DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits based on the 18/811,450 application filed on 08/21/2024 and which claims as originally filed have been considered in the ensuing 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
a stretch-assistance armatures having two or more motorized joints and user-securing fastenings (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection below)
user-securing fastenings is a length of flexible material configured to be wrapped around a user’s leg and then fastened to itself (claim 16)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner notes that “user-securing fastenings” has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the word “fastening” is a structural component. The definition of fastening is something that fastens, according to Merriam-Webster, and is a synonym of fastener.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “base wherein” should be corrected to ---base, wherein----
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the flexible panels” should be corrected to ---the one or more flexible panels---
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “a user’s body” should be corrected to ---the body of the user---
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the user-supports” should be corrected to ---the one or more user-supports---
On line 3, “the stretch-assistance armature” should be corrected to ---one of the one or more stretch-assistance armatures---
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “such” should be corrected to ---the---
On line 2, “formed to” should be corrected to ---formed and configured to---
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “the motorized” should be corrected to ---the one or more motorized---
On line 2 “the stretch” should be corrected to ---each of the one or more stretch---
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “the user” should be corrected to ---a user---
On line 2, “programs” should be corrected to ---program---
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the motorized” should be corrected to ---the one or more motorized---
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “the motorized” should be corrected to ---the one or more motorized---
On line 3, “the stretching” should be corrected to ---the at least one stretching---
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “a user’s foot” should be corrected to ---foot of a user---
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “a user’s leg” should be corrected to ---a leg of a user---
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “the stretching” should be corrected to ---the at least one stretching---
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “they can” should be corrected to ---exerted---
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 “the stretch” should be corrected to ---each of the one or more stretch---
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “the flexible” should be corrected to ---the at least two flexible---
On line 4, “the flexible” should be corrected to ---the at least two flexible---
On line 7, “fastenings” should be corrected to ---fastenings,----
On line 8, “the motorized” should be corrected to ---the one or more motorized---
On line 9, “their” should be deleted
On line 9, “can exert” should be corrected to ---is capable of exerting---
On line 11, “and at least” should be corrected to ---and the at least---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the one or more stretch-assistance armatures are comprised of one or more motorized joints and one or more user-securing fastenings” on lines 3-5 lacks clarity. It is unclear if collectively the one or more stretch-assistance armatures include one or more motorized joints and one or more user-securing fastenings or if each one or more stretch-assistance armatures include one or more motorized joints and one or more user-securing fastenings.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “ductile material configured to deform relative to the contour of a user’s body” on lines 2-3 lacks clarity. “Ductile”, according to Merriam-Webster is “capable of being drawn out”. It is unclear how a material that is capable of being drawn out would deform relative to the contours of a user’s body. Further, the specification fails to give a definition of ductile, or an example of a ductile material.
Regarding claim 6, the term "substantially" on line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" 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 the metes and bounds are of the limitation following “substantially” are. The Examiner suggests removing the term “substantially” from the claim language.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the user is able to select from the at least one stretching programs” on line 1-2. It is unclear how a selection can be made when the claim requires only a single program currently.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of “the motors” on line 1 and “the force” on line 1 lack antecedent basis. “the motors” further lack clarity as it is unclear if “the motors” are the same as the motorized joints of claim 1 or additional components.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “appropriately adjust their force if resistance is detected” on line 3 lacks clarity. It is unclear what appropriately adjust their force would entail as the metes and bounds are not disclosed in the specification as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart (US 10,420,691).
Regarding claim 1:
Stewart discloses a base (base 12); and one or more stretch-assistance armatures (leg support or carriage 14) extending from the base (the leg support or carriage extends from an end of the base as well as above the base), wherein the one or more stretch-assistance armatures are comprised of one or more motorized joints (joints 54 and 56 are associate with and attached to drive mechanisms 107, comprised of a motor and drive screw, this configuration results in motorized joints as the motor is moving the joints) and one or more user-securing fastenings (calf support 67).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5:
Stewart discloses that the one or more stretch-assistance armatures are further comprised of one or more user-supports (foot support 16) wherein one of the user-supports is positioned at an end of the stretch-assistance armature distal relative to the base (when the leg support or carriage is fully extended, the foot support 16 is at the distal end of the base).
Regarding claim 7:
Stewart discloses that the motorized joints of the one or more stretch-assistance armatures are configured to rotate a portion of the stretch-assistance armature (see Fig. 1, joints and drive mechanism is configured to rotate the portion of the foot support and carriage about the joint).
Regarding claim 8:
Stewart discloses that the device is further comprised of a control terminal (controller 120) configured to receive inputs from a user (the controller is shown to have buttons, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9:
Stewart discloses that the control terminal is configured to allow the user to control the one or more stretch-assistance armatures (“With the user's leg positioned and secured in the motion device 10, the user uses the controller 120 to move the user's leg.” See column 5 lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 10:
Stewart discloses that the device further comprising a computer processor and computer memory (controller 120 has a processor, and is disclosed to have “cycles” relating to programs, that are stored on the device, which requires a computer memory, see column 5 lines 5-37) wherein the computer processor is configured to control the one or more stretch-assistance armatures and the computer memory is configured to store at least one stretching program (“For example, the cycle may include distracting the joint for about 5 seconds, relaxing the joint for about 1-2 seconds, and repeating distraction and resting for 3-5 cycles which will cause both distraction and retraction of the joint. ” see column 5 lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 11:
Stewart discloses that the user is able to select from the at least one stretching programs (as there is only one program required by the limitation, selecting any program fulfills this limitation, as disclosed above in claim 10, the cycle is a program) in the computer memory and the computer processor is configured to control the one or more stretch-assistance armatures through the selected program (“For example, the cycle may include distracting the joint for about 5 seconds, relaxing the joint for about 1-2 seconds, and repeating distraction and resting for 3-5 cycles which will cause both distraction and retraction of the joint. ” see column 5 lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 12:
Stewart discloses that the computer processor is further configured to activate the motorized joints of the one or more stretch-assistance armatures based on the at least one stretching program stored in the computer memory (“For example, the cycle may include distracting the joint for about 5 seconds, relaxing the joint for about 1-2 seconds, and repeating distraction and resting for 3-5 cycles which will cause both distraction and retraction of the joint. ” see column 5 lines 19-23; the Examiner notes that distracting and retraction of the joint is activating the motors of the joints).
Regarding claim 13:
Stewart discloses that the motorized joints are configured to only utilize certain amounts of force when operating and the computer processor is further configured to modify the stretching program it is running based on resistance by a user (“As flexion increases to an adjustable end-range, the speed of flexion will slow and initiate joint distraction using cylinders 20 at a pre-determined cycle. For example, the cycle may include distracting the joint for about 5 seconds, relaxing the joint for about 1-2 seconds, and repeating distraction and resting for 3-5 cycles which will cause both distraction and retraction of the joint.” See column 5 lines 16-23).
Regarding claim 15:
Stewart discloses that at least one of the one or more user-securing fastenings is a stirrup configured to receive a user’s foot (see Fig. 1, the foot support 16 is a stirrup).
Regarding claim 16:
Stewart discloses that at least one of the one or more user-securing fastenings is a length of flexible material configured to be wrapped around a user’s leg and then fastened to itself (see Fig. 1-3 and “As illustrated, the securing strap 69 uses Velcro to secure the user's leg; however, it should be appreciated that the securing strap 69 may use other suitable means to secure the user's leg, such as snaps, hooks, and/or belt type holes and prong arrangement.” See column 3 lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 17:
Stewart discloses that the stretching program is comprised of a plurality of movements of the one or more stretch-assistance armatures (“For example, the cycle may include distracting the joint for about 5 seconds, relaxing the joint for about 1-2 seconds, and repeating distraction and resting for 3-5 cycles which will cause both distraction and retraction of the joint. ” see column 5 lines 19-23; the Examiner notes that distracting and retraction of the joint is activating the motors of the joints).
Regarding claim 18:
Stewart discloses that the motors are limited in the force they can exert to be less than that of a user (please see 35 USC 112(b) above. The motors are programmable and would be capable of performing the recited function, the limitation is intended use and the device must only be capable of performing the function).
Regarding claim 19:
Stewart discloses that the stretch-assistance armatures are further comprised of one or more sensors (sensor 124) configured to detect resistance exerted by a user and are further configured to appropriately adjust their force if resistance is detected (“ A sensor 124 measures the angle of flexion and extension. As flexion increases to an adjustable end-range, the speed of flexion will slow and initiate joint distraction using cylinders 20 at a pre-determined cycle.” See column 5 lines 15-19).
Claims 1 and 6-7are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broadbent (US 7,153,251).
Regarding claim 1:
Broadbent discloses a base (bench 302); and one or more stretch-assistance armatures (cradles 306) extending from the base (the cradles extend from an end of the base, see Fig. 3), wherein the one or more stretch-assistance armatures are comprised of one or more motorized joints and one or more user-securing fastenings (“Preferably a handle is provided for manual operation, but optionally movement of each cradle may be powered by an electric motor or may be servo assisted.” See column 3 lines 15-17; Broadbent discloses an embodiment that uses motors to move the cradles, causing joint 307 to bend, in the broadest reasonable interpretation joints 307 are considered motorized joints) and one or more user-securing fastenings (lacking any other structural or functional limitations, clamps 304 have been considered user-securing fastenings, as the clamps keep the user’s hips in place).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6:
Broadbent discloses that the base is contoured on an upward-facing side (the upward-facing side includes a cushion to conform to a user’s back) and such contouring is substantially formed to accommodate a human back.
Regarding claim 7:
Broadbent discloses that the motorized joints of the one or more stretch-assistance armatures are configured to rotate a portion of the stretch-assistance armature (see Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 10,420,691) in view of Marti et al (US 9,669,249). Stewart discloses the device as claimed above.
Regarding claim 14:
Stewart fails to distinctly disclose that the computer processor is communicably linked to a communications device configured to connect to a separate device through a network and the computer processor is further configured to receive instructions from the separate device.
Marti et al teaches a range of motion improvement device, similar to that disclosed by Stewart and particularly teaches that the computer processor of the device can communicate via a computer network to a remote device, wherein the remote device can control the device (see column 4 lines 13-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Stewart such that the computer processor is in communication and controlled by a remote device, as taught by Marti et al, as this is a well-known configuration in the art.
Claims 2-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadbent (US 7,153,251) in view of Zhao et al (CN 110339019). Broadbent discloses the device as claimed above.
Regarding claims 2-3:
Broadbent fails to specifically disclose that the base is further comprised of one or more flexible panels (claim 2), and that the one or more flexible panels are configured with a motor configured to move the flexible panels in at least one plane of motion (claim 3).
Zhao et al teaches a rehabilitation table that has two flexible panels (3), each configured with motor (hip lifting motors) configured to move the flexible panels in at least one plane of motion (see Figs 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bench of Broadbent to include the two flexible panels with motors, as taught by Zhao et al to position the user’s body to adequately stretch the lower extremities.
Regarding claim 4:
Broadbent in view of Zhao et al teaches the one or more flexible panels are comprised of ductile material configured to deform relative to the contour of a user’s body (Broadbent teaches a cushion that would be on top of the flexible panels, resulting in a material that conforms to the user’s body. Insomuch as Applicant has disclosed a ductile material, Broadbent has disclosed the same. Please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 20:
Broadbent discloses a base (bench 302); and at least two stretch-assistance armatures (cradles 306) extending from the base (the cradles extend from an end of the base, see Fig. 3), wherein the at least armatures are comprised of one or more motorized joints (“Preferably a handle is provided for manual operation, but optionally movement of each cradle may be powered by an electric motor or may be servo assisted.” See column 3 lines 15-17; Broadbent discloses an embodiment that uses motors to move the cradles, causing joint 307 to bend, in the broadest reasonable interpretation joints 307 are considered motorized joints) and one or more user-securing fastenings (lacking any other structural or functional limitations, clamps 304 have been considered user-securing fastenings, as the clamps keep the user’s hips in place), wherein the at least two stretch-assistance armatures are positioned at the first end of the base (see Fig. 3) and the motorized joints are further configured to be limited in their rotational force to be less than that a user can exert (The motors would be capable of performing the recited function, the limitation is intended use and the device must only be capable of performing the function). Broadbent further discloses stretching programs (see at least column 15 lines 59-67).
The Examiner notes that if the motorized joint configuration is used, then program would be associated with the motor moving the user.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Broadbent fails to disclose that the base is comprised of at least two flexible panels wherein each of the flexible panels is comprised of at least one rotational motor and the flexible panels are positioned at a first end of the base and a computer memory configured to store at least one stretching program and a computer processor configured to operate the at least two flexible panels and at least two stretch-assistance armatures based on the at least one stretching program.
Zhao et al teaches a rehabilitation table that has two flexible panels (3), each configured with motor (hip lifting motors) configured to move the flexible panels in at least one plane of motion (see Figs 1-4). Zhao et al further discloses a controller/memory that is used to control the motors of the device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bench of Broadbent to include the two flexible panels with motors, as taught by Zhao et al to position the user’s body to adequately stretch the lower extremities. It would further have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Broadbent to include a controller/memory to control the motors as taught by Zhao et al, as controllers for motors are well known in the art. The Examiner notes that the addition of a controller configured to control the motors would result in the cited claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights