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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments combined with the claim amendments have been fully considered and are found persuasive with respect to the previous rejection(s); however, upon further search and consideration due to the change in scope, an updated grounds of rejection is presented below, necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 24, the phrase “…determining an initial unloaded length of the band, a spring constant associated with the band, and the force signal…” in combination with the other elements of the claim and the claim which this dependent claim is dependent on, fails to be supported by the disclosure as originally filed. The examiner notes the disclosure of the present application refers to the initial length, band spring constant, and measured force as known parameters, not parameters that can be determined or are determined or calculated during the step of determination of the location. It appears the length of the band is the only measurement that is performed out of this claim. It is suggested to amend the claims to falls within the scope of the disclosure as originally presented, in order to overcome this rejection.
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 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.
In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire (US 2016/0140866; hereinafter “McGuire”) in view of Ren et al. (US 2020/0281509; hereinafter “Ren”).
Regarding claim 1, McGuire discloses a system, comprising: a muscle activation sensing system that includes a mechanical sensor mounted on a body part and configured to detect a change in a muscle associated with the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 25-26); wherein the mechanical sensor comprises a protruding indenter geometry positioned to interface with a skin surface of the body part and is configured to produce a force signal in response to the change in the muscle (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – “the transducer 106 may comprise a pair of normally open contacts which close when a predetermined level of pressure is exerted on the projections by distension of the muscles”), where in the muscle activation sensing system includes a band for holding the mechanical sensor in contact with the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 65; Fig. 23, #105), wherein the body part is a limb (e.g. ¶¶ 65 - “part of the body which may be encircled may be the arm”); a processor configured to: determine the muscle activation sensing system on the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – where based on the sensing system, muscles such as the paraspinal muscles are determined to be activating); derive a control signal based on the force signal produced by the mechanical sensor and the determined location (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – “transmit a pressure signal”; ¶¶ 26 – where the examiner notes the level of intensity is used to derive a control signal which may result in an audible beep or transmission to external devices); and output the control signal to a device (e.g. ¶¶ 27 – “data acquired by transducers…transmitted…to mobile communication devices”, ¶¶ 83-88 – where the device is has a screen for output).
McGuire fails to expressly disclose determining a location of the system wherein the system includes a band linear position sensing measuring tension or elongation of the band and deriving the control signal based on the determined location. In the same field of endeavor, Ren discloses a muscle activation sensing system that determines the location of the system on the body part using a band linear position sensing by measuring tension or elongation of the band (e.g. ¶¶ 31 – “Location of each of the two or more sensors coupled to the human body can be determined by processing the obtained data. Location can include a position on the human body, coordinates within a three-dimensional space, coordinates projected onto a two-dimensional space, and the like.”) and derives a control signal based on the determined location (e.g. ¶¶ 31 – “movement signature can be used to compare movement of a limb to its symmetric limb, to measure progress of therapy or recovery, to identify possible movement problems or disorders, and so on…movement signature can be used to develop a treatment plan for the individual”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to apply the known technique of determining a location of the system wherein the system includes a band linear position sensing measuring tension or elongation of the band and derive the control signal based on the location, as taught by Ren, to the known device of McGuire, to improve the device by allowing the data acquired to be further attributed to a specific location on the muscle/limb for improved analysis of biomechanics.
Regarding claim 20, McGuire teaches a method, comprising: detecting, by a muscle activation sensing system that includes a mechanical sensor mounted on a body part, a change in a muscle associated with the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 25-26); wherein the mechanical sensor comprises a protruding indenter geometry positioned to interface with a skin surface of the body part and is configured to produce a force signal in response to the change in the muscle (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – “the transducer 106 may comprise a pair of normally open contacts which close when a predetermined level of pressure is exerted on the projections by distension of the muscles”), where in the muscle activation sensing system includes a band for holding the mechanical sensor in contact with the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 65; Fig. 23, #105), wherein the body part is a limb (e.g. ¶¶ 65 - “part of the body which may be encircled may be the arm”); determining the muscle activation sensing system on the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – where based on the sensing system, a specific location of the muscles such as the paraspinal muscles are determined to be activating); deriving a control signal based on the detected change in the muscle associated with the body part e.g. ¶¶ 67 – “transmit a pressure signal”; ¶¶ 26 – where the examiner notes the level of intensity is used to derive a control signal which may result in an audible beep or transmission to external devices); and outputting the control signal to a device (e.g. ¶¶ 27 – “data acquired by transducers…transmitted…to mobile communication devices”, ¶¶ 83-88 – where the device is has a screen for output).
McGuire fails to expressly disclose determining a location of the system wherein the system includes a band linear position sensing measuring tension or elongation of the band and deriving the control signal based on the determined location. In the same field of endeavor, Ren discloses a muscle activation sensing system that determines the location of the system on the body part using a band linear position sensing by measuring tension or elongation of the band (e.g. ¶¶ 31 – “Location of each of the two or more sensors coupled to the human body can be determined by processing the obtained data. Location can include a position on the human body, coordinates within a three-dimensional space, coordinates projected onto a two-dimensional space, and the like.”) and derives a control signal based on the determined location (e.g. ¶¶ 31 – “movement signature can be used to compare movement of a limb to its symmetric limb, to measure progress of therapy or recovery, to identify possible movement problems or disorders, and so on…movement signature can be used to develop a treatment plan for the individual”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to apply the known technique of determining a location of the system wherein the system includes a band linear position sensing measuring tension or elongation of the band and derive the control signal based on the location, as taught by Ren, to the known device of McGuire, to improve the device by allowing the data acquired to be further attributed to a specific location on the muscle/limb for improved analysis of biomechanics.
Regarding claim 23, McGuire teaches a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for: detecting, by a muscle activation sensing system that includes a mechanical sensor mounted on a body part, a change in a muscle associated with the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 25-26); wherein the mechanical sensor comprises a protruding indenter geometry positioned to interface with a skin surface of the body part and is configured to produce a force signal in response to the change in the muscle (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – “the transducer 106 may comprise a pair of normally open contacts which close when a predetermined level of pressure is exerted on the projections by distension of the muscles”), where in the muscle activation sensing system includes a band for holding the mechanical sensor in contact with the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 65; Fig. 23, #105), wherein the body part is a limb (e.g. ¶¶ 65 - “part of the body which may be encircled may be the arm”); determining the muscle activation sensing system on the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – where based on the sensing system, muscles such as the paraspinal muscles are determined to be activating); deriving a control signal based on the detected change in the muscle associated with the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – “transmit a pressure signal”; ¶¶ 26 – where the examiner notes the level of intensity is used to derive a control signal which may result in an audible beep or transmission to external devices); and outputting the control signal to a device (e.g. ¶¶ 27 – “data acquired by transducers…transmitted…to mobile communication devices”, ¶¶ 83-88 – where the device is has a screen for output).
McGuire fails to expressly disclose determining a location of the system wherein the system includes a band linear position sensing measuring tension or elongation of the band and deriving the control signal based on the determined location. In the same field of endeavor, Ren discloses a muscle activation sensing system that determines the location of the system on the body part using a band linear position sensing by measuring tension or elongation of the band (e.g. ¶¶ 31 – “Location of each of the two or more sensors coupled to the human body can be determined by processing the obtained data. Location can include a position on the human body, coordinates within a three-dimensional space, coordinates projected onto a two-dimensional space, and the like.”) and derives a control signal based on the determined location (e.g. ¶¶ 31 – “movement signature can be used to compare movement of a limb to its symmetric limb, to measure progress of therapy or recovery, to identify possible movement problems or disorders, and so on…movement signature can be used to develop a treatment plan for the individual”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to apply the known technique of determining a location of the system wherein the system includes a band linear position sensing measuring tension or elongation of the band and derive the control signal based on the location, as taught by Ren, to the known device of McGuire, to improve the device by allowing the data acquired to be further attributed to a specific location on the muscle/limb for improved analysis of biomechanics.
Regarding claims 2 and 21, McGuire discloses the mechanical sensor is a force sensor (e.g. ¶¶ 25).
Regarding claims 3 and 22, McGuire discloses the mechanical sensor is a displacement sensor (e.g. ¶¶ 25).
Regarding claim 4, McGuire discloses the muscle activation sensing system includes a housing, wherein the housing includes a body part interface to contact a skin of the body part (e.g. ¶¶ 25).
Regarding claim 5, McGuire discloses the body part interface is encapsulated or surrounded by a high-friction material (e.g. ¶¶ 79).
Regarding claim 7, McGuire discloses the band is flexible (e.g. ¶¶ 65 - elastic).
Regarding claim 8, McGuire discloses the band has a molded geometry (e.g. ¶¶ 64 – “molded as one piece”).
Regarding claim 9, McGuire discloses an output of the mechanical sensor is pre-processed including by filtering, offset correction, gain calibration or scaling, drift compensation, smoothing, or windowing (e.g. ¶¶ 5 – where Fig. 4 of the incorporated reference includes filters which is notoriously common in the art of medical data processing).
Regarding claim 10, McGuire discloses the control signal is derived based on outputs of an intent processing unit and a task context engine (e.g. ¶¶ 67-70 – where the examiner notes that although the prior art doesn’t use the terms claimed, the processor is analyzing the intent (measuring based on the level of impairment) and has a task purpose (to provide biofeedback mechanisms)).
Regarding claim 11, McGuire discloses an output of the intent processing unit is based on corresponding outputs associated with pre-processed sensor data, corresponding output associated with an anatomical positioning system, and a corresponding output associated with an anatomical context engine (e.g. ¶¶ 67-70 – where the examiner considers the ability for the processing system to know the positioning of the belt on the patient as the trunk and specifically the paraspinal muscle to qualify as the anatomical positioning system based on an anatomical context engine in the preprogrammed background data).
Regarding claim 12, McGuire discloses an output of the task context engine is based on API specific identifiers and environmental sensing (e.g. ¶¶ 67-70 – where the device clearly uses API specific identifiers and environmental sensing for the advance movement discussed at ¶¶ 109).
Regarding claim 13, McGuire discloses the muscle activation sensing system includes the mechanical sensor and one or more other mechanical sensors (e.g. Fig. 23, #104/156, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, McGuire discloses a tension between the mechanical sensor and one of the one or more other mechanical sensors is used to determine the location of the muscle activation sensing system (e.g. ¶¶ 67 – where based on the sensing system, a specific location of the muscles such as the paraspinal muscles are determined to be activating).
Regarding claim 15, McGuire discloses the processor is configured to determine a rotational position of the mechanical sensor by the body part moving into a known reference posture and recording a gravity vector while the body part is moved into the known reference posture (e.g. ¶¶ 109).
Regarding claim 24, McGuire fails to expressly disclose band length specifics; however, Ren discloses the current length of the band is used to determine the location of the band on the limb (e.g. ¶¶ 31) and further where the unloaded length, spring constant, force signal are all used in analyzing and determine this (e.g. ¶¶ 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to apply the known technique of using the unloaded length, spring constant, force signal, and current length of the band as taught by Ren, to the known device of McGuire, to improve the device by allowing the data acquired in a consistent and well known manner.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire in view of Fahey (US 2013/0030277; hereinafter “Fahey”).
Regarding claims 16-17, McGuire fails to disclose the muscle activation sensing system includes an image sensor configured to detect gestures associated with a hand, where the detected gestures associated with the hand are utilized in part to derive the control signal. In the same field of endeavor, Fahey discloses the use of motion sensors and the use of hand movement to activate the device which are utilized in part to begin derivation of the control signal (e.g. ¶¶ 93, 142, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to apply the known use of motion sensors sensitive to hand gestures as taught by Fahey, to the known device of McGuire, to improve the device in a similar manner by improving the efficiency of use of the device with the least amount of battery consumption.
Regarding claims 18-19, McGuire fails to disclose the muscle activation sensing system includes a distance sensor and the output of the distance sensor is utilized in part to derive the control signal. In the same field of endeavor, Fahey discloses utilizing a distance sensor to derive the control signal in order to effectively compensate for the voltage signal strength (e.g. ¶¶ 133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to apply the known use of the output of a distance sensor to derive the control signal. to the known device of McGuire, to improve the device in a similar manner by adding an additional parameter to use in more effective calculation of the sensory data.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796