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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the motion control unit of claim 24 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 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:
-a central control unit (i.e. a central unit for controlling) in claim 1. After a review of Applicant’s specification, a central control unit is considered to encompass a computer as seen in figure 1b.
-platform gear mechanism configured to allow transmission of platform motor rotation in claim 3. After a review of Applicant’s specification, a platform gear mechanism is considered to encompass worm gear boxes and motors which comprise a set of gears and transmissions as described on [pg 16 ln 3-8] and equivalents thereof.
-stepper gear mechanism configured to allow transmission of rotation of the first stepper motor and/or the second stepper motor in claim 6. After a review of Applicant’s specification, a stepper gear mechanism is considered to encompass worm gear boxes and motors which comprise a set of gears and transmissions as described on [pg 16 ln 3-8] and equivalents thereof.
-a motion control unit (i.e. a control unit for controlling motion) in claim 24. After a review of Applicant’s specification, Applicant’s descriptions of the “motion control system/unit” are ambiguous and unclear if the motion control unit is a program or process located on the central control unit, a structure attached to the motors for controlling the motors, or something else entirely. Thus, this limitation will be addressed under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
-a motion capture unit (i.e. a unit for capturing motion) in claim 24. After a review of Applicant’s specification, a motion capture unit is considered to encompass the camera systems described on [pg 30 ln 1-15] and equivalents thereof.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10, 16-17, 21-24, 27-28, 30, 34-35, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “for improving balance control” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “configured for improving balance control”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the system” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “the perturbed walking training system” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to control movement” in line 7. This limitation should be amended to recite “a movement” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the platform” in line 7. This limitation should be amended to recite “the moveable platform” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the system” in line 9. This limitation should be amended to recite “the perturbed walking training system” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the platform” in line 10. This limitation should be amended to recite “the moveable platform” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 10, 16-17, 21-24, 27-28, 30, and 34-35 each recite “the system” in their preambles. These limitations should be amended to recite “the perturbed walking training system” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the system” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “the perturbed walking training system” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “to allow transmission of platform motor rotation”. These limitations should be amended to recite “a transmission of a platform motor rotation” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the platform” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the moveable platform” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “controlling movement” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “controlling a movement” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the system” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “the perturbed walking training system” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “to allow transmission of rotation”. These limitations should be amended to recite “a transmission of a rotation” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “for each perturbation”. This limitation should be amended to recite “for each unexpected external perturbation” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “to control resistance” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “a resistance” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “to control operation parameters”. This limitation should be amended to recite “one or more/at least one/a plurality of” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “to determine performance”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a performance” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 34 recites multiple “perturbation” limitations. The claim should be amended to clarify that these perturbations are the unexpected external perturbations recited in claim 1.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “wherein the training session”. This limitation should be amended to recite “wherein the perturbations training sessions” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “operating parameters”. This limitation should be amended to recite “one or more/at least one/a plurality of” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “improving balance control”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a balance control” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the system” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the perturbed walking training system” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the system” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to recite “the perturbed walking training system” to maintain consistency in the claims.
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 3-4, 6, 10, 17, 22-24, 27, 30, 34-35, and 40 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 3 recites the limitation “allowing rotation”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the recited rotation is the same movement of the platform recited in claim 1, or a new movement. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “external platform-induced perturbations”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the perturbations of claim 3 are the same unexpected external perturbations recited in claim 1, or are new perturbations. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the movement” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a movement”.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the first stepper motor and/or the second stepper motor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a first stepper motor and/or a second stepper motor”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the external stepper-induced perturbations”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This limitation also renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the perturbations of claim 6 are the same unexpected external perturbations recited in claim 1, or are new perturbations. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the group” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a group”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “during perturbations”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the perturbations of claim 22 are the same unexpected external perturbations recited in claim 1, or are new perturbations. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “pull perturbations”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the perturbations of claim 23 are the same unexpected external perturbations recited in claim 1, or are new perturbations. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim limitation “motion control unit” as recited in claim 24 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s descriptions of the “motion control system/unit” in their specification are ambiguous and it is unclear if the motion control unit is a program or process located on the central control unit, is a structure attached to the motors for controlling the motors, or is something else entirely. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “further comprising a motion control unit as part of the central control unit, and/or a motion capture unit”. The phrasing with respect to the motion capture unit renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is claiming that the motion control unit and/or a motion capture unit is part of the central control unit, or if only the motion control unit is part of the central control unit and the system may also separately include a motion capture unit. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “during perturbations”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the perturbations of claim 30 are the same unexpected external perturbations recited in claim 1, or are new perturbations. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the group” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a group”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “a single perturbation”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the perturbation of claim 35 is the same unexpected external perturbations recited in claim 1, or is a new perturbation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “perturbation session”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the perturbation session of claim 35 is the same perturbations training session recited in claim 30, or is a new session. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the detected reactive and proactive balance response” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “proactive balance response” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the detected reactive balance response and a proactive balance response”.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the balance response”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation is referring to the reactive balance response, or the proactive balance response. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim and thus, contains the same offending limitation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 16-17, 21-22, 24, 27-28, 30, 34-35, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro et al. (US 2012/0071300 A1) (hereinafter Shapiro) in view of Barriskill et al. (US 2015/0182784 A1) (hereinafter Barriskill).
In regards to claim 1, Shapiro discloses a perturbed walking training system (20; see [0044]; see figure 1a) for improving balance control in a subject (see [abstract]), the system comprising:
a movable platform (40; see [0044]; see figure 1a);
a supported in-place walking trainer (SUIT) (30; see [0044]; see figure 1a) mounted on the movable platform (see figure 1b),
at least one platform motor (63; see [0048]; see figure 1a) configured to control movement of the platform (see [0048]); and
a central control unit (70; see [0044]; see figure 1a), wherein the system is configured to administer unexpected external perturbations to the SUIT at least by moving the platform (controller 70 is programmed to control BAMPER 20 to confront trainee 100 with unanticipated and/or anticipated challenge displacements (i.e. platform movements); see [0070]), thereby inducing balance reactions in the subject (training on the BAMPER system will aid in improving the person's ability to prevent falling (i.e. their balance); see [0037]).
Shapiro does not disclose the SUIT comprising a first stepper operably connected to a first shaft and a second stepper operably connected to a second shaft.
However, Barriskill teaches an analogous perturbed walking training system (100; see [0037]; see figure 1; the training device 100 can increase the walking abilities of individuals with many types of neurological impairments (see [0040]); the footplate servos 230 can be used to induce perturbations, which the individual can train to counteract (see [0039])); the system comprising a supported in-place walking trainer (200; see [0038]; see figure 2) the SUIT comprising a first stepper (left 220; see [0038]; see figure 2) operably connected to a first shaft (left 260; see [0041]; see figure 2) and a second stepper (right 220; see [0038]; see figure 2) operably connected to a second shaft (right 260; see [0041]; see figure 2) for the purpose of providing a means by which to guide a patient’s foot through a normal range of motion in the sagittal plane during training (See [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perturbed walking training system as disclosed by Shapiro and to have substituted the treadmill supported in-place walking trainer for the SUIT comprising a first stepper operably connected to a first shaft and a second stepper operably connected to a second shaft as taught by Barriskill in order to have provided an improved perturbed walking training system that would add the benefit of providing a means by which to guide a patient’s foot through a normal range of motion in the sagittal plane during training (See [0043]). Thereby ensuring the user has proper and normal gait mechanics during their training sessions to further improve their balance.
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case a substitution of the treadmill as disclosed by Shapiro for the step trainer as taught by Barriskill does not change the respective function of, and yields the predictable results of improving balance control in a subject.
In regards to claim 4, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill does not disclose wherein the first stepper is connected to a first stepper motor controlling movement of the first stepper, and the second stepper is connected to a second stepper motor controlling the movement of the second stepper.
However, Barriskill further teaches wherein the first stepper (left 220) is connected to a first stepper motor (left 230; see [0038]; see figure 2) controlling movement of the first stepper (see [0038]), and the second stepper (right 220) is connected to a second stepper motor (right 230; see [0038]; see figure 2) controlling the movement of the second stepper (see [0038]) for the purpose of providing motors associated with the steppers that control the motion of the foot about the ankle in the sagittal plane that can either assist or resist the foot movement depending on the training needs of the patient (see [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second steppers as disclosed by Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill and to have included the first and second stepper motors as further taught by Barriskill in order to have provided improved first and second steppers that would add the benefit of providing motors associated with the steppers that control the motion of the foot about the ankle in the sagittal plane that can either assist or resist the foot movement depending on the training needs of the patient (see [0038]).
In regards to claim 7, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill further discloses wherein the unexpected external perturbations are platform-induced perturbations (see Shapiro [0037] and [0049]) and/or stepper-induced perturbations (see Barriskill [0039]).
In regards to claim 8, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses wherein the unexpected external perturbations are provided in a triangular motion profile (acceleration- deceleration) for each perturbation (the controller is programmable to control acceleration and deceleration of the runway surface displacements; see [0015]).
In regards to claim 10, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill further discloses wherein the unexpected external perturbations are selected from the group consisting of: lateral perturbations (roll, left and right tilt) (runway 36 can be tilted to change its yaw (rotation about the x-axis); see Shapiro [0036]), antero-posterior perturbations (pitch, forward and backward tilt) (runway 36 can be tilted to change its pitch (rotation around the y-axis); see Shapiro [0036]), vertical perturbations (servo 230 built into both the left and right footplate 220 allow the software to independently control the motion of the foot about the ankle in the sagittal plane… servos 230 can be used to induce perturbations (perturbations in the sagittal plane are vertical perturbations); see Barriskill [0038-0039]), rotations around a vertical axis, and any combination thereof.
In regards to claim 16, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill further discloses wherein the first shaft (left 260 of Barriskill) and the second shaft (right 260 of Barriskill) are operably connected to at least one shaft mechanism (250 of Barriskill; see Barriskill [0041] and figure 2).
In regards to claim 17, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill further discloses wherein the first shaft (left 260 of Barriskill) and the second shaft (right 260 of Barriskill) are operably connected to a single shaft mechanism (250 of Barriskill) which is configured to control resistance of the first shaft and the second shaft (The motion of the individual's feet is controlled by a foot assembly 200… The primary drive motor 210 provides for transverse motion of foot plates 220… This control can resist such movement; see Barriskill [0038]).
In regards to claim 21, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses further comprising a harness (90; see [0057]; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 22, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses wherein the harness (90) is configured to secure the subject during perturbations (safety harness 90 to which the person on runway 36 is optionally attached to prevent the trainee from falling if he or she does not successfully cope with a challenge displacement presented by the BAMPER system; see [0057]).
In regards to claim 24, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses further comprising a motion control unit as part of the central control unit (the controller is programmable to control direction of the runway surface displacement (see [0015]) and thus, 70 comprises a program (unit) as part of the central control unit for controlling the unexpected external perturbations), and/or a motion capture unit (204; see [0069]; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 27, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses wherein the central control unit (70) is configured to control operation parameters of the motion control unit (the controller is programmable to control magnitude, direction, acceleration, deceleration, and warnings of the runway surface displacement (see [0014-0016]) and thus, 70 is capable of programming the parameters of the program/unit which controls motion) and/or of the motion capture unit.
In regards to claim 28, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses further comprising a user interface and/or a display (70 being a computer (see figure 1a) comprises a user interface/display; additionally, the system can comprise 122; see [0074]; see figure 3).
In regards to claim 30, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses wherein the central control unit (70) comprises a processing unit configured to execute a computer program configured to determine performance of the subject during perturbations (signals that are processed by the controller to generate the MOP (measure of proficiency) for the person's balance control (see [0036]; i.e. 70 comprises a processor configured to execute a program which processes signals from sensors during perturbations to determine the individual’s proficiency; see [0034-0036])) and/or define further perturbations training sessions (the controller increases and/or varies postural challenges that the BAMPER system presents to a user, responsive to changes in the person's MOP (see [0034]; i.e. defines further training session parameters); see also [0058] that an operator operates the controller to configure training sessions).
In regards to claim 34, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses wherein the training session comprises operating parameters selected from the group consisting of: type of perturbation (controller controls the direction of the displacement (see [0031]) and thus, controls each type of displacement described in [0048], [0050], and [0053]), maximum acceleration/deceleration of a perturbation (see [0015]), maximum angular velocity of a perturbation (when the controller controls the perturbations of pitch and yaw described in [0053], maximum acceleration as described in [0015] controls angular velocity as well), magnitude of a perturbation (see [0014]), angle of perturbation (when the controller controls the perturbations of pitch and yaw described in [0053] control of the magnitude of displacement described in [0014] controls the angle of perturbation), number of perturbation repetitions (controller controls pre-programmed training sessions (see [0011]) which can be programmed to repeat certain perturbations), delay time between the perturbations (controller controls pre-programmed training sessions (see [0011]) which can be programmed to repeat certain perturbations at a given time interval), and any combination thereof.
In regards to claim 35, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to provide real-time feedback to the subject regarding reactive balance reaction following a single perturbation or perturbation session (see [0069]).
In regards to claim 40, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro further discloses A method for training or improving balance control of a subject (see [0009]), the method comprising:
providing one or more unexpected external perturbations to a subject (see [0037]) using the system of claim 1 (see discussion above), further comprising a motion capture unit (204; see [0069]; see figure 2) and a processing unit (signals that are processed by the controller to generate the MOP (measure of proficiency) for the person's balance control (see [0036]; i.e. 70 comprises a processor configured to execute a program which processes signals from sensors during perturbations to determine the individual’s proficiency; see [0034-0036]));
detecting a reactive balance response of the subject to the unexpected external perturbations based on data acquired by the motion capture unit of the system (see [0069]);
analyzing the detected reactive and proactive balance response of the subject (The images are used to determine (i.e. are analyzed to determine) temporal and spatial profiles of anticipatory (proactive) postural adjustments and/or compensatory (reactive) postural responses that the trainee makes in response to challenge displacements; see [0069]);
and providing feedback to the subject (motion capture system that images the trainee and provides real time images of the trainee; see [0069]) if the balance response is determined to be above a balance response threshold (The profiles are used to determine how adept the trainee is at responding to challenge displacements, whether he or she falls, and in case of a fall, direction of the fall (see [0069]) and thus, can be provided if the response is determined to be above a balance response threshold (i.e. the MOP described in [0034])).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro in view of Barriskill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dalton (US 3,904,177 A).
In regards to claim 3, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill further discloses wherein the system (20) further comprises a platform mechanism (electric linear actuator; see [0053]) configured to allow transmission of platform motor rotation with a rotation axis of the platform, thereby allowing rotation and external platform-induced perturbations (each crossed slide bearing 50 is mounted to a electric linear actuator (not shown) to raise and lower the slide bearing and control pitch and yaw of the runway; see [0053]).
While the electric linear actuator of Shapiro may comprise gears and one or more ball bearings, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill does not explicitly disclose the platform mechanism is a gear mechanism configured to allow transmission of platform motor rotation with a rotation axis of the platform by one or more ball bearings.
However, Dalton teaches an analogous electric linear actuator (10; see [col 1 ln 42]; see figure 1) for the analogous purpose of lifting an object (the present invention is directed to a hydromechanical jack (see [col 1 ln 20-21]); the use of jacks for lifting massive objects (see [col 1 ln 9-10])); the electric linear actuator is a gear mechanism (10 comprises gearing 30; see [col 1 ln 45]; see figure 1) configured to allow transmission of platform motor rotation with a rotation axis of the platform (if utilized to raise a corner of a platform such as that of Shapiro, the electric linear actuator would allow the transmission of platform motor rotation with a rotation axis of the platform as claimed) by one or more ball bearings (ball bearings of ball-screw-nut mechanism 28; see [col 1 ln 45]) for the purpose of providing an electric linear actuator which will not permit the rapid descent of the jack under the conditions of a mechanical failure (see [col 1 ln 24-27]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric linear actuators as disclosed by Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill and to have utilized the electric linear actuator comprising a gear mechanism and one or more ball bearings as taught by Dalton in order to have provided an improved perturbed walking training system that would add the benefit of providing an electric linear actuator which will not permit the rapid descent of the jack under the conditions of a mechanical failure (see [col 1 ln 24-27]). Thereby increasing the safety of the user when raising or lowering the SUIT during pitch and yaw perturbations.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro in view of Barriskill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2010/0145233 A1) (hereinafter Zhang).
In regards to claim 6, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill further discloses wherein the system further comprises at least one stepper gear mechanism (700, 730, and 745 of Barriskill; see Barriskill [0042] figure 7; gear is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a mechanism that performs a specific function in a complete machine” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gear) and thus, because structures 700, 730, and 745 together perform a specific function in a complete machine, are considered a gear mechanism)) configured to allow transmission of rotation from the first stepper motor (left 230 of Barriskill; see Barriskill [0038] and figure 2) and/or the second stepper motor (right 230 of Barriskill; see Barriskill [0038] and figure 2) with a rotation axis of the first stepper (left 220 of Barriskill) and/or the second stepper (right 220 of Barriskill; see Barriskill [0042]), thereby allowing rotation and the external stepper-induced perturbations of the first stepper and/or the second stepper (servos can be used to resist foot movement or to induce perturbations; see Barriskill [0038-0039])
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill does not disclose the rotation is by one or more ball bearings.
However, Zhang teaches an analogous first and second stepper (2010 and 2020; see [0062-0063]; see figure 1c) comprising at least one stepper mechanism (700 and 720; see [0091]; see figure 9) configured to allow transmission of rotation from the first stepper motor and/or the second stepper motor (100; see [0018]; see figure 1; see figure 9) with a rotation axis of the first stepper and/or the second stepper (2010 and 2020) by one or more ball bearings (700, 730, and 740; see [0091]; see figure 9) for the purpose of allowing the first and second steppers to perform pivoting/tilting training during sagittal plane movement (See [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one stepper gear mechanism as disclosed by Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill and to have included the one or more ball bearings as taught by Zhang in order to have provided an improved perturbed walking training system that would add the benefit of allowing the first and second steppers to perform pivoting/tilting training during sagittal plane movement (See [0091]). Thereby increasing the number of unexpected external perturbations the system is capable of providing and consequently, increasing the balance training capability of the system.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro in view of Barriskill as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Fung (US 2019/0209891 A1).
In regards to claim 23, Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill discloses the invention as discussed above.
Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill does not disclose wherein the harness is configured to provide pull perturbations to the subject.
However, Fung teaches an analogous perturbed walking training system (variable-resistance exercise machine; see [0046]; see figure 3) for improving balance control in a subject (multidirectional moving surfaces 203a-b may also be used in various therapeutic or rehabilitation roles, for example to aid a user in developing balance or range of motion; see [0059]) comprising an analogous movable platform (203a-b; see [0059]; see figure 3) and an analogous harness (420; see [0057]; see figure 4); wherein the harness is configured to provide pull perturbations to the subject (420 comprises tethers 410a-n which can be utilized to provide physical indication to a user of software events, such as applying tension to resist movement, pulling or tugging on a tether to move or “jerk” a user in a direction, or varying feedback to multiple tethers such as tugging and releasing in varying order or sequence to simulate more complex effects; see [0063]) for the purpose of providing a variety of feedback types may be used to provide haptic output to a user in response to software events (See [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the harness as disclosed by Shapiro as now modified by Barriskill and to have included the functionality of allowing the harness to provide pull perturbations to the subject utilizing the tether system of the harness as taught by Fung in order to have provided an improved harness that would add the benefit of providing a variety of feedback types may be used to provide haptic output to a user in response to software events (See [0066]). Thereby increasing the number of unexpected external perturbations the system is capable of providing and consequently, increasing the balance training capability of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights