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 because:
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 “second linear actuator positioned or attached to the device to manipulate or position a second joint” in Claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted though Applicant has discussed the possibility of multiple linear actuators as part of the linear actuator 28 (paragraph 0019), Applicant has not shown a second, distinct linear actuator for manipulating or positioning a second joint (ankle joint) in the drawings and merely describes the linear actuator 28 as a singular actuator in the drawings.
The reference character “60” corresponding to a band or wrap is not found in the drawings (paragraph 0031).
The reference character “34” is not pointing to the components not part of the leg assembly which should be the legs 36 (Fig 1; paragraph 0020).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character “28” should be changed to –26—to correctly label the second rod segment (paragraph 0018).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the position” should be changed to –a position—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 1, Line 7).
The phrase “a joint of a limb of a user” should be changed to –the joint of the limb of the user—for consistency (Claims 2-15 and Claims 17-19).
The phrase “a second joint” should be changed to –a second joint of the user—to make it clear that the joint is from the user (Claim 4, Line 4).
The phrase “a user” should be changed to –the user—for consistency (Claim 5, Line 2).
The phrase “one of the legs” should be changed to –one leg—since this is the first time the leg is mentioned (Claim 5, Line 4).
The phrase “movement of the device by” should be changed to –the movement of the device is by—for consistency and to correct the grammatical error (Claim 6, Line 2).
The phrase “the use position” should be changed to –a use position—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 8, Lines 2-3).
The phrase “a movement of the device by” should be changed to –the movement of the device is by—for consistency and to correct the grammatical error (Claim 13, Line 2).
The phrase “the device” should be changed to –a device—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 16, Line 2).
The phrase “a foot plate” should be changed to –a foot plate of the device—to make it clear that the foot plate is part of the device (Claim 16, Line 3).
The phrase “a foot plate” should be changed to –the foot plate—for consistency (Claim 16, Line 5).
The phrase “a movement” should be changed to –the movement—for consistency (Claim 17, Line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Linear actuator of Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, and 18. The corresponding structure is an electromechanical actuator, such as a motor, with the first and second rod segments that can perform linear movement and is found within the device (paragraphs 0019 and 0033).
Limb support mechanism in Claim 1. The corresponding structure is a foot mount or foot plate, a limb strap, or a limb support (paragraph 0004).
A footplate adjustor in Claims 2, 10, 16, and 19. The corresponding structure is the component 52 which is a sliding and locking component for adjusting the angle of the foot plate (Fig 4 and paragraph 0031).
Electromechanical means in Claims 6, 13, and 17. The corresponding structure is a electromechanical actuator such as a motor that is found within the device (paragraphs 0019 and 0033). It is noted that the electromechanical means is being interpreted as being part of the linear actuator as the electromechanical actuator, such as a motor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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 states “at least two segments”, “one or more first rod segments”, “one or more second rod segments”, and “the first rod segments of the linear actuator” (Lines 2, 3, 6, and 9-10). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear how many segments are there. It appears the applicant was trying to say the linear actuator has at least two segments, the two segments being one or more first rod segments and one or more second rod segments. However, confusion arises since the claim does not associate the at least segments with the first rod and second rod segments directly. It is possible that the segments of the linear actuator can be interpreted as completely distinct segments. Therefore, the number of segments involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the two segments of the linear actuator are the first rod and second rod segments and at least two segments in total are positively claimed.
Claim 1 states “the first rod segments is movable relative to a support surface, including a floor” (Lines 4-5). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the support surface, the floor, is positively claimed. It appears the applicant was trying to say the first rod segments are configured to be movable relative to a support surface and that the support surface is not positively claimed. However, the claim creates confusion as it is unclear if the support surface is required with the device. Therefore, the support surface being positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the support surface is not positively claimed and that the first rod segments are merely configured to move relative to the support surface. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 7 (“frame assembly is positioned at an incline from the support surface” (Lines 3-4).
Claim 1 states “one or more second rod segments” and “is secured to a stabilized object, such as a chair” (Lines 6-7). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the stabilized object is positively claimed. It appears the applicant was trying to say the second rod segments are configured to be secured to a stabilized object. However, the claim creates confusion as it is unclear if the stabilized object, such as a chair, is required with the device. Therefore, the stabilized object being positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the second rod segments are merely configured to be secured to the stabilized object and the stabilized object is not positively claimed.
Claim 1 states “such as a chair” (Line 7). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the chair is positively claimed and is exemplary claim language. It appears the applicant was trying to say the chair is not positively claimed. However, the use of “such as” may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim and it is unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Therefore, whether or not the chair is positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the chair is not positively claimed and is merely an example.
Claim 2 states “a foot plate” (Line 4). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the foot plate is the same as the limb support mechanism of Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same based on the limb support mechanism’s 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above. However, it is possible that the foot plate is distinct from the limb support mechanism. Therefore, the number of foot plates or limb support mechanisms cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 3 (“foot mount”, Line 2), Claim 5 (“limb support mechanism is a foot plate”, Line 2), and Claim 14 (Line 3).
Claim 5 states “a knee joint” (Lines 4-5). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the knee joint is the same as the second joint in Claim 4 or the joint in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say it’s the same as the joint in Claim 1. However, it is possible that the knee joint can be the second joint or an entirely new joint. Therefore, the number of joints involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the knee joint is the same joint in Claim 1.
Claim 6 states “an electromechanical means” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the electromechanical means is part of the linear actuator. It appears the applicant was trying to say the electromechanical means is a separate component. However, as established by the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above, the linear actuator is described to be electromechanical in nature (paragraph 0019). It is unclear if the linear actuator comprises the electromechanical means or the electromechanical means is its own distinct component separate from the linear actuator. Therefore, the identity of the electromechanical means cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the electromechanical means is part of the linear actuator. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 13 (Line 2).
Claim 7 states “a frame assembly including one or more linear actuators” (Line 3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same linear actuators as the ones mentioned in Claim 1 and it is unclear if the frame assembly is the same as the two segments or the first and second rod segments mentioned earlier. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re all the same. However, it is possible that there are multiple distinct linear actuators involved. It is also possible that the frame assembly is a completely distinct frame assembly from the rods and segments involved. The frame assembly 20 is described as having two extension rods 22 in which these extension rods 22 have the first rod segments 24 and the second rod segments 26 (paragraph 0033). Because of this, it is unclear if the frame assembly includes these rod segments or if the frame assembly is just the overall frame of the device itself without the motorized parts. Therefore, the number of linear actuators and assemblies cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re all the same in which there is at least one linear actuator positively claimed and that the frame assembly includes the first and/or the second rod segments without the motorized components. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 12 (Line 3).
Claim 9 states “a rod cylinder” (Lines 3-4 [two instances]). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the two rod cylinders are the same as each other or are different or if the rod cylinders are the same as the two segments mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say that there are three rods, the first rod segment 24, the extension rod 22, and the second rod segment 26 in which the rod cylinder is the extension rod 22. However, use of rods and segments through the claim and previous claims creates confusion regarding the number of rods or segments involved in the claim. Therefore, the number of rods and segments involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as there are at least two rods or segments positively claimed and the first rod segments are an outer housing of a rod cylinder and the second rod segments are an inner housing of the rod cylinder, the rod cylinder being the overall rod that contains both the first and second rod segments. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 11 (Lines 3-4).
Claim 16 states “other supporting surface” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear what the “other supporting surface” is. It appears the applicant was trying to say the device can be placed on a supporting surface other than a floor. However, the use of “other” creates confusion regarding what type of supporting surface would meet the claim limitation. There are no “other” supporting surfaces listed in the claim itself. Therefore, the identity of the “other” supporting surface cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as if the surface can have the device placed on it and support the device, then it meets the claim limitation of being a supporting surface.
Claim 18 states “one or more linear actuators” (Line 3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the electromechanical means of Claim 17 is part of the linear actuators mentioned in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say the electromechanical means is a separate component. However, as established by the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above, the linear actuator is described to be electromechanical in nature (paragraph 0019). It is unclear if the linear actuator comprises the electromechanical means or the electromechanical means is its own distinct component separate from the linear actuator. Therefore, whether or not the linear actuators have the electromechanical means cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the electromechanical means is part of the linear actuator.
Claim 19 states “a foot plate” and “a footplate adjustor” (Lines 3-4). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the foot plate and footplate adjustor are the same as the ones mentioned in Claim 16. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible there are multiple foot plates and footplate adjustors involved. Therefore, the number of foot plates and footplate adjustors cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same.
Claim 19 states “using a foot plate” and “using a footplate adjustor, wherein the footplate adjustor adjusts an angle of the foot plate” (Lines 3-4). This statement is indefinite because the claim attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved. It appears the applicant was trying to say that the device further comprises the foot plate and the footplate adjustor. However, the phrase “using” is indefinite since it does not provide any active, positive steps that delimit how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q). In this case, the phrase “using” does not add or provide anything else besides the mere presence of the foot plate and footplate adjustor. Additionally, the limitation of “footplate adjustor adjusts an angle of the foot plate” can merely be interpreted as the footplate adjustor’s capability, not a positive, active step involved in which this adjustment of the angle is positively performed. Therefore, the positive, active steps involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the foot plate and the footplate adjustor are merely present along with the device and the footplate adjustor is merely capable of adjusting the angle of the foot plate.
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claims 1 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 states “one or more first rod segments is positioned relative to the user” (Line 3). This statement encompasses a human organism since the rod segments are required to be positioned relative to the user. It appears the applicant was trying to say the first rod segments are configured to be positioned relative to the user. Without the user, there is no reference point for the first rod segments to be positioned at. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the one or more first rod segments is configured to be positioned relative to the user. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 1 (“one or more second rod segments is located relative to the user” and “the joint of the user is manipulated”, Lines 6 and 11 [Examination interpretation: “one or more second rod segments are configured to be located relative to the user” and “the joint of the user is configured to be manipulated”]), Claim 5 (“wherein the limb of the user being manipulated is one of the legs including a knee joint”, Lines 4-5 [Examination interpretation: “wherein the limb of the user that is configured to be manipulated is one of the legs including a knee joint”]), and Claim 15 (“the user controls the linear actuators”, Line 2 [Examination interpretation: “the linear actuators are configured to be controlled by the user”]).
Claims 2-15 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (US 2022/0346714 A1) in view of Branch et al. (US 2003/0120186 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Samec discloses a device (apparatus of Figs 1-4) for manipulating a joint of a limb of a user (a medical device for assessing and/or rehabilitating a human joint, Abstract; objective of the present disclosure to rehabilitate and/or assess a knee or elbow through range of motion exercises, paragraph 0026), comprising: a linear actuator (118 and 120, Figs 1-4; 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032; the linear actuator would be the combination of 118 and 120 and an electric motor) composed of at least two segments (120 and 118 are each their own segments, Figs 1-4); one or more first rod segments (118, Figs 1-4) is positioned relative to the user (the user can couple the first straps and/or buckles 102 and the first support 104 to the thigh, and the second straps and/or buckles 110 and the second support 104 to the calves, with the joint 106 centered on the knee, paragraph 0030; 118 would be positioned relative or next to the user’s legs since the user’s legs are held by the buckles 102 and 110, Figs 1-4), supported by a wheel assembly (116, Figs 1-4) having one or more wheels (116 shown to have two wheels on both sides, Figs 1-4; at least one wheel is configured to rotate on an axle and roll along a surface while bearing weight of the extremity used with the claimed device, paragraph 0031), such that the first rod segments is movable relative to a support surface, including a floor (at least one wheel is configured to rotate on an axle and roll along a surface while bearing weight of the extremity used with the claimed device, paragraph 0031; linear actuator 118 has a shaft 120 that moves into and out of the main body of the linear actuator 118, whereby moving first and second structural supports, and thereby changing the angle between the first and second structural supports, paragraph 0032; the movement of 120 in and out of 118 would allow 118 to be movable across the ground via 116, Figs 1-4); one or more second rod segments (120, Figs 1-4) is located relative to the user (the user can couple the first straps and/or buckles 102 and the first support 104 to the thigh, and the second straps and/or buckles 110 and the second support 104 to the calves, with the joint 106 centered on the knee, paragraph 0030; 120 would be positioned relative or next to the user’s legs since the user’s legs are held by the buckles 102 and 110, Figs 1-4); and a limb support mechanism (114 and/or 110, Figs 1-4) is attached to the first rod segments (114 and 110 are attached to 118 via 108 and 112, Figs 1-4) such that when the first rod segments of the linear actuator moves, the limb support mechanism moves in a substantially parallel path as the linear actuator (linear actuator 118 has a shaft 120 that moves into and out of the main body of the linear actuator 118, whereby moving first and second structural supports, and thereby changing the angle between the first and second structural supports, paragraph 0032; at least one wheel is configured to rotate on an axle and roll along a surface while bearing weight of the extremity used with the claimed device, paragraph 0031; 118, 110, and 114 would move in a substantially parallel path across the ground or floor due to the device extending and retracting 120 and 118 and moving with the wheels 116, Figs 1-4; see Annotated Fig 1 below), and the joint of the user is manipulated (user sits on the ground and extends the leg, which creates a rotational articulation at the joint 106 that extends the lower leg, paragraph 0030; force applied to the claimed device by the linear actuator enables force-loaded extension and retraction of the first and second supports, paragraph 0034). Samec also discloses the user sits on the ground and extends the leg (paragraph 0030) and meeting knee extension goals for chairs (paragraph 0051).
It is noted that Applicant has not further claimed details regarding what the “substantially parallel path” is in relation to.
Samec fails to disclose the one or more second rod segments is secured to a stabilized object, such as a chair, such that the position of the second rod segments are secure.
However, Branch, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an orthotic apparatus for improving range of motion (Abstract) including the one or more second rod segments is secured to a stabilized object, such as a chair, such that the position of the second rod segments are secure (head 22 includes a pair of slotted plates 22P, each providing a slot, with each slot configured to accept a cross member (or bar) 8 of a conventional folding chair, can be holes 25 (see FIG. 3) in cross member 8 the head member of the apparatus 10 which allow for plastic or other suitable tie wraps (not shown) to be placed in such a manner as to lock the cross member 8 of chair 5 to the apparatus, paragraph 0094) to allow for a significant amount of opposing forces to be applied to the back of the chair and foot support pad of the apparatus (paragraph 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a head that has slots and/or holes that allow the first support 104 of Samec to be attached to a chair, as taught by Branch, to allow for a significant amount of opposing forces to be applied to the back of the chair and foot support pad of the apparatus (Branch: paragraph 0094). The use of a chair or a stabilized object allows the user to perform the knee exercise while having the chair and foot plate absorb the opposing forces produced from the linear actuator. This ensures the exercise is performed with better stability so that the user is not sliding across the ground or floor due to the opposing forces of the linear actuator. Since Samec already discusses that the user would be in a sitting position while using the device, it would be obvious that a user would be capable of using the device while being seated on a chair. Additionally, the user would be more comfortable and have better control on a chair which would accommodate a wider variety of users like those who are incapable of sitting on the ground or floor.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 3, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (US 2022/0346714 A1) and Branch et al. (US 2003/0120186 A1) as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Furukawa (English Machine Translation of JP-2002177353-A provided by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 2, Samec-Branch combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 1. Samec-Branch combination also teaches a foot plate (Samec: 114, Figs 1-4; platform 114 is to provide a platform for resting the user's foot, when the claimed device is used on a leg, paragraph 0031). Samec-Branch combination further teaches meeting knee extension goals for gait (Samec: paragraph 0051). Samec-Branch combination fails to teach a footplate adjustor, wherein the foot plate is adjustable to varying different angles via the footplate adjustor.
However, Furukawa, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a motor and sensory function restraining device for the leg, suitable for use in rehabilitation (paragraph 0001) including a footplate adjustor, wherein the foot plate is adjustable to varying different angles via the footplate adjustor (16a, Figs 3a-b; plantar-dorsiflexion angle adjustment mechanism 16a that pivotally supports the footplate 4 so as to be rotatable in the plantar dorsiflexion direction of the ankle joint by an axis 28 parallel to the axis 26, and fixes the footplate 4 at an arbitrary angle by a fixing mechanism such as a pin 29a and a plurality of pin holes 29b, paragraph 0022) to allow for the multi-faceted flexion and extension movements of the knee joint necessary for walking to be performed in accordance with the recovery state (paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot plate to have a footplate adjustor that can change the angle of the foot plate, as taught by Furukawa, to allow for the multi-faceted flexion and extension movements of the knee joint necessary for walking to be performed in accordance with the recovery state (Furukawa: paragraph 0022). This addition would allow the user to adjust the angle of the foot plate in relation to the different types of flexion and extension movements of the knee joint for walking or gait. This adjustment can go along with the user’s recovery and rehabilitation and actuate the user’s knee joint at various angles of the user’s ankle. Additionally, having this angular adjustment would allow a user to find a suitable angle of the foot that would be most comfortable for the user to use the device.
Regarding Claim 3, Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination teaches the limb support mechanism is one of a foot mount, a limb strap, or a limb support (Samec: 110 is a limb support or limb strap, 114 is a foot mount, Figs 1-4; the user can couple the first straps and/or buckles 102 and the first support 104 to the thigh, and the second straps and/or buckles 110 and the second support 104 to the calves, paragraph 0030; platform 114 is to provide a platform for resting the user's foot, when the claimed device is used on a leg, paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 10, Samec-Branch combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 1. Samec-Branch combination also teaches a foot plate (Samec: 114, Figs 1-4; platform 114 is to provide a platform for resting the user's foot, when the claimed device is used on a leg, paragraph 0031). Samec-Branch combination further teaches meeting knee extension goals for gait (Samec: paragraph 0051). Samec-Branch combination fails to teach a footplate adjustor, which is selectively positioned to lock at a predetermined angle.
However, Furukawa, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a motor and sensory function restraining device for the leg, suitable for use in rehabilitation (paragraph 0001) including a footplate adjustor, which is selectively positioned to lock at a predetermined angle (16a, Figs 3a-b; plantar-dorsiflexion angle adjustment mechanism 16a that pivotally supports the footplate 4 so as to be rotatable in the plantar dorsiflexion direction of the ankle joint by an axis 28 parallel to the axis 26, and fixes the footplate 4 at an arbitrary angle by a fixing mechanism such as a pin 29a and a plurality of pin holes 29b, paragraph 0022) to allow for the multi-faceted flexion and extension movements of the knee joint necessary for walking to be performed in accordance with the recovery state (paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot plate to have a footplate adjustor that can change the angle of the foot plate, as taught by Furukawa, to allow for the multi-faceted flexion and extension movements of the knee joint necessary for walking to be performed in accordance with the recovery state (Furukawa: paragraph 0022). This addition would allow the user to adjust the angle of the foot plate in relation to the different types of flexion and extension movements of the knee joint for walking or gait. This adjustment can go along with the user’s recovery and rehabilitation and actuate the user’s knee joint at various angles of the user’s ankle. Additionally, having this angular adjustment would allow a user to find a suitable angle of the foot that would be most comfortable for the user to use the device.
Regarding Claim 11, Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination teaches the first rod segments are an outer housing of a rod cylinder (Samec: 118 is shown to be an outer housing of the overall 120 and 118 and is an outer rod for 120, Figs 1-4) and the second rod segments are an inner rod of a rod cylinder (Samec: 120 is shown to be an inner rod of the overall 120 and 118 and is an inner rod for 118, Figs 1-4; linear actuator 118 has a shaft 120 that moves into and out of the main body of the linear actuator 118, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 12, Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination teaches a frame assembly (Samec: frame or rods of 118 and 120 without motor, Figs 1-4; 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032) including one or more linear actuators (Samec: 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032), wherein the frame assembly is positioned at an incline from the support surface (Samec: 118 and 120 is shown to be at an incline from the ground, device would be at an incline due to user needing to roll the device via 116 by extending and flexing the knee joint while sitting, Figs 1-4).
Regarding Claim 13, Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination teaches a movement of the device is by an electromechanical means (Samec: 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 14, Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination teaches a foot plate (Samec: 114, Figs 1-4; platform 114 is to provide a platform for resting the user's foot, when the claimed device is used on a leg, paragraph 0031), wherein the footplate adjustor adjusts the predetermined angle of the foot plate (Furukawa: plantar-dorsiflexion angle adjustment mechanism 16a that pivotally supports the footplate 4 so as to be rotatable in the plantar dorsiflexion direction of the ankle joint by an axis 28 parallel to the axis 26, and fixes the footplate 4 at an arbitrary angle by a fixing mechanism such as a pin 29a and a plurality of pin holes 29b, paragraph 0022).
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (US 2022/0346714 A1, Branch et al. (US 2003/0120186 A1), and Furukawa (English Machine Translation of JP-2002177353-A provided by Espacenet) as applied to Claim 3, and in further view of Hsieh (US 2020/0268584 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 3. Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination fails to teach a second linear actuator positioned or attached to the device to manipulate or position a second joint.
However, Hsieh, of the same field of endeavor, teaches systems, devices, and methods are provided for therapeutic loading of a joint (Abstract) including a second actuator positioned or attached to the device to manipulate or position a second joint (the first subassembly can include a first set of motors 114, each of which is coupled to separate first ends of a set of adjustable connecting elements 102, wearable device 100 can include a second set of motors 122, each of which can be configured to cause the joint to articulate according to a predetermined range of motion at a predetermined velocity, paragraph 0036; wheels 116 can be configured to roll upon a ground surface as joint 50 is articulated by second motor 122, paragraph 0031; 122 and/or 114, Fig 3; 122 and 114 both manipulate or position the ankle joint as the device rolls across the ground surface via 116, Fig 3) to provide in a symmetrical fashion to ensure that the predetermined force is translated to the joint in a desired direction, to provide stability during use, and to prevent unwanted movement of wearable device 100 (paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional linear actuator so that both left and right sides of the device each have a linear actuator, as taught by Hsieh, to provide in a symmetrical fashion to ensure that the predetermined force is translated to the joint in a desired direction, to provide stability during use, and to prevent unwanted movement of wearable device 100 (Hsieh: paragraph 0037). This addition would ensure both sides of the device are receiving the same amount of force and improve the stability of the device. It is noted that Applicant has not claimed any further details on how the second joint is manipulated or positioned or any further details regarding the location of the second linear actuator. Since the linear actuator of Samec would manipulate and re-position the knee joint of the user, the ankle joint would also be manipulated and repositioned as part of the user’s leg.
Regarding Claim 5, Samec-Branch-Furukawa-Hsieh combination teaches the limb support mechanism is a foot plate (Samec: 114, Figs 1-4) for supporting a foot of a user (Samec: platform 114 is to provide a platform for resting the user's foot, when the claimed device is used on a leg, paragraph 0031); and wherein the limb of the user being manipulated is one of the legs including a knee joint (Samec: objective of the present disclosure to rehabilitate and/or assess a knee through range of motion exercises, paragraph 0026; user can couple the first straps and/or buckles 102 and the first support 104 to the thigh, and the second straps and/or buckles 110 and the second support 104 to the calves, with the joint 106 centered on the knee, user sits on the ground and extends the leg, which creates a rotational articulation at the joint 106 that extends the lower leg, paragraph 0030).
Regarding Claim 6, Samec-Branch-Furukawa-Hsieh combination teaches movement of the device is by an electromechanical means (Samec: 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 7, Samec-Branch-Furukawa-Hsieh combination teaches a frame assembly (Samec: frame or rods of 118 and 120 without motor, Figs 1-4; 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032) including one or more linear actuators (Samec: 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032), wherein the frame assembly is positioned at an incline from the support surface (Samec: 118 and 120 is shown to be at an incline from the ground, device would be at an incline due to user needing to roll the device via 116 by extending and flexing the knee joint while sitting, Figs 1-4).
Regarding Claim 8, Samec-Branch-Furukawa-Hsieh combination teaches a leg assembly is operatively attached to the second rod segments to support the device in the use position (Samec: 104 and 102, Figs 1-4; 120 shown to be operatively attached to 104 and 102, Figs 1-4; a first support 104 that couples to the upper part or portion of an extremity, paragraph 0026; the supports may simply be rods that are fastened at their ends to the part or portion of an extremity with straps and/or buckles 102, 110, or other fastening means known in the art of braces, paragraph 0028; 104 and 102 support the device when the device is being used by securing the device to the user’s leg). It is noted that Applicant has not claimed any further details of the leg assembly’s structure and any further details regarding how the device is supported in the use position.
Regarding Claim 9, Samec-Branch-Furukawa-Hsieh combination teaches the first rod segments are an outer housing of a rod cylinder (Samec: 118 is shown to be an outer housing of the overall 120 and 118 and is an outer rod for 120, Figs 1-4) and the second rod segments are an inner rod of a rod cylinder (Samec: 120 is shown to be an inner rod of the overall 120 and 118 and is an inner rod for 118, Figs 1-4; linear actuator 118 has a shaft 120 that moves into and out of the main body of the linear actuator 118, paragraph 0032).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (US 2022/0346714 A1, Branch et al. (US 2003/0120186 A1), and Furukawa (English Machine Translation of JP-2002177353-A provided by Espacenet) as applied to Claim 14, and in further view of Diaz et al. (US 2005/0273022 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 14. Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination also teaches a linear actuator having a control knob that uses an electric motor (Samec: paragraph 0032) and a housing 126 for housing a power source and other components (Samec: paragraph 0033). Samec-Branch-Furukawa combination fails to teach the user controls the linear actuators with one of a wireless remote control or a wired remote control.
However, Diaz, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a portable medical device for use in continuous passive motion (CPM) rehabilitation programs (Abstract) including the user controls the linear actuators with one of a wireless remote control (68, Fig 16; controller 67 and/or linear actuator 63 may be connected to motor 63 through interior portion of either elongated rods 41, 42 or preferably by a wireless remote 68, paragraph 0070; controller 67 can be simple as an off/on switch or include a programmable system which can include speed control means, paragraph 0069) to allow the device to be programmable (paragraph 0074) and to avoid the possibility of entangling the operating system with clothes or any moving parts of the device (paragraph 0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a controller with a wireless remote, as taught by Diaz, to allow the device to be programmable (Diaz: paragraph 0074) and to avoid the possibility of entangling the operating system with clothes or any moving parts of the device (Diaz: paragraph 0071). This improvement would provide additional control of the device for the user as the user would be capable of programming the desired speed of the linear actuator as well as the desired angle produced by the linear actuator. Also, the use of a wireless remote would allow for easy control of the device without having to press buttons or switches on the device itself and avoid possible clothing or moving part entanglement. This would further improve the comfortability and convenience of the user.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (US 2022/0346714 A1) in view of Furukawa (English Machine Translation of JP-2002177353-A provided by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 16, Samec discloses a method for manipulating a joint of a limb of a user (apparatus of Figs 1-4; a medical device for assessing and/or rehabilitating a human joint, Abstract; objective of the present disclosure to rehabilitate and/or assess a knee or elbow through range of motion exercises, paragraph 0026), comprising: placing the device on a floor or the other supporting surface (user sits on the ground and extends the leg, which creates a rotational articulation at the joint 106 that extends the lower leg, paragraph 0030; at least one wheel is configured to rotate on an axle and roll along a surface while bearing weight of the extremity used with the claimed device, paragraph 0031; device placed on surface or floor with wheel 116 contacting surface or floor, Figs 1-4); aligning the joint of the limb with a foot plate (user can couple the first straps and/or buckles 102 and the first support 104 to the thigh, and the second straps and/or buckles 110 and the second support 104 to the calves, with the joint 106 centered on the knee, user sits on the ground and extends the leg, which creates a rotational articulation at the joint 106 that extends the lower leg, paragraph 0030; purpose of platform 114 is to provide a platform for resting the user's foot, when the claimed device is used on a leg, paragraph 0031; 114 holds leg in place so that knee aligns with joint 106, Figs 1-4); and actuating the device by moving the device via a foot plate (user sits on the ground and extends the leg, which creates a rotational articulation at the joint 106 that extends the lower leg, paragraph 0030; at least one wheel is configured to rotate on an axle and roll along a surface while bearing weight of the extremity used with the claimed device, paragraph 0031; linear actuator 118 has a shaft 120 that moves into and out of the main body of the linear actuator 118, whereby moving first and second structural supports, and thereby changing the angle between the first and second structural supports, paragraph 0032; 114 moves along with 116 which is caused by the extension and retraction of 118 and 120, Figs 1-4). Samec also teaches meeting knee extension goals for gait (paragraph 0051).
Samec fails to disclose locking a footplate adjustor of the device into a predetermined position.
However, Furukawa, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a motor and sensory function restraining device for the leg, suitable for use in rehabilitation (paragraph 0001) including locking a footplate adjustor of the device into a predetermined position (16a, Figs 3a-b; plantar-dorsiflexion angle adjustment mechanism 16a that pivotally supports the footplate 4 so as to be rotatable in the plantar dorsiflexion direction of the ankle joint by an axis 28 parallel to the axis 26, and fixes the footplate 4 at an arbitrary angle by a fixing mechanism such as a pin 29a and a plurality of pin holes 29b, paragraph 0022) to allow for the multi-faceted flexion and extension movements of the knee joint necessary for walking to be performed in accordance with the recovery state (paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot plate to have a footplate adjustor that can change the angle of the foot plate, as taught by Furukawa, to allow for the multi-faceted flexion and extension movements of the knee joint necessary for walking to be performed in accordance with the recovery state (Furukawa: paragraph 0022). This addition would allow the user to adjust the angle of the foot plate in relation to the different types of flexion and extension movements of the knee joint for walking or gait. This adjustment can go along with the user’s recovery and rehabilitation and actuate the user’s knee joint at various angles of the user’s ankle. Additionally, having this angular adjustment would allow a user to find a suitable angle of the foot that would be most comfortable for the user to use the device.
Regarding Claim 17, Samec-Furukawa combination teaches a movement of the device is via electromechanical means (Samec: 118 is a linear actuator, actuator that creates motion in a straight line, may be mechanical, may be electro-mechanical that uses an electric motor, paragraph 0032).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (US 2022/0346714 A1) and Furukawa (English Machine Translation of JP-2002177353-A provided by Espacenet) as applied to Claim 17, and in further view of Diaz et al. (US 2005/0273022 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Samec-Furukawa combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 17.
Samec-Furukawa combination also teaches a linear actuator 118 that is electromechanical and has a control knob that uses an electric motor (Samec: paragraph 0032) and a housing 126 for housing a power source and other components (Samec: paragraph 0033). Samec-Furukawa combination fails to teach the user controls the linear actuators with one of a wireless remote control or a wired remote control.
However, Diaz, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a portable medical device for use in continuous passive motion (CPM) rehabilitation programs (Abstract) including the user controls the linear actuators with one of a wireless remote control (68, Fig 16; controller 67 and/or linear actuator 63 may be connected to motor 63 through interior portion of either elongated rods 41, 42 or preferably by a wireless remote 68, paragraph 0070; controller 67 can be simple as an off/on switch or include a programmable system which can include speed control means, paragraph 0069) to allow the device to be programmable (paragraph 0074) and to avoid the possibility of entangling the operating system with clothes or any moving parts of the device (paragraph 0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a controller with a wireless remote, as taught by Diaz, to allow the device to be programmable (Diaz: paragraph 0074) and to avoid the possibility of entangling the operating system with clothes or any moving parts of the device (Diaz: paragraph 0071). This improvement would provide additional control of the device for the user as the user would be capable of programming the desired speed of the linear actuator as well as the desired angle produced by the linear actuator. Also, the use of a wireless remote would allow for easy control of the device without having to press buttons or switches on the device itself and avoid possible clothing or moving part entanglement. This would further improve the comfortability and convenience of the user.
Regarding Claim 19, Samec-Furukawa-Diaz combination teaches using a foot plate (Samec: purpose of platform 114 is to provide a platform for resting the user's foot, when the claimed device is used on a leg, paragraph 0031); and using a footplate adjustor, wherein the footplate adjustor adjusts an angle of the foot plate (Furukawa: 16a, Figs 3a-b; plantar-dorsiflexion angle adjustment mechanism 16a that pivotally supports the footplate 4 so as to be rotatable in the plantar dorsiflexion direction of the ankle joint by an axis 28 parallel to the axis 26, and fixes the footplate 4 at an arbitrary angle by a fixing mechanism such as a pin 29a and a plurality of pin holes 29b, paragraph 0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US-20140148736-A1 discusses a passive motion system with wheels that assists with the knee joint.
US-20120232438-A1 discusses an orthosis machine that has a baseplate for comfortable seating on a chair.
English Machine Translation of CN-113730192-A provided by PE2E discusses a rehabilitation device that similarly rolls on a surface and has a linear push rod.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 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, 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights