DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the gray-scale portions of the Figures may not reproduce well. 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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by John et al. (US 20150148878 A1, 2015-05-28) (hereinafter “John”).
Regarding claim 1, John teaches a muscle or nerve function rehabilitation assistance device (1), comprising: (a) a conductive hydrogel to be injected into a muscle injury site or nerve injury site of a subject (e.g., [0276]); (b) a neural stimulation electrode 100 for delivering electrical stimulation to the nerves of the subject; (c) an electrical stimulation generator 200 for applying a stimulation signal to the neural stimulation electrode (e.g., [0098]-[0107]); (d) an electromyographic electrode 300 for measuring an electromyographic signal of the target rehabilitation muscle of the subject; and (e) an electromyographic recorder 400 for receiving an electromyographic signal from the electromyographic electrode (e.g., [0346], [0349]).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John in view of John in view of Lavrov et al. (US 20230398359 A1, 2023-12-14) (hereinafter “Lavrov”).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 9-12, as discussed above, John teaches a muscle or nerve function rehabilitation assistance device (1), except comprising a motor function assistance device for motor function rehabilitation of muscles. Lavrov teaches a motor function assistance device for motor function rehabilitation of muscles (e.g., [0004]-[0006]) and the use of a treadmill (e.g., [0028]).
Note that John teaches filtering of sensor signals (e.g., [0197] [J1]) and feedback control (e.g., [0261] [J2]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lavrov with the invention taught by Lavrov such that the invention further comprises) a motor function assistance device (500) for motor function rehabilitation of muscles (as recited in claim 2); wherein the motor function assistance device (500) further comprises a treadmill (501) for gait training and a weight support (502) for supporting the weight of the subject (as recited in claim 4); wherein the electromyographic recorder (400) monitors and records electromyographic signals (EMG) and transmits the signals to the electrical stimulation generator (200) and the power control unit (506) of the motor function assistance device (e.g., [J2]) (as recited in claim 9); wherein the electromyographic recorder removes noise signals caused by the subject's movements by filtering the collected EMG signals (e.g., [J1]) (as recited in claim 10);wherein the electrical stimulation generator (200) controls the intensity of the generated electrical stimulation signals by comparing the target EMG signal value determined through electrical simulation with the measured EMG signal value, such that: i) when the EMG signal is below the target EMG signal value, the magnitude of the electrical stimulation signal applied to the neural stimulation electrode is increased; and ii) when the EMG signal exceeds the target EMG signal value, the magnitude of the electrical stimulation signal applied to the neural stimulation electrode is decreased (e.g., [J2]) (as recited in claim 11); wherein the power control unit (506) controls the intensity of the provided motion assistance force by comparing the target electromyographic signal value determined through electrical simulation with the measured electromyographic signal value, such that: i) when the electromyographic signal is below the target electromyographic signal value, motion assistance signals are transmitted to the motor function assistance device (500) to increase the magnitude of the motion assistance force; and ii) when the electromyographic signal exceeds the target electromyographic signal value, motion assistance signals are transmitted to the motor function assistance device (500) to decrease the magnitude of the motion assistance force (e.g., [J2]) (as recited in claim 12) in order to improve the efficacy of the rehabilitation.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John in view of Bierman (US 20210283312 A1, 2021-09-16).
Regarding claims 5-8, as discussed above, John teaches a muscle or nerve function rehabilitation assistance device (1), except comprising wherein the conductive hydrogel comprises hyaluronic acid and noble metal nanoparticles
Bierman teaches varying composition of hydrogel in order to achieve desired mechanical and electrical properties (e.g., [0035]-[0047], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bierman with the invention taught by John such that the invention further comprises wherein the conductive hydrogel has a resistance of 1 kΩ to 100 kΩ (as recited in claim 6); wherein the conductive hydrogel has a tangent delta (tan(δ)) of 0 (exclusive) to 0.5 (inclusive) (as recited in claim 7); wherein the conductive hydrogel has an elongation in longitudinal direction of 80% to 120% (as recited in claim 8) in order to achieve the achieve biocompatible properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 5, and 13-14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed invention of the rehabilitation assistance device of Claim 2, wherein the motor function assistance device (500) comprises: an actuator (503) for providing motion assistance force in a flexion-extension direction of the muscle of the subject; a body fixation unit (504) for securing the subject's body part; a connecting member (505) for transmitting force by linking the actuator and the body fixation unit; and a power control unit (506) for determining whether to supply power to the actuator (as recited in claim 3); wherein the conductive hydrogel comprises hyaluronic acid and noble metal nanoparticles, the hyaluronic acid forming a network linked by biphenyls; and the noble metal nanoparticles being dispersed within the network (as recited in claim 5).
For these reasons the claims are believed to be allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights