in reference to sensors embedded elsewhere in 200 (i.e. 230) being used to measure the movement of the knee; thus 230 e positioned on the lower leg measures the spatial position of the lower leg relative to the knee joint).
In regards to claim 3, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the spatial position is a position of an upper one of a target one of the limbs relative to the mammalian joint (See [0056] in reference to “the sensors 230 measure physiological properties of the body around the knee and the knee itself” and [0053] in reference to sensors embedded elsewhere in 200 (i.e. 230) being used to measure the movement of the knee; thus 230a positioned on the upper leg measures the spatial position of the upper leg relative to the knee joint).
In regards to claim 4, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the spatial position is a position of a lower one of the limbs relative to an upper one of a target one of the limbs (See [0056] in reference to “the sensors 230 measure physiological properties of the body around the knee and the knee itself” and [0053] in reference to sensors embedded elsewhere in 200 (i.e. 230) being used to measure the movement of the knee; thus 230a and e positioned on the lower leg and upper leg respectively measures the spatial position of the lower leg relative to the upper leg).
In regards to claim 5, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses further comprising a rotary motion sensor (210; see [0048]; see figure 2; see [0049] in reference to 210 being used to monitor rotation of the knee) powered by the power source (240; see [0055]) and adapted to measure position, velocity and acceleration (see [0049], [0050], and [0053]) and to write the measured position, velocity and acceleration to the memory (see [0022] in reference to measurements and data being stored on the controller; thus the measurements gathered by 210 are stored (or written) onto the memory of 220).
In regards to claim 9, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the mammalian joint is a knee joint (see [0042] in reference to the plyowrap being used on a knee joint; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 10, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the mammalian joint is an elbow joint (see [0042] in reference to the plyowrap being used on an elbow joint; see figure 4g).
In regards to claim 11, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the flexible sleeve (200) is a neoprene sleeve (see [0046]).
In regards to claim 13, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the coupled computing device (120) is a smart watch (see [0127] in reference to or any machine capable of executing instructions; smart watches are a machine capable of executing instructions; thus 120 is considered to encompass smart watches if so desired).
In regards to claim 14, Mirza discloses the invention as discussed above.
Mirza further discloses wherein the coupled computing device (120) is a mobile phone (see [0127] the machine may be a smart phone; thus 120 is considered to be mobile phones if so desired).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bond et al. (US 2024/0130882 A1) discloses a similar black box joint brace to that claimed in claims 1, 5-8, and 11-14.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786