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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because not any of the reference numbers found in the drawings are found in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
No reference numbers disclosed in the drawings are described in the specification.
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.
Claim 1 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 discloses “a cuff” in line 2 and is unclear if the applicant is attempting to positively recite this limitation.
Based on the rejection, claims 2 – 20 are rejected based on their dependence in claim 1
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8, 12, 15, 17 – 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A physical interface device 10 for providing a physical interface between a user and rigid components of a machine (Note: the examiner considers this to be the exoskeleton or robot part of the device except the 12 & 18), e.g. a cuff (Figure 1), the physical interface device 10 comprising:
a soft component 12 & 18 for providing a soft contact to the user (Paragraph 0022), and one or more sensors are integrated in the physical interface device 10 (Paragraph 0014 & 0044), wherein at least one of the sensors is configured for sensing a force inside the physical interface device 10 (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 2, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 1.
McBean discloses wherein the device 10 comprises an output or is configured to provide data to an output for indicating information regarding the application of the physical interface device to the user (Paragraph 0066), based on data of the one or more sensors integrated in the physical interface device 10 (Paragraph 0012, 0044 & 0066).
Regarding claim 3, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 1.
McBean discloses wherein one or more sensors are configured so as to provide the ability to measure biological signals directly on the human skin (Paragraph 0027)
Regarding claim 4, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 3.
McBean discloses wherein the one or more force pressure sensors are configured for measuring a pressure distribution on skin tissues. (Paragraph 0030)
Regarding claim 8, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 3.
McBean discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more sensors for capturing the intention of the user for performing a certain movement. (Paragraph 0051)
Regarding claim 10, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 1.
McBean discloses the physical interface device 10 comprising releasable connections for releasebly connecting the physical interface device 10 to components of the machine. (Paragraph 0022)
Regarding claim 12, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 1.
McBean discloses the physical interface device being adapted for performing data analytics, including providing data (Paragraph 0066), the data comprising one or more of EMG readings. (Paragraph 0009)
Regarding claim 15, McBean discloses the machine (Note: the examiner considers this to be the exoskeleton and wheelchair part of the device except the 12 & 18), comprising a physical interface device 10 according to claim 1. (Figure 5 & Paragraph 0045)
Regarding claim 17, McBean discloses the machine as claimed in claim 15.
McBean discloses the machine being a rehabilitation robot (Claim 1), a rehabilitation robot for upper-body extremities (Paragraph 0021)
Regarding claim 18, McBean discloses the machine as claimed in claim 15.
McBean discloses the machine being an exoskeleton. (Paragraph 0045)
Regarding claim 20, McBean discloses the machine as claimed in claim 15.
McBean discloses the machine being adapted for performing data analytics, including providing data (Paragraph 0066), the data comprising one or more of EMG readings. (Paragraph 0009)
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 3, in view of High-density 3-axis tactile sensing in a thin, soft, durable package engineered with minimal wiring. Xela Robotics. [online], [Retrieved on June 06, 2026] Retrieved from the Internet < URL: https://xelarobotics.com/technology/> & Tactile Sensing: Definition, Examples & Sensors. Tacterion [online] [Retrieved June 06, 2026]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://www.tacterion.com/wiki/tactile-sensing>.
Regarding claim 5, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 3.
McBean does not disclose wherein the one or more sensors are configured for 3 dimensional tactile force sensing.
Tacterion discloses tactile sensors that is able to conduct force sensing. (Page 3, Paragraph 5)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify McBean to include a tactile sensor as it enables the detection of an object’s measurements such as size, chape, weight, shear and response to change in force stimuli. It gathers in-depth data such as force-sensing. (Page 3, Paragraph 5)
Xela Robotics discloses the use of 3 axis sensing (Page 1, Paragraph 3 – 4)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify McBean to include a 3-axis sensing as it can measure shear forces (x, y) tangential to the surface and normal force (z) perpendicular to the surface. The shear forces are crucial as it can measure the weight of an object or detect the onset of slip. (Page 1, Paragraph 3 – 4)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Lu et al. (CN 109009880 A)
Regarding claim 6, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 3.
McBean discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more sensors inside the physical interface device. (Paragraph 0022)
McBean does not disclose obtaining a force in three directions.
Lu discloses a three-axis inertia sensor. (Page 2, Last Paragraph)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McBean to include sensors for obtaining a force in three directions as it would allow the sensor to collect the position the limb is moved on the healthy side, speed, acceleration and angle information. (Page 2, Last Paragraph)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in view of 3-axis forces sensors. Dexman [online] [Retrieved June 23, 2026]. Retrieved from the internet <URL: https://dexman.nl/en/product-categorie/krachtsensoren/3-assige-krachtsensoren/>.
Regarding claim 7, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 3.
McBean discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a plurality of force sensors for obtaining a force inside the physical interface device. (Paragraph 0030)
McBean does not disclose in three directions at a plurality of positions.
Dexman discloses a 3-axis force sensor. (Page 2, Paragraph 1 - 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McBean to detect in three directions at a plurality of positions as it can measure forces in multiple directions simultaneously. Also, they are able to record both tensile and compressive forces, they provide an accurate and reliable solution for complex measurement needs. Specifically, they can measure forces in the x, y and z directions which is crucial for situations where the forces are not uniform. (Page 2, Paragraph 2)
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Navarra et al. (WO 2010018283 A1) & Lu et al. (CN 109009880 A)
Regarding claim 9, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 1.
McBean discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more electromyography (EMG) sensors (Paragraph 0009),
McBean does not disclose at least one pressure sensor and at least one inertial measurement sensor.
Navarro discloses at least one pressure sensor. (Page 9, Paragraph 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McBean to include at least one pressure sensor that allows the knowledge of the force exerted by the muscle that is being measured. (Page 9, Paragraph 3)
Lu discloses at least one inertial measurement sensor. (Page 2, Last Paragraph)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McBean to include at least one inertial measurement sensor as it is capable of collecting healthy limb information more accurate and improve the control accuracy. (Page 2, Last Paragraph)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Zentgraf et al. (US 20200030177 A1)
Regarding claim 11, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 1.
McBean discloses the physical interface device comprising a processor. (Paragraph 0008)
McBean does not disclose being configured to communicate with a user interface, for giving feedback to the user.
Zentgraf discloses the physical interface device comprising or being configured to communicate with a user interface, for giving feedback to the user. (Paragraph 0085)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McBean wherein physical interface device comprising or being configured to communicate with a user interface, for giving feedback to the user as it would allow the sensors to send the data to the processor of McBean and transmit it to a computing device that is able to provide feedback to the user regarding their performance and use of the system. (Paragraph 0085 – 0086)
Claim(s) 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 12, in view of Taylor, J. B., Ford, K. R., Queen, R. M., Owen, E. C., & Gisselman, A. S. (2021). Incorporating Internal and External Training Load Measurements in Clinical Decision Making After ACL Reconstruction: A Clinical Commentary. International journal of sports physical therapy, 16(2), 565–578. [online] [Retrieved June 23, 2026]. Retrieved from the internet <URL: https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.21152>.
Regarding claim 13, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 12.
McBean does not disclose wherein the device is adapted for combining internal force in the physical interface device with external force on the physical interface device. (Note: the examiner considers this to be the measurements of both forces)
Taylor discloses the importance of measuring both internal and external forces. (Page 1, Paragraph 2)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify McBean to include combining internal force in the physical interface device with external force on the physical interface device as the measurements of both forces allow the indication of both positive and negative adaptations and allow the progression of exercise prescription. (Page 1, Paragraph 2)
Regarding claim 14, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 13.
Modified McBean discloses the combined internal force and external force. (as claimed in claim 13)
However, McBean does not disclose wherein the combined internal force and external force is used for determining the data comprising one or more of performance of patient.
However, Taylor discloses the importance of measuring both internal and external forces. (Page 1, Paragraph 2)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify McBean to wherein the combined internal force and external force is used for determining the data comprising one or more of performance of patient as Taylor discloses can indicate the performance of the patient by disclosing the improved physical progress or even the heightened risk of injury. (Page 1, Paragraph 2)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 15, in view of Han et al. (KR 20090030402 A)
Regarding claim 16, McBean discloses the physical interface device as claimed in claim 15.
McBean does not disclose the rehabilitation robot comprising one or more force sensors for sensing force which is applied externally to the physical interface device.
Han discloses outer force sensor 224. (Page 5, last paragraph – Page 6, Paragraph 1)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McBean to include and outer force sensor and it is able to measure the amount of operations that is done on the outside of the device. (Page 6, Paragraph 1)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20070191743 A1) as claimed in claim 15, in view of Zentgraf et al. (US 20200030177 A1).
Regarding claim 19, McBean discloses the machine as claimed in claim 15.
McBean discloses the machine comprising a processor. (Paragraph 0008)
McBean does not disclose being configured to communicate with a user interface, for giving feedback to the user.
Zentgraf discloses the physical interface device comprising or being configured to communicate with a user interface, for giving feedback to the user. (Paragraph 0085)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McBean wherein physical interface device comprising or being configured to communicate with a user interface, for giving feedback to the user as it would allow the sensors to send the data to the processor of McBean and transmit it to a computing device that is able to provide feedback to the user regarding their performance and use of the system. (Paragraph 0085 – 0086)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights