DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 1/2/2026. Claims 6, 9-14, and 16-24 remain pending and under prosecution.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim should recite “a microprocessor within the main body” and “underside of the main body.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pivot pins of Claim 23 must be shown with reference numbers or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
No claim elements are interpreted under 112(f).
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
The new claim recites the pivot arms removably attached by pivot pins. However, the disclosure does not provide any mention of pivot pins and the drawings do not clearly illustrate said pivot pins. Therefore, the limitations are not properly supported and fail the written description requirement.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcdonald et al (WO 2018102874) in view of Carter et al (US Pat No. 6554781), Valero-Cueva et al (US Pub No. 20060293615), and evidenced by Berry et al (US Pub No. 20140142485).
In regard to Claim 6, Mcdonald et al disclose a monitoring device 22 for accessing a user physical position comprising:
a central body 24 forming an x-shape, best seen in Figure 5-6 – “four flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d extending outwardly from the central portion 24 so as to be arranged in a cross-configuration” (0075);
a plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms 25a-d with end portions 26a-d (0080), best seen in Figure 5-6 – “four flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d extending outwardly” (0075) – each having a respective sensor/electrode 291a-b and 230a-b, best seen in Figure 6b (0080), and
extend from the central body such that each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms pivots relative to the central body that maintains a fixed position, best seen in Figure 5-6 – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25 are each configured to be independently manipulable relative to the central portion 24” (0074),
the semi-flexible pivot arms each have the same length, best seen in Figure 5-6, and
are attached to the central body that can adapt a flat surface, best seen in Figure 5-6, of each respective pivot arm to a non-uniform surface for measuring the movements being applied at their surface – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25… facilitate placement of the monitoring device 22 on the body regardless of the curvature of the maternal abdomen and bend and flex in order to conform to any presenting deformation and movements of the body while being worn” (0074).
However, Mcdonald et al do not expressly disclose:
the plurality of sensors for measuring pressure for providing feedback to the user regarding pressure variations for each semi-flexible pivot arm for measuring the movements being applied at their surface,
the plurality of pivot arms attach to a respective recess area of the central body,
the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms move using a resilient member for providing a biasing force urging a respective one of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms toward the user's body,
wherein each resilient member is covered by its respective semi-flexible pivot arm,
at least one printed circuit board configured under the central body for use with a microprocessor within the central body and the plurality of sensors;
a removable lid covering an underside of the central body and the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms.
It is noted that Mcdonald et al disclose the device comprising flex sensors 104a-d – positioned on each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms 25a-d, best seen in Figure 6b – that are usable as position sensors – “the flex sensors are disposed within respective flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d of the monitoring device 22, for example. The flex sensors 104a, 104b, 104c 104d may be configured to detect bending or flexing of the arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d. Bending or flexing or other or related deformations such as stretching and contracting of the arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d may arise due to maternal movement, such as abdominal movement caused by baby movement” (0082-0083); “any sensors that can allow changes in shape and/or dimensions of portions of the apparatus structure, e.g. the monitoring device, to be detected, which change in shape and/or dimensions result in relative movement of the EMG electrodes supported by the structure, may be used as position sensors” (0084).
Mcdonald et al also disclose the device 22 comprises processor 402, best seen in Figure 8b (0099) and that the device is within a housing that has a seal to prevent fluid ingress (0019, 0074-0075).
Carter et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous device that monitors posture of the spine of the user (abst), which is similar to the flex sensors of Mcdonald et al to measure change in shape/dimension of the device when disposed on the body of the user.
Carter et al teach the device comprising:
a flexible operating arm 31 having a plurality of sensors 37, 40 for measuring pressure in the form of “differential strain is experienced on deflection of the operating arm (31)” (abst) for providing feedback to the user regarding pressure variations from posture of the user (abst) which measures the movements being applied at the surface of the sensors, best seen in Figure 13;
the flexible operating arm 31 attaches to a respective recess area of central flexible body 30 – flexible body 30 has a recess area which encapsulates flexible operating arm 31which contains sensors 37, 40, best seen in Figure 14 (Col.15: 30-32);
at least one printed circuit board (PCB) 45 configured under the top moulding 53 of central body 31 for use with a microprocessor 46 within the central body and the plurality of sensors, best seen in Figure 14 – “The wire tails 41 are terminated as a PCB assembly 45 mounted to the printed circuit support 35, which assembly comprises a PC board bearing an LSI processor 46” (Col.15: 50-59);
a removable lid 34 covering an underside of the central body and flexible central body 31 which includes the plurality of sensors 37, 40, best seen in Figure 14 – “A top moulding 53 is provided with means to snap on over the base moulding 34 to enclose the PC board assembly 45, wherefore it may be ultrasonically welded in place to environment-proof the apparatus” (Col.15: 64-66).
It is noted that it is well-known in the prior art that strain sensors are a form of pressure sensors, since a pressure sensor as known in the art is not limited by any particular technology and is rather related to output of pressure monitoring. For example, see Berry et al – “Pressure sensors are well known in the art and myriad different pressure sensing technologies may be employed, for example, strain gauge” (0052). Carter et al also teach use of a force sensor – “displacement is measured by using an elastic cantilever to translate front-to-back movement to a force proportional to the displacement, the force being measured by a force sensor. The configuration enables measurement of both forward movement (arching-or extension) and backwards movement (slumping or flexion) of the lumbar spine” (Col.7: 34-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al such that the plurality of sensors of Mcdonald et al measure pressure for providing feedback to the user regarding pressure variations to measure the movements being applied at the surface of the sensors as taught by Carter et al, such as due to the maternal movement as already disclosed by Mcdonald et al, as an equally as effective configuration for the flex sensors of Mcdonald et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al such that the plurality of pivot arms attach to a respective recess area of the central body as taught by Carter et al, as an equally as effective configuration for the plurality of pivot arms of Mcdonald et al to attach to the central body, since both Carter et al and Mcdonald et al teach similar function of the flexible arms and central body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al to include at least one printed circuit board configured under the central body for use with a microprocessor within the central body and the plurality of sensors, as taught by Carter et al as an effective configuration for the processor already taught by Mcdonald et al, and to include a removable lid covering an underside of the central body and the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms as taught by Carter et al (environment-proof the apparatus” Col.15: 64-66) to provide an equally as effective seal for the components, as already taught by Mcdonald et al (0075-0075).
Valero-Cueva et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous monitoring device comprising:
a central body – defined by joint 14 and arms 12 – "The device includes at least two finger pads 10 (3 or 4 preferred) for applying force through arms 12 to a common low friction pivot joint 14" (0040), best seen in Figure 1 and 17;
a plurality of sensors 20 for measuring pressure for providing feedback to the user
regarding pressure variations – "each of the finger pads 10 is instrumented with a corresponding one of a plurality of strain gauges or 3-D miniature force transducers 20 which measure axial forces directed along the connecting arms 12 to the pivot joint 14" (0042), best seen in Figure 1;
a plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms – defined by finger pads 10, best seen in Figure 1
(0040), each having a respective sensor, best seen in Figure 1, and extend from the central
body defined above, best seen in Figure 1, each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms pivots relative to the central body due to spring 168, best seen in Figure 16A-B,
the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms move using a resilient member – spring 168 (0054) – for providing a biasing force urging a respective one of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms toward the user's body, i.e. fingers when grasped;
wherein each resilient member is covered by its respective semi-flexible pivot arm 10, best seen in Figure 1 and 16A-B – the spring is located under pivot arm 10 and thus covered.
It is noted that Mcdonald et al already disclose the flexible pivot arms 25a-d can pivot relative to the central body 24 apparently due to the flexible material of the device as no other mechanism is shown for said pivot function – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25 are each configured to be independently manipulable relative to the central portion 24” (0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcdonald et al to have each semi-flexible pivot arm each move with a resilient member, wherein each resilient member is covered by its respective semi-flexible pivot arm, as taught by Valero-Cueva et al, to provide an equally as effective mechanism to allow pivoting and movement of the flexible pivot arms of Mcdonald et al as desired and already taught by Mcdonald et al during use.
9. Mcdonald et al disclose the device leverages the semi-flexibility of the plurality of pivot arms 25a-d to conform to the position of a person's back when placed as such, best seen in Figure 5-6 (0074).
10. Mcdonald et al in combination with Carter et al disclose the device delivers force readings – “Displacement is measured by using an elastic cantilever to translate front-to-back movement to a force proportional to the displacement, the force being measured by a force sensor. The configuration enables measurement of both forward movement (arching-or extension) and backwards movement (slumping or flexion) of the lumbar spine” (Col.7: 34-40 of Carter et al).
In regard to Claims 11-12, Mcdonald et al in combination with Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al disclose the invention above but do not expressly disclose a calibration cycle that operates using both a user's unique anatomy and strength for developing a calibrated baseline that is used to develop specific strength exercises and performance tracking through a customized app, wherein the app is used by a user and physical therapists to track progress.
Carter et al disclose the device operates using a calibration cycle that operates using both a user's unique anatomy and strength for developing a calibrated baseline – “an appropriate adjustment made to measurement calibration parameters and set points” (Col.8: 37-38; Col.11: 47-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcdonald et al as modified by Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al to include said calibration cycle that operates using both a user's unique anatomy and strength for developing a calibrated baseline as taught by Carter et al to effectively calibrate the device specifically for the user as well as thereafter be capable of being used by a user and physical therapists to track progress and develop specific strength exercises and performance tracking through a customized app as it would be capable of such.
In regard to Claim 13, Mcdonald et al disclose a core activation and detection device 22 comprising:
a main body 24 forming an x-shape, best seen in Figure 5-6 – “four flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d extending outwardly from the central portion 24 so as to be arranged in a cross-configuration” (0075);
a plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms 25a-d with end portions 26a-d (0080), best seen in Figure 5-6 – “four flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d extending outwardly” (0075) – each include at least one sensor/electrode 291a-b and 230a-b located at an end of the pivot arm, best seen in Figure 6b (0080),
connected to the main body, wherein the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms each pivots within a predetermined angular range relative to the central body, best seen in Figure 5-6 – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25 are each configured to be independently manipulable relative to the central portion 24” (0074),
the semi-flexible pivot arms each have the same length, best seen in Figure 5-6, and
such that each pivot arm has a flat side, best seen in Figure 5-6, that is capable of contacting the contour of a user's rear torso in various settings and positions – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25… facilitate placement of the monitoring device 22 on the body regardless of the curvature of the maternal abdomen and bend and flex in order to conform to any presenting deformation and movements of the body while being worn” (0074).
However, Mcdonald et al do not expressly disclose:
1) the at least one sensor of each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms for measuring pressure forces,
2) the plurality of pivot arms extending from a respective recess area formed in the main body,
3) the plurality of pivot arms each flex using a resilient member positioned in the recess for providing a biasing force urging a respective one of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms toward the user's body,
4) at least one printed circuit board configured under the central body for use with a microprocessor within the central body and the plurality of sensors;
5) a removable lid covering an underside of the central body and the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms.
It is noted that Mcdonald et al disclose the device comprising flex sensors 104a-d – positioned on each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms 25a-d, best seen in Figure 6b – that are usable as position sensors – “the flex sensors are disposed within respective flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d of the monitoring device 22, for example. The flex sensors 104a, 104b, 104c 104d may be configured to detect bending or flexing of the arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d. Bending or flexing or other or related deformations such as stretching and contracting of the arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d may arise due to maternal movement, such as abdominal movement caused by baby movement” (0082-0083); “any sensors that can allow changes in shape and/or dimensions of portions of the apparatus structure, e.g. the monitoring device, to be detected, which change in shape and/or dimensions result in relative movement of the EMG electrodes supported by the structure, may be used as position sensors” (0084).
Mcdonald et al also disclose the device 22 comprises processor 402, best seen in Figure 8b (0099) and that the device is within a housing that has a seal to prevent fluid ingress (0019, 0074-0075).
Carter et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous device that monitors posture of the spine of the user (abst), which is similar to the flex sensors of Mcdonald et al to measure change in shape/dimension of the device when disposed on the body of the user.
Carter et al teach the device comprising:
1) a flexible operating arm 31 having a plurality of sensors 37, 40 for measuring pressure forces in the form of “differential strain is experienced on deflection of the operating arm (31)” (abst), best seen in Figure 13;
2) the flexible operating arm 31 extending from a respective recess area formed in main body 30 – flexible body 30 has a recess area which encapsulates flexible operating arm 31which contains sensors 37, 40, best seen in Figure 14 (Col.15: 30-32);
4) at least one printed circuit board (PCB) 45 configured under the top moulding 53 of central body 31 for use with a microprocessor 46 within the central body and the plurality of sensors, best seen in Figure 14 – “The wire tails 41 are terminated as a PCB assembly 45 mounted to the printed circuit support 35, which assembly comprises a PC board bearing an LSI processor 46” (Col.15: 50-59);
5) a removable lid 34 covering an underside of the central body and flexible central body 31 which includes the plurality of sensors 37, 40, best seen in Figure 14 – “A top moulding 53 is provided with means to snap on over the base moulding 34 to enclose the PC board assembly 45, wherefore it may be ultrasonically welded in place to environment-proof the apparatus” (Col.15: 64-66).
It is noted that it is well-known in the prior art that strain sensors are a form of pressure sensors, since a pressure sensor as known in the art is not limited by any particular technology and is rather related to output of pressure monitoring. For example, see Berry et al – “Pressure sensors are well known in the art and myriad different pressure sensing technologies may be employed, for example, strain gauge” (0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al such that the plurality of sensors of Mcdonald et al measure pressure forces as taught by Carter et al, such as due to the maternal movement as already disclosed by Mcdonald et al, as an equally as effective configuration for the flex sensors of Mcdonald et al. Carter et al also teach use of a force sensor – “displacement is measured by using an elastic cantilever to translate front-to-back movement to a force proportional to the displacement, the force being measured by a force sensor. The configuration enables measurement of both forward movement (arching-or extension) and backwards movement (slumping or flexion) of the lumbar spine” (Col.7: 34-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al such that each of the plurality of pivot arms are extending from a respective recess area formed in the main body as taught by Carter et al, as an equally as effective configuration for the plurality of pivot arms of Mcdonald et al to attach to the main body, since both Carter et al and Mcdonald et al teach similar function of the flexible arms and main body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al to include at least one printed circuit board configured under the central body for use with a microprocessor within the central body and the plurality of sensors, as taught by Carter et al as an effective configuration for the processor already taught by Mcdonald et al, and to include a removable lid covering an underside of the central body and the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms as taught by Carter et al (environment-proof the apparatus” Col.15: 64-66) to provide an equally as effective seal for the components, as already taught by Mcdonald et al (0075-0075).
Valero-Cueva et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous device comprising:
a main body – defined by joint 14 and arms 12 – "The device includes at least two finger pads 10 (3 or 4 preferred) for applying force through arms 12 to a common low friction pivot joint 14" (0040), best seen in Figure 1 and 17;
a plurality of sensors 20 for measuring pressure forces – "each of the finger pads 10 is instrumented with a corresponding one of a plurality of strain gauges or 3-D miniature force transducers 20 which measure axial forces directed along the connecting arms 12 to the pivot joint 14" (0042), best seen in Figure 1;
a plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms – defined by finger pads 10, best seen in Figure 1
(0040), each having a respective sensor, best seen in Figure 1, and extending from the main
body defined above, best seen in Figure 1, each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms pivots relative to the main body due to spring 168, best seen in Figure 16A-B,
3) the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms flex using a resilient member – spring 168 (0054) – for providing a biasing force urging a respective one of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms toward the user's body, i.e. fingers when grasped.
It is noted that Mcdonald et al already disclose the flexible pivot arms 25a-d can pivot relative to the main body 24 apparently due to the flexible material of the device as no other mechanism is shown for said pivot function – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25 are each configured to be independently manipulable relative to the central portion 24” (0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcdonald et al to have each semi-flexible pivot arm each flex using a resilient member, as taught by Valero-Cueva et al, to provide an equally as effective mechanism to allow pivoting and movement of the flexible pivot arms of Mcdonald et al as desired and already taught by Mcdonald et al during use.
14. Mcdonald et al disclose the device is manufactured of materials or geometry providing flexibility for user comfort and adaptability while remaining rigid for sensor readings, best seen in Figure 5-6 (0074).
16. Mcdonald et al in combination with Carter et al disclose the at least one sensor are four sensors because in Figure 5-6 Mcdonald et al disclose four pivot arms each with sensor/electrode 291a-b and 230a-b/flex sensor 104a-d, which would each have a pressure /force sensor when combined with Carter et al in the manner above, the four sensors are capable and thus configured on either side of a spine in distinct locations for offering measurement of forces during a core activation exercise that is used for lower back pain physical therapy, i.e. user can perform said core activation exercise with the device (abst).
17. Mcdonald et al disclose the plurality of pivot arms 25a-d move with user’s body (0074).
In regard to Claim 18, Mcdonald et al in combination with Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al disclose the invention above but do not expressly disclose the device operates using a calibration sequence during device start-up for adapting sensor readings specifically for the user.
Carter et al disclose the device operates using a calibration sequence during device start-up for adapting sensor readings specifically for the user – “an appropriate adjustment made to measurement calibration parameters and set points” (Col.8: 37-38; Col.11: 47-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonald et al as modified by Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al such that the device operates using a calibration sequence during device start-up for adapting sensor readings specifically for the user as taught by Silence et al for user adaptability.
Claim 20. Mcdonald et al as modified by Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al disclose
the calibration sequence is capable of being used as a baseline for progress tracking and exercises used with the device.
In regard to Claim 21, Mcdonald et al disclose a muscle activation and movement detection, monitoring, tracking and alert device comprising:
a central body forming an x-shape, best seen in Figure 5-6 – “four flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d extending outwardly from the central portion 24 so as to be arranged in a cross-configuration” (0075);
a plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms 25a-d with end portions 26a-d (0080), best seen in Figure 5-6 – “four flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d extending outwardly” (0075) – each having a respective sensor/electrode 291a-b and 230a-b, best seen in Figure 6b (0080), and
extending therefrom the central body, wherein the central body is in a fixed position best seen in Figure 5-6, and
each arm individually pivots relative to the central body to conform to a user's body shape – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25 are each configured to be independently manipulable relative to the central portion 24… facilitate placement of the monitoring device 22 on the body regardless of the curvature of the maternal abdomen and bend and flex in order to conform to any presenting deformation and movements of the body while being worn” (0074); and
wherein each pivot arm includes a flat side, best seen in Figure 5-6, and
at least one of the plurality of sensors is positioned under each pivot arm substantially at a second end of the pivot arm when the flat side of the pivot arm is in contact with a back torso of the user, best seen in Figure 5-6 (0080).
However, Mcdonald et al do not expressly disclose:
the plurality of sensors for measuring pressure under each of the plurality of pivot arms to provide feedback to the user regarding pressure variations when the flat side of the pivot arm is in contact with a back torso of the user;
each arm attaching within a slot in the central body;
at least one resilient member attached to the central body at a first end thereof, wherein each resilient member provides a biasing force urging a respective one of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms toward the user's body;
at least one printed circuit board configured under the central body for use with a microprocessor within the central body and the plurality of sensors;
a removable lid covering an underside of the central body and the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms.
It is noted that Mcdonald et al disclose the device comprising flex sensors 104a-d – positioned on each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms 25a-d, best seen in Figure 6b – that are usable as position sensors – “the flex sensors are disposed within respective flexible arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d of the monitoring device 22, for example. The flex sensors 104a, 104b, 104c 104d may be configured to detect bending or flexing of the arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d. Bending or flexing or other or related deformations such as stretching and contracting of the arm portions 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d may arise due to maternal movement, such as abdominal movement caused by baby movement” (0082-0083); “any sensors that can allow changes in shape and/or dimensions of portions of the apparatus structure, e.g. the monitoring device, to be detected, which change in shape and/or dimensions result in relative movement of the EMG electrodes supported by the structure, may be used as position sensors” (0084).
Mcdonald et al also disclose the device 22 comprises processor 402, best seen in Figure 8b (0099) and that the device is within a housing that has a seal to prevent fluid ingress (0019, 0074-0075).
Carter et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous device that monitors posture of the spine of the user (abst), which is similar to the flex sensors of Mcdonald et al to measure change in shape/dimension of the device when disposed on the body of the user.
Carter et al teach the device comprising:
1) a flexible operating arm 31 having a plurality of sensors 37, 40 for measuring pressure under the arm in the form of “differential strain is experienced on deflection of the operating arm (31)” (abst) for providing feedback to the user regarding pressure variations from posture of the user (abst) when the flat side of the arm is contact with a back torso of the user, best seen in Figure 13;
2) the flexible operating arm 31 attaching within a slot of central flexible body 30 – flexible body 30 has a slot which encapsulates flexible operating arm 31 which contains sensors 37, 40, best seen in Figure 14 (Col.15: 30-32);
4) at least one printed circuit board (PCB) 45 configured under the top moulding 53 of central body 31 for use with a microprocessor 46 within the central body and the plurality of sensors, best seen in Figure 14 – “The wire tails 41 are terminated as a PCB assembly 45 mounted to the printed circuit support 35, which assembly comprises a PC board bearing an LSI processor 46” (Col.15: 50-59);
5) a removable lid 34 covering an underside of the central body and flexible central body 31 which includes the plurality of sensors 37, 40, best seen in Figure 14 – “A top moulding 53 is provided with means to snap on over the base moulding 34 to enclose the PC board assembly 45, wherefore it may be ultrasonically welded in place to environment-proof the apparatus” (Col.15: 64-66).
It is noted that it is well-known in the prior art that strain sensors are a form of pressure sensors, since a pressure sensor as known in the art is not limited by any particular technology and is rather related to output of pressure monitoring. For example, see Berry et al – “Pressure sensors are well known in the art and myriad different pressure sensing technologies may be employed, for example, strain gauge” (0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al such that the plurality of sensors of Mcdonald et al measure pressure under the pivot arms to feedback to the user regarding pressure variations when the flat side of the pivot arm is in contact with a torso of the user as taught by Carter et al, such as due to the maternal movement as already disclosed by Mcdonald et al, as an equally as effective configuration for the flex sensors of Mcdonald et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al such that the plurality of pivot arms attach within a slot of the central body as taught by Carter et al, as an equally as effective configuration for the plurality of pivot arms of Mcdonald et al to attach to the central body, since both Carter et al and Mcdonald et al teach similar function of the flexible arms and central body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify Mcdonald et al to include at least one printed circuit board configured under the central body for use with a microprocessor within the central body and the plurality of sensors, as taught by Carter et al as an effective configuration for the processor already taught by Mcdonald et al, and to include a removable lid covering an underside of the central body and the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms as taught by Carter et al (environment-proof the apparatus” Col.15: 64-66) to provide an equally as effective seal for the components, as already taught by Mcdonald et al (0075-0075).
Valero-Cueva et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous
a central body – defined by joint 14 and arms 12 – "The device includes at least two finger pads 10 (3 or 4 preferred) for applying force through arms 12 to a common low friction pivot joint 14" (0040), best seen in Figure 1 and 17;
a plurality of sensors 20 for measuring pressure for providing feedback to the user
regarding pressure variations – "each of the finger pads 10 is instrumented with a corresponding one of a plurality of strain gauges or 3-D miniature force transducers 20 which measure axial forces directed along the connecting arms 12 to the pivot joint 14" (0042), best seen in Figure 1;
a plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms – defined by finger pads 10, best seen in Figure 1
(0040), each having a respective sensor, best seen in Figure 1, and extend from the central body defined above, best seen in Figure 1, each of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms pivots relative to the central body due to spring 168, best seen in Figure 16A-B,
the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms move using a resilient member attached at a first end thereof – spring 168 (0054) – for providing a biasing force urging a respective one of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms toward the user's body, i.e. fingers when grasped.
It is noted that Mcdonald et al already disclose the flexible pivot arms 25a-d can pivot relative to the central body 24 apparently due to the flexible material of the device as no other mechanism is shown for said pivot function – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25 are each configured to be independently manipulable relative to the central portion 24” (0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcdonald et al to have each semi-flexible pivot arm conform to a user’s body shape using at least one resilient member attached to the central body at a first end thereof, wherein each resilient member provides a biasing force urging a respective one of the plurality of semi-flexible pivot arms toward the user's body, as taught by Valero-Cueva et al, to provide an equally as effective mechanism to allow pivoting and movement of the flexible pivot arms of Mcdonald et al as desired and already taught by Mcdonald et al during use.
22. Mcdonald et al in combination with Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al disclose the device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of sensors of Mcdonald et al as modified by Carter et al are configured to detect differential pressure across the torso for muscle activation mapping and as evidenced by Berry et al.
23. Mcdonald et al in combination with Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al disclose the device of claim 21 but do not expressly disclose the pivot arms are removably attached via pivot pins for modular configuration.
Valero-Cueva et al disclose the analogous device comprising semi-flexible pivot arms 10 that are removably attached to pivot joint 14 via pivot pins or bolts, which are understood in the art as equivalent fasteners – “the pivot joint 14 is implemented using a hinge assembly including a pivot pin 32 and a plurality of rotatable hinge arms 34 mounted thereon. Each of the finger pad arms 12 is attached to a corresponding one of the hinge arms 34 by means of bolts or other suitable fasteners 36” (0043), best seen in Figure 4A-B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcdonald et al as modified by Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al such that the pivot arms are removably attached via pivot pins as taught by Valero-Cueva et al to effectively enable modular configuration of the pivot arms. Also see 112 rejection and Drawing Objections above.
24. Mcdonald et al disclose the device of claim 21, wherein each pivot arm 25a-d pivots within a predetermined angular range relative to the central body, best seen in Figure 5-6 – “The one or more flexible arm portions 25 are each configured to be independently manipulable relative to the central portion 24” (0074).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcdonald et al in view of Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al and evidenced by Berry et al as applied to Claim 13 above, further in view of Tam et al (US Pub No. 20160220175).
Mcdonald et al in combination with Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al disclose the invention above but do not disclose a calibration sequence measures an initial position, an activated position, and sometimes side-to-side movements to record and document specific movement and force measurements for that user’s profile.
Tam et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous body movement tracker and monitor comprising sensors 42, 43 that use a calibration sequence measures an initial position, an activated position (0047 – “the sensors 42, 43 may be calibrated by having the software guide the patient through several pre-set exercises. For example, the patient may be asked to walk up stairs then down and then sit in a chair and straighten the knee as much as possible then bend as much as possible), and sometimes to-side movements (can occur during walking up the stairs and sitting down – 0047) to record and document specific movement and force measurements for that user’s profile (0047, 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcdonald et al as modified by Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al such that the calibration sequence already taught by Carter et al above measures an activated position and sometimes side-to-side movements to record and document specific movement and force measurements for that user’s profile as taught by Tam et al to effectively calibrate the sensors of Mcdonald et al as modified by Carter et al and Valero-Cueva et al to the specific user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Also see Drawing Objection and 112 rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Huong NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8340. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/H.Q.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791