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 .
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 25-31 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.
In claim 25, line 13 recites “the information comprises a plurality of angles of extension or retraction” and Line 15 recites “based on the information, control operation of at least one controllable portion of the electromechanical device”. It is unclear whether “the information” recited in line 15 is the same as “the configuration information for a pedaling session” in line 9 or “information from the one or more sensors” in line 12. Because multiple interpretations of the claim language are possible, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 26-31 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 25.
Claims 27 is 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. The term “maximum” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what determines whether a pedal force would be considered “maximum” or not. For this reason, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 28 is 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. The claim recites “the one or more processing devices executes the instructions to select a number of extensions or a number of bends”. The term “select” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “select” implies that the number is chosen from a range of possible numbers. However, neither the claim nor the Specification details how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select a number. Since an infinite number of selections is thus possible, the metes and bounds of the claim limitation are undefined.
Claim 31 is 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. Line 3 recites the term “certain”. The term “certain” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain time periods” is described in the Specification in paragraph 67 as “(e.g., days, weeks, etc.).” This description does not meaningfully limit the scope of the term “certain”, which renders the metes and bounds of the claimed invention unclear.
Claims 32-38 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.
In claim 32, line 7 recites “the information comprises a plurality of angles of extension or retraction” and Line 9 recites “based on the information, control operation of at least one controllable portion of the electromechanical device”. It is unclear whether “the information” recited in line 9 is the same as “the configuration information for a pedaling session” in line 3 or “information from the one or more sensors” in line 6. Because multiple interpretations of the claim language are possible, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 33-38 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 32.
Claims 34 is 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. The term “maximum” in claim 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what determines whether a pedal force would be considered “maximum” or not. For this reason, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 35 is 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. The claim recites “the one or more processing devices executes the instructions to select a number of extensions or a number of bends”. The term “selecting” in claim 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “selecting” implies that the number is chosen from a range of possible numbers. However, neither the claim nor the Specification details how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select a number. Since an infinite number of selections is thus possible, the metes and bounds of the claim limitation are undefined.
Claim 38 is 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. Line 3 recites the term “certain”. The term “certain” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain time periods” is described in the Specification in paragraph 67 as “(e.g., days, weeks, etc.).” This description does not meaningfully limit the scope of the term “certain”, which renders the metes and bounds of the claimed invention unclear.
Claims 39-44 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.
In claim 39, line 8 recites “the information comprises a plurality of angles of extension or retraction” and Line 10 recites “based on the information, control operation of at least one controllable portion of the electromechanical device”. It is unclear whether “the information” recited in line 10 is the same as “the configuration information for a pedaling session” in line 3 or “information from the one or more sensors” in line 7. Because multiple interpretations of the claim language are possible, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 40-44 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 39.
Claims 41 is 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. The term “maximum” in claim 41 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what determines whether a pedal force would be considered “maximum” or not. For this reason, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 42 is 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. The claim recites “the one or more processing devices executes the instructions to select a number of extensions or a number of bends”. The term “select” in claim 42 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “select” implies that the number is chosen from a range of possible numbers. However, neither the claim nor the Specification details how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select a number. Since an infinite number of selections is thus possible, the metes and bounds of the claim limitation are undefined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,591. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent claims anticipate the Instant Application claims, as detailed in the Double Patenting Claims Comparison Chart below.
Double Patenting Claims Comparison Chart
Instant Application
US Pat. 12,059,591
25.
A system for rehabilitation, comprising:
1.
A system for rehabilitation, comprising:
one or more electronic devices comprising one or more memory devices storing instructions, one or more network interface cards, and one or more sensors, wherein the one or more electronic devices are coupled to a user;
one or more electronic devices comprising one or more memory devices storing instructions, one or more network interface cards, and one or more sensors, wherein the one or more electronic devices are coupled to a user;
an electromechanical device comprising an electric motor and one or more pedals;
an electromechanical device comprising an electric motor and one or more pedals;
and one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the one or more memory devices, the one or more network interface cards, and the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more processing devices execute the instructions to: receive configuration information for a pedaling session;
and one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the one or more memory devices, the one or more network interface cards, and the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more processing devices execute the instructions to: receive configuration information for a pedaling session;
based on the configuration information for the pedaling session, control one or more operating parameters of the electromechanical device;
based on the configuration information for the pedaling session, set a resistance parameter and a maximum pedal force parameter;
Examiner’s Note: “Set a resistance parameter” anticipates the limitation of “control one or more operating parameters of the electromechanical device” because a resistance parameter being set is an example of controlling an operating parameter (in this case, resistance).
Examiner’s Note: strikethrough limitations are those which are present in the Patent claim but not required by the Instant Application claim.
receive information from the one or more sensors of the one or more electronic devices coupled to the user, wherein the information comprises a plurality of angles of extension or retraction of at least one body part of the user;
receive information from the one or more sensors of the one or more electronic devices coupled to the user, wherein the information comprises a plurality of angles of extension or retraction of a body part of the user;
and based on the information, control operation of at least one controllable portion of the electromechanical device.
and based on the information, control operation of at least one controllable portion of the electromechanical device.
27.
The system of claim 25, wherein the one or more processing devices execute the instructions to: responsive to determining that a measured force does not exceed a value of a maximum pedal force parameter, maintain, during the pedaling session, a same maximum pedal force parameter.
2.
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing devices execute the instructions to: responsive to determining that the measured force does not exceed the value of the maximum pedal force parameter, maintain, during the pedaling session, the same maximum pedal force parameter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-44 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and upon filing a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Murray et al. (US PGPub. 2015/0141200) and Cleary (US PGPub. 2020/0038703) are considered the closest prior art of record. Neither Murray et al. nor Cleary show the limitation “receive information from the one or more sensors of the one or more electronic devices coupled to the user, wherein the information comprises a plurality of angles of extension or retraction of a body part of the user; and based on the information, control operation of at least one controllable portion of the electromechanical device.”. For at least this reason, claims 25, 32 and 39 and all claims depending therefrom are considered allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4966. 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.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784