Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-6 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the abstract recites “The disclosure for” (line 1) which is information that can be implied, and should be deleted. Additionally, the Examiner suggests separating the abstract into more than two sentences to be in narrative form.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“mounting holes are reserved in the rotary platform (2) and the pedal adjusting device (6) respectively for mounting/detaching the detachable branched chain” (claim 1) does not appear to be illustrated.
“when performing pedal adjustment for the pedal adjusting device, the detachable branched chain is mounted to participate in adjustment … the shaft sleeve is fixedly connected with the rotary platform and the sliding rod is fixedly connected with the foot pedal” (Claim 5) does not appear to be illustrated. The attachment of the “detachable branched chain” is not shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, the last line recites “DOFs” and the Examiner suggests spelling out the abbreviation i.e., --degrees of freedom (DOF)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because it includes reference character(s) which are not enclosed within parentheses. See “rotary platform 2” in line 4.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 1, line 3 recites “a detachable branched chain” and it is unclear what part of the element is considered “branched” as the disclosure only appears to illustrate a slidable rod in a sleeve (Fig. 6), and it is unclear what the structural relationship is of the detachable branched chain to the rest of the apparatus.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “three drive branched chains” and it is unclear if this is referring to the previously recited “a detachable branched chain” (line 3). It is unclear if there are four branched chains, and whether they are each detachable. It is unclear if the “detachable branched chain” has the same topological structures as the “three drive branched chains.”
Claim 1, line 6 recites “slightly different” which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what amount of difference(s) would be considered “slightly” different.
Claim 1, the last line recites “mounting/detaching” and it is unclear if this limitation is requiring both mounting and detaching, or just one of mounting or detaching.
Claim 2, line 4 recites “a revolute pair” which is confusing because claim 1, line 4 already recites “a revolute pair.” It appears this is referring to a separate revolute pair and thus the Examiner suggests numbering these revolute pairs (i.e., “a first revolute pair”, “a second revolute pair”, etc.).
Claim 2, lines 4-5 recite “the other end of the drive rod” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 6 recites “a revolute pair” which is confusing because claim 1, line 4 already recites “a revolute pair” and claim 2, line 4 already recites “a revolute pair.” It appears this is referring to a separate revolute pair and thus the Examiner suggests numbering these revolute pairs (i.e., “a first revolute pair”, “a second revolute pair”, etc.).
Claim 2, line 6 recites “the other end of the arc-shaped connecting rod” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 9 recites “a revolute pair” which is confusing because claim 1, line 4 already recites “a revolute pair”, claim 2, line 4, and claim 2, line 6 already recite “a revolute pair.” It appears this is referring to a separate revolute pair and thus the Examiner suggests numbering these revolute pairs (i.e., “a first revolute pair”, “a second revolute pair”, etc.).
Claim 2, the last line recites “the two ends of the Hooke hinge” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, lines 2-3 recite “pedal adjusting device includes a sliding platform and three sliding rails with the same structures” and it is unclear which features have “the same structures.” Does the sliding platform have the same structures as the three sliding rails, or the three sliding rails have the same structures as each other?
Claim 3, lines 6-7 recite “the three sliding blocks with the same structures” which is confusing because the three sliding blocks have not been previously recited to have “the same structures.”
Claim 5, line 5 recites “the detachable adjusting branched chain” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, lines 5-6 recite “is in a detached state when rehabilitation training is carried out” which is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 5, lines 6-7 recite “when performing pedal adjustment for the pedal adjusting device, the detachable branched chain is mounted to participate in adjustment, and during mounting …” which is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 6, line 1 recites “the rehabilitation robot for ankle joint fractures” which lacks antecedent basis. Note, as currently constructed, claim 6 does not incorporate the rehabilitation robot of claim 1.
Claim 6, line 2 recites “the detachable branched chain” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “the foot of a patient” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “the foot pedal” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “the backing plate” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 4 recites “the ankle joint” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 4 recites “the rotary platform” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 5 recites “the sliding rails” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 5 recites “the pedal adjusting device” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 6 recites “the mechanism” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 9 recites “planning the robot to carry out dorsiflexion/plantarflexion rehabilitation” and it is unclear what is meant by “planning” in this context. Is this referring to a mental step taken by the operator?
Claim 6, line 9 recites “dorsiflexion/plantarflexion” and it is unclear whether this limitation is requiring both dorsiflexion and plantarflexion, or just one of dorsiflexion or plantarflexion.
Claim 6, lines 9-10 recite “an talocrural joint axis” which is confusing because line 6 already recites “a talocrural joint axis.” The Examiner suggests --the talocrural joint axis--.
Claim 6, line 15 recites “planning the robot to carry out inversion/eversion rehabilitation training” and it is unclear what is meant by “planning” in this context. Is this referring to a mental step taken by the operator?
Claim 6, line 15 recites “inversion/eversion” and it is unclear whether this limitation is requiring both inversion and eversion, or just one of inversion or eversion.
Due to the excessive amount of confusion regarding claim 6, no prior art has been applied. However, the Examiner reserves the right to apply prior art in a subsequent Office Action.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (CN 209154403) in view of Saglia et al. (2018/0110670) and Alexa (7,892,154).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses a four-degree-of-freedom parallel robot for postoperative rehabilitation of ankle joint fracture (Fig. 1, see title), includes a base (base 1, Fig. 1), a rotary platform (lower platform 3 is rotatable via servo motor 2, Fig. 1), a pedal adjusting device (movable platform 5, Fig. 2), a foot pedal (foot fixing device 7, Fig. 2); the base (1) and the rotary platform (3) are rotationally connected to form a revolute pair (rotary platform 3 is rotated via servo motor 2, to provide rotation relative to the base 1), and the rotary platform (4) is driven by a driver (servo motor 2, Fig. 1) fixed to the base (motor 2 is attached to base 1 as seen in Fig. 1); three drive branched chains (symmetrical actuating chains I, II, III, Figs. 1-2) with the same topological structures (common structures among I.1, I.2, I.3, I.4, I.5, II.1, II.2, II.3, II.4, II.5, III.1, III.2, III.3, III.4, III.5, see Figs. 1-2) and slightly different sizes (the size of each branched chain is adjustable via the push rods) are evenly distributed between the rotary platform (3) and the pedal adjusting device (5, see Figures 1-2); the pedal adjusting device (5) is fixedly connected with the foot pedal (6, Fig. 2).
Fan is silent regarding a detachable branched chain; the rotary platform connected to the base through bearings; and mounting holes are reserved in the rotary platform and the pedal adjusting device respectively for mounting/detaching the detachable branched chain.
With respect to the use of bearings, it is noted that it is well known to provide bearings to connect a rotational element. For example, Saglia teaches a related rehabilitation robot (Fig. 1) wherein a first output member (12) is supported by a stationary support structure (16) via bearings (22) for rotation about an axis (see the last sentence of [0028] and Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that bearings could similarly be provided between the rotary platform and the base of Fan to facilitate their rotatable connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary platform and base of Fan to be connected through bearings as generally taught by Saglia because this provides an expected result of facilitating rotational connection between the parts.
The modified Fan/Saglia device is still silent regarding mounting holes are reserved in the rotary platform and the pedal adjusting device respectively for mounting/detaching a detachable branched chain.
Alexa teaches a related ankle rehabilitation device (Fig. 1) having a detachable branched chain (base center support 13 with hydraulic cylinder 14, Fig. 2. The post bracket 18 is “removably attachable” see col. 8, lines 23-26), with mounting holes reserved in the platform (base support 12 has holes to receive threaded fasteners 33, 33 in bracket 18, Fig. 2) and in a pedal adjusting device (hydraulic cylinder ball joint 16, Fig. 3, has apertures that receive unlabeled screws as seen in Fig. 2. Screws are removable). The detachable branched chain (13, 14) provides adjustable supporting resistance to the foot plate (see col. 6, lines 64 through col. 7, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Fan/Saglia device to include mounting holes in the rotary platform and the pedal adjusting device respectively for mounting/detaching a detachable branched chain as taught by Alexa so the user can provide additional, adjustable resistance in the central portion of the footplate.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Fan/Saglia/Alexa device discloses wherein the detachable branched chain (13, 14, Alexa) includes a shaft sleeve (cylinder 13, Fig .3 of Alexa) and a sliding rod (upper shaft 14, Fig. 3 of Alexa), the shaft sleeve (13) and the sliding rod (14) form a moving pair (they form a vertically compressible hydraulic cylinder, see col. 7, lines 27-32 of Alexa), and a locking mechanism is arranged on the shaft sleeve (resistance adjustment mechanism 44, Fig. 3), which is capable of locking the moving pair (“providing repeatable incremental adjustment of said dampening effect of the respective outer hydraulic cylinder 40” see col. 7, lines 50-53. The highest resistance would substantially lock the components. Alternatively, it is noted that locking a slidable sleeve is known in the art and merely provides expected results of setting the length, such as the lockable sliding sleeve 10 of Hoyle et al. 4,337,939); the detachable adjusting branched chain is in a detached state when rehabilitation training is carried out (this is a recitation of intended use, and the modified apparatus is capable of performing this function because the cylinder 13, 14, is capable of being removed by undoing threaded fasteners 33, 33, and by unscrewing the connection at ball joint 16 as seen in Fig. 3 of Alexa. Alternatively, it is noted that it has been held obvious to make components separable “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to [the removable component]” MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)); when performing pedal adjustment for the pedal adjusting device, the detachable branched chain (13, 14) is mounted to participate in adjustment (this is a recitation of intended use, and in the modified apparatus, the detachable branched chain 13, 14, is ordinarily attached to allow an adjustable amount of resistance to be added), and during mounting, the shaft sleeve (13, Alexa) is fixedly connected with the rotary platform (rotary platform 3 of Fan), and the sliding rod (14, Alexa) is fixedly connected with the foot pedal (the sliding rod 14 of Alexa will be fixedly connected to the foot pedal 7 of Fan in the modified device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood, the closest prior art of record fails to teach, disclose, or fairly suggest the claimed invention recited in claim 2 and claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Agrawal et al. (2007/0049858) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Kim et al. (2020/00330822) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Hayden (6,277,057) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Troxel (4,605,220) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Li et al. (CN 105476819) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Dong et al. (CN 111345971) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Hoyle et al. (4,337,939) discloses a related ankle exercise device with a branched chain having a sliding rod and a shaft sleeve and a locking mechanism for selectively fixing the length. Li et al. (CN 105125380) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Zhang (CN 105105970) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom. Lu et al. (CN 113730879) discloses a related ankle rehabilitation device with a plurality of degrees of freedom.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights