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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 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. Claim 6 include a rectification for “one or more… microprocessors” claim 1, has been amended to include “a microprocessor” making it unclear if claim 6 is including additional “microprocessors”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US Pub 2019/0231259) in view of Ross et al. (US Pub 2011/0004199).
With respect to claim 1, Cohen discloses a motorized spatial frame (see figures 9E, F and 6 below) comprising: a first platform (see fig 9F below); a second platform (see fig 9F below); a plurality of motorized struts (fig 9F, 920) coupled to the first and second platforms, each of the plurality of motorized struts (paragraph 194, 267) including an outer body (see fig 9F below), a lead screw (see fig 9F below), and a motor (fig 6, 414) operatively coupled to the lead screw for adjusting a position of the lead screw relative to the outer body to adjust a position of the first platform relative to the second platform, each of the plurality of motorized struts further including a coupler (fig 9F, 924 and paragraph 267); and one or more detachable programmers (fig 9F, 918) including a housing (see fig 9F below and paragraph 24) and a coupler (fog 9F, 924 and paragraph 267) partially accessible from the housing, the coupler arranged and configured to selectively attach the housing of the detachable programmer to the outer body of the motorized strut and to engage the coupler of the motorized strut so that the one or more detachable programmers (paragraph 270 each strut has an interface/programmer) are configured to selectively attach and detach from the plurality of motorized struts (paragraph 267); wherein each of the one or more detachable programmers is configured to supply power (fig 6, 606 via 658, paragraph 269 electronically connected) and to control activation (fig 6, 602) of the motorized strut to which the detachable programmer is attached to, the detachable programmer configured to actuate the motorized strut according to a treatment plan (paragraph 270). With respect to claim 1, Cohen discloses wherein the one or more detachable programmers include a plurality of detachable programmers, one for each of the plurality of motorized struts (paragraph 270 each struct has an interface). With respect to claim 3, Cohen discloses wherein the coupler on the detachable programmer and the coupler on the motorized strut are arranged and configured to mechanically (paragraphs 267) and electrically couple (paragraph 269) the detachable programmer to the motorized strut. With respect to claim 8, Cohen discloses wherein each of the detachable programmers include one or more power supplies (fig 6, 606, 660) arranged and configured to power the detachable programmer and to supply power to the motorized strut to which it is coupled (via 658). With respect to claim 9, Cohen discloses wherein each of the detachable programmers include a wireless communication chip (fig 6, 652 and paragraph 144) arranged and configured to wirelessly communicate with an external computing system to exchange data relating to a treatment plan, to exchange data relating to a status of the motorized strut (fig 6, 408 sensors), to exchange data relating to a health or activity of the patient (fig 6, 664, pain indicator), or a combination thereof. With respect to claim 10, Cohen discloses wherein each of the detachable programmers is arranged and configured to identify which one of the plurality of motorized struts it is to be coupled to (fig 6, 656 and paragraph 25). With respect to claim 11, Cohen discloses each of the detachable programmers includes color-coding corresponding to color-coding on each of the motorized struts to indicate which motorized strut the detachable programmer is to be coupled to (paragraph 25). With respect to claim 12, Cohen discloses wherein each of the detachable programmers is arranged and configured to automatically identify (paragraphs 180 and 223) which one of the plurality of motorized struts it is connected to in order to ensure proper adjustments. With respect to claim 13, Cohen discloses wherein each of the detachable programmers is arranged and configured to one of scan a QR code label on the motorized strut, read a tag containing a unique ID code on the motorized strut, or read a two-dimensional barcode on the motorized strut (paragraph 180 RFID).
With respect to claim 14, Cohen discloses motorized spatial frame comprising: a first platform (see fig 9F below); a second platform (See fig 9F below); a plurality of motorized struts (fig 9, 920 and fig 6, 414) coupled to the first and second platforms, each of the plurality of motorized struts including an outer body (see fig 9F below), a lead screw (see fig 9F below), and a motor (fig 6, motorized strut, paragraphs 194 and 267) operatively coupled to the lead screw for adjusting a position of the lead screw relative to the outer body to adjust a position of the first platform relative to the second platform, each of the plurality of motorized struts further including a coupler (fig 9, 924); and a plurality of detachable programmers (fig 9F, 918, paragraph 270 one for each), one for each of the plurality of motorized struts, each of the plurality of detachable programmers including: a housing (fig 9F, paragraph 24), a controller (fig 6, 602) arranged and configured to control operation of the motorized strut to which it is coupled, a power supply (fig 6, 606) arranged and configured to supply power to the motorized strut to which it is coupled (fig 6, 658), a wireless communication chip (fig 6, 652 and paragraph 144) arranged and configured to transmit and receive data with the motorized strut to which it is coupled and with an external computing system; and a coupler (fig 9, 924 and paragraph 267 and 269) partially accessible from the housing, the coupler arranged and configured to selectively attach the housing of the detachable programmer to the outer body of the motorized strut (paragraph 267) and to engage the coupler of one of the plurality of the motorized struts so that the detachable programmer is configured to selectively attach and detach from one of the plurality of motorized struts (paragraph 267).
PNG
media_image1.png
946
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Cohen discloses the programmer having control circuitry but does not specifically disclose a microprocessor or microcontroller for autonomously controlling the struts.
Ross discloses a programmer tool having a microprocessor or microcontroller (paragraph 30) for autonomously controlling the struts (paragraph 46) to determine the output necessary for the treatment regiment (paragraph 30) automatically (paragraph 46). With respect to claim 6, Ross discloses wherein each of the detachable programmers include one or more microcontrollers or microprocessors (paragraph 30) arranged and configured to control the detachable programmer and the motorized strut to which it is coupled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cohen to include a microprocessor or microcontroller for autonomously controlling the struts in view of Ross in order to determine the output necessary for the treatment regiment automatically. With respect to claim 7, Cohen in view of Ross discloses wherein the one or more microcontrollers or microprocessors are arranged and configured to control operation of the motorized strut including controlling activation of the motor and receiving and updating a treatment plan associated with the motorized spatial frame (paragraph 143 of Cohen and Paragraph 30 of Ross).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al in view of Ross et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith and Nephew (WO 2021/061816 provided by the applicant).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Cohen in view of Ross discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the coupler on the detachable programmer is arranged and configured to magnetically couple to the coupler on the motorized strut so that the detachable programmer is magnetically attached to the motorized strut wherein the magnetic couplers on the detachable programmer and the motorized strut include a Pogo interface connector including male pins and female connectors in one of a 4-pin, 6-pin, or 8-pin configuration.
Smith and Nephew discloses wherein the coupler on the detachable programmer is arranged and configured to magnetically couple (fig 4Q, 3508) to the coupler on the motorized strut so that the detachable programmer is magnetically attached to the motorized strut (paragraph 130, POGO connectors) wherein the magnetic couplers on the detachable programmer and the motorized strut include a Pogo interface connector (fig 4Q and paragraph 130) including male pins and female connectors in one of a 4-pin, 6-pin, or 8-pin configuration (fig 4Q shows 6 pins) to provide redundant power to the strut (paragraph 130).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cohen in view of Ross to include wherein the coupler on the detachable programmer is arranged and configured to magnetically couple to the coupler on the motorized strut so that the detachable programmer is magnetically attached to the motorized strut wherein the magnetic couplers on the detachable programmer and the motorized strut include a Pogo interface connector including male pins and female connectors in one of a 4-pin, 6-pin, or 8-pin configuration in view of Smith and Nephew in order to provide redundant power to the strut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J COTRONEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/S.J.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights