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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This is a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 27 March 2026, wherein:
Claims 21, 23, 28, 30, 35, and 38 are amended.
Claims 22, 24-27, 29, 31-34, 36, 37, 39, and 40 are previously presented.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04 December 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/625,758 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 and 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 21, 24-28, 31-35, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Einav et al. (US 2015/0141773, hereinafter referred to as Einav) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Einav et al. (US 2015/0141773, hereinafter referred to as Einav) in view of Integrum AB (US 2017/0025026, hereinafter referred to as Integrum).
Regarding claims 21, 28, and 35, Einav teaches a method (claim 21), an apparatus (claim 28), and a system (claim 35) for providing virtual feedback of a neural pattern to create a neural pathway corresponding to an action of an affected limb of a physical therapy patient with brain injury (Einav, Title, Motor Training with Brain Plasticity; para. 219, “A particular intention of some embodiments of the invention is to interact with the cerebral aspects of rehabilitation, as they relate, for example, to the plasticity and/or training of a brain 608. In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, brain 608 is damaged due to traumatic brain injury or a stroke.”), the method comprising:
detecting a first neural pattern in response to the physical therapy patient attempting to perform a predefined training action, the first neural pattern detected using sensors in contact with the head of the physical therapy patient (Einav, para. 181-184, “a method of measuring brain patterns, comprising: providing repeated movement exercises of a patient, under computer control; and collecting measurements of brain activity from said repeated movements; and analyzing said measurements to yield a more precise measurement of brain activity in response to the movement.”);
determining the first neural pattern to be associated with the predefined training action (Einav, para. 184, “analyzing said measurements to yield a more precise measurement of brain activity in response to the movement.”);
storing the first neural pattern (Einav, para. 432, Cortical “Fingerprints” of Specific Movements/Movement’s Intention, “These vectors are optionally used to establish a patient-specific classifier that determines from the EEG which action the patient is imagining. Optionally, for each patient a "cortical fingerprints movement related dictionary" that matches a specific cortical activation to a specific movement is generated. Optionally, the movements are carried out only in the mind. Alternatively, or additionally, a comparison between imagined and actual motions is stored.”);
detecting a second neural pattern in response to the physical therapy patient attempting to perform a target action, the second neural pattern is detected using the sensors in contact with the head of the physical therapy patient (Einav, para. 181-184, “a method of measuring brain patterns, comprising: providing repeated movement exercises of a patient, under computer control; and collecting measurements of brain activity from said repeated movements; and analyzing said measurements to yield a more precise measurement of brain activity in response to the movement.”);
determining the target action associated with the second neural pattern, wherein determining the target action includes comparing the first neural pattern with the second neural pattern (Einav, para. 184, “analyzing said measurements to yield a more precise measurement of brain activity in response to the movement.”);
in response to a positive comparison, generating a virtual feedback including a virtual action corresponding to the target action, wherein the virtual action is to be performed in a virtual representation of the affected limb (Einav, para. 235, “the VR system is used to better emulate real-world situations a patient is to be rehabilitated for. Optionally, the VR system is used to enhance reality, for example by showing a desired motion overlaid on a view of the patient showing his limbs actually moving.”), and wherein the brain injury prevents the affected limb from performing the target action (Einav, para. 219, “A particular intention of some embodiments of the invention is to interact with the cerebral aspects of rehabilitation, as they relate, for example, to the plasticity and/or training of a brain 608. In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, brain 608 is damaged due to traumatic brain injury or a stroke.”);
causing the virtual representation of the affected limb to be positioned within a virtual environment to spatially correspond with a real-world position of the affected limb such that a view of the virtual representation of the affected limb is presented to the physical therapy patient in lieu of a real-world view of the affected limb (Einav, para. 235, "the VR system is used to better emulate real-world situations a patient is to be rehabilitated for. Optionally, the VR system is used to enhance reality, for example by showing a desired motion overlaid on a view of the patient showing his limbs actually moving." This overlaying is replacing the view of his limb actually moving such that the desired motion is shown in lieu of that real-world view thus teaching the limitation.); and
performing the virtual action corresponding to the target action in the virtual representation of affected limb, such that the virtual action is presented to the physical therapy patient in lieu of the target action in the real-world (Einav, para. 235, "the VR system is used to better emulate real-world situations a patient is to be rehabilitated for. Optionally, the VR system is used to enhance reality, for example by showing a desired motion overlaid on a view of the patient showing his limbs actually moving." Showing the desired motion is presenting the virtual action corresponding to the target action in lieu of the target action in the real-world because the desired motion is shown in lieu of (i.e., “overlaid” as explained above) the real-world moving of the limb.).
In the event that Einav is construed as not teaching causing the virtual representation of the affected limb to be positioned within a virtual environment to spatially correspond with a real-world position of the affected limb such that a view of the virtual representation of the affected limb is presented to the physical therapy patient in lieu of a real-world view of the affected limb; and performing the virtual action corresponding to the target action in the virtual representation of affected limb, such that the virtual action is presented to the physical therapy patient in lieu of the target action in the real-world, an analogous art, Integrum teaches causing the virtual representation of the affected limb to be positioned within a virtual environment to spatially correspond with a real-world position of the affected limb such that a view of the virtual representation of the affected limb is presented to the physical therapy patient in lieu of a real-world view of the affected limb (Integrum, para. 18, “By using an actual acquired image or video of the patient and superimposing a virtual limb in the image/video the illusion of a restored limb is enhanced. Thus, the patient will see him/herself on the display with a virtual arm in place of the affected or disordered limb. Superimposing a virtual limb into a real image enables an augmented reality. For example, when the patient intends to perform a motion in the affected limb, the virtual limb on the display moves according to the intended motion predicted via pattern recognition.”); and
performing the virtual action corresponding to the target action in the virtual representation of affected limb, such that the virtual action is presented to the physical therapy patient in lieu of the target action in the real-world (Integrum, para. 18, “when the patient intends to perform a motion in the affected limb, the virtual limb on the display moves according to the intended motion predicted via pattern recognition.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Einav to incorporate the virtual representation and performance of the virtual action as taught by Integrum to more clearly teach these limitations because “motor execution is improved by enabling direct response of a virtual limb… controlled via the predicted motions.” See Integrum at para. 9.
Regarding claims 24, 31, and 39, Einav teaches the method of claim 21, the apparatus of claim 28, and the system of claim 35, wherein the determining the target action associated with the second neural pattern includes:
determining that the second neural pattern matches the first neural pattern (Integrum, Abstract, “perform pattern recognition of said electric signals”; para. 12, “pattern recognition algorithm”; para. 70 “myoelectric and/or neuroelectric signals can be used to drive the system and promote motor execution.”); and
determining that the second neural pattern is associated with the action corresponding to the first neural pattern (Integrum, Abstract, “predict motion intent of said affected limb (104, 204) adjacent to at least one joint, such aggregated motions of said affected limb (104, 204) are predicted”).
Regarding claims 25, 32, and 40, Einav teaches the method of claim 24, the apparatus of claim 31, and the system of claim 35, wherein the comparing includes comparing at least one of a frequency and an amplitude of the second neural pattern with a corresponding at least one of a frequency and an amplitude of the first neural pattern (Einav, para. 432, “patient is trained to distinguish (e.g., generate selectively) between the EEG patterns associated with imagination of different simple motor actions, such as right or left hand movements. During the imagination of motion, specific cortical activity patterns ("cortical fingerprints") for specific movements are identified, for example a fingerprint for the motion of pushing the hand forwards, in comparison to a fingerprint which is recorded by moving the hand leftwards (or backwards, or upwards etc.). In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, in each of a series of trials, the patient will imagine one of several actions ( e.g. right or left hand movement, forwards-backwards, left-right, diagonal, up-down movements) while EEG from electrodes over sensorimotor cortex ( or other recording sites) will be submitted to frequency- and/or component analysis (or other analysis methods) to derive signal features.”).
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Einav teaches the method of claim 24 and the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the first neural pattern includes an indication of a patient with which the first neural pattern is associated, and wherein the comparing includes comparing the second neural pattern with the first neural pattern only if the first neural pattern is associated with the physical therapy patient based on the indication of the patient with which the first neural pattern is associated (Einav, para. 264, “the rate of progression in synchronization of activation and/or in other parameters of cortical activities (e.g., as compared to healthy subjects or motion of healthy limbs), is used to estimate rehabilitation time and/or expected milestones.” Para. 265, “one or more templates of progression of cortical activity and/or their association with physical rehabilitation are stored and compared to actual progress of a patient.”).
Regarding claims 27 and 34, Einav teaches the method of claim 21 and the apparatus of claim 28, further including:
measuring a conformation of the affected limb during the performing the virtual action (Einav, para. 226, “a mechanical performance monitor module/software 624 is provided, for example, for assessing quality of motion and/or other motion parameters. Optionally, the actual motion is compared to planned motion.” Para. 227, “Optionally, a camera 615 is provided. A camera may be used, for example, to provide feedback to a patient, to acquire and capture images which can be analyzed to determine quality of motion, for assisting interaction with a remote or a local therapist (who has only one pair of eyes) and/or to generate cuing movies for indicating motions to a patient. In some embodiments of the invention a camera and/or a position sensor are used to detect patient motion instead of using a manipulator.”); and
based on the measured conformation, automatically modifying the virtual representation of the affected limb to perform the target action (Einav, para. 228, “Feedback to a user is optionally provided, for example as a visual display (628)”; para. 235, “the VR system is used to enhance reality, for example by showing a desired motion overlaid on a view of the patient showing his limbs actually moving.”).
Claims 22, 23, 29, 30, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einav et al. (US 2015/0141773, hereinafter referred to as Einav) in view of Integrum AB (US 2017/0025026, hereinafter referred to as Integrum).
Regarding claims 22, 23, 29, 30, 36, and 37, Einav teaches the method of claim 21, the apparatus of claim 28, and the system of claim 35.
Einav does not explicitly teach, with respect to claims 22, 29, and 36, wherein the virtual feedback includes a set of parameters for the performing the virtual action, and wherein the performing the virtual action is in accordance with the set of parameters and with respect to claims 23, 30, and 37, wherein the set of parameters includes at least one of: amount of flexion of the virtual representation of the affected limb for the target action, a speed of the target action, and a force of the target action.
However, in an analogous art, Integrum teaches, with respect to claims 22, 29, and 36, wherein the virtual feedback includes a set of parameters for the performing the virtual action, and wherein the performing the virtual action is in accordance with the set of parameters (Integrum, para. 12-20 disclose that a virtual limb may follow the predetermined portion of the patient's body in the visual feedback being displayed on the display such that the virtual limb remains in an anatomically correct position - virtual limb may follow the predetermined position by allowing the control unit to track, via the camera, fiducial markers arranged on the patient's affected limb in the position where the virtual limb is to be superimposed - the virtual limb is superimposed on the marker as shown In the display, and the virtual limb changes scale and rotation based on the tracking of the marker. For instance, para. 12, “The control unit thus extracts features indicative of an intended motion to feed a pattern recognition algorithm.) and with respect to claims 23, 30, and 37, wherein the set of parameters includes at least one of: amount of flexion of the virtual representation of the affected limb for the target action, a speed of the target action, and a force of the target action (Integrum, para. 12-20 disclose that aggregated motions the joints may be actuated individually, thus moving individual portions of the limb, or all together, for example with different speeds and ranges if necessary. Furthermore, an aggregated motion may be a first individual motion followed by a second individual motion. For instance, para. 12, “an individual motion may be flexing of a joint, extending the joint, pronation, supination, open or close hand (in the case where a hand is part of an affected limb, and include several joints), ulnar deviation, radial deviation, or any other motion possible with a limb. The control unit thus extracts features indicative of an intended motion to feed a pattern recognition algorithm… with aggregated motions the joints may be actuated individually, thus moving individual portions of the limb, or all together, for example with different speeds and ranges if necessary.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Einav to incorporate the virtual feedback parameters as taught by Integrum because “the VR system is used to better emulate real-world situations a patient is to be rehabilitated for. Optionally, the VR system is used to enhance reality, for example by showing a desired motion overlaid on a view of the patient showing his limbs actually moving.” See Einav at para. 235. Furthermore, “motor execution is improved by enabling direct response of a virtual limb… controlled via the predicted motions.” See Integrum at para. 9.
Regarding claim 38, Einav teaches the system of claim 36, wherein the first neural pattern includes an indication of a patient with which the first neural pattern is associated, and wherein the comparing includes comparing the second neural pattern with the first neural pattern only if the first neural pattern is associated with the physical therapy patient based on the indication of the patient with which the first neural pattern is associated (Einav, para. 264, “the rate of progression in synchronization of activation and/or in other parameters of cortical activities (e.g., as compared to healthy subjects or motion of healthy limbs), is used to estimate rehabilitation time and/or expected milestones.” Para. 265, “one or more templates of progression of cortical activity and/or their association with physical rehabilitation are stored and compared to actual progress of a patient.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered. The amendments obviate the associated objections. Thus, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered. The amendments obviate the associated objections. Thus, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection of claim 38 have been fully considered. The amendments obviate the associated objection. Thus, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections have been considered but are moot in light of the terminal disclaimer filed 04 December 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 23, 30, and 37 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered. The amendments obviate the associated rejections. Thus, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection claims 21, 24-28, 31-35, 39, and 40 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Einav does not teach the amended claims. Here, Applicant asserts that para. 235 in Einav describes a situation in which the real-world view of the patient is enhanced and attempts to distinguish the amended limitation with reciting that the claimed visual representation of the affected limb is within a virtual environment in lieu of a real-world view.
Examiner is not persuaded. Para. 235 in Einav explicitly recites the use of virtual reality (VR) which is a presentation of a virtual environment, not a real-world view. This is further evidenced in the preceding sentence which recites “to better emulate real-world situations”. Emulating real-world situations are not the real-world situations themselves, but representations of the real-world situations and thus virtual when using VR. Furthermore, “overlaying” a second view on a first view is using the second view to hide the first view. Thus, overlaying as recited in Einav is replacing the view of his limb actually moving such that the desired motion is shown in lieu of that real-world view thus teaching the limitation. Even assuming arguendo that Einav does not teach the amended limitation, the incorporation of the Integrum reference even more clearly demonstrates these limitations.
Applicant then asserts that dependent claims 24-27, 31-34, 39, and 40 are allowable due to their dependencies.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections of the pending claims above which have been updated to address the claim amendments and illustrate that neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims are allowable.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection claims 22, 23, 29, 30, and 36-38 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts these dependent claims are allowable over the cited references at least for the reasons set forth with respect to the independent claims.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections of the pending claims above which have been updated to address the claim amendments and illustrate that neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims are allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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 LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights