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 Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 03/26/26. Claims 21-34 are pending in the application. Claims 21-34 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a battery” in line 30, needs to be changed to “the battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a first end of the third switch is connected to the first terminal of the motor, a second end of the third switch is connected to a second pole of the battery,” in lines 3-4, needs to be removed (since such limitation is already recited in claim 29, upon which claim 33 depends, and therefore is redundant). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horst (US 2006/0004307 A1) in view of Shimizu et al. (JP2014210573 A, previously provided, please note that the citations within this reference are with respect to the translation of this document provided with this Office Action) and Akiyama (US 2005/0057200 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Horst teaches a method of controlling a motor driver circuit of a wearable device (abstract)/A wearable device (Fig. 1) comprising: a/the motor driver circuit (regenerative braking circuit 412, Fig. 4); a motor (i.e., 12) electrically connected to the motor driver circuit (Fig. 4), at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (i.e., 402/422, Fig. 4); and memory (i.e., 420, Fig. 4) comprising one or more storage media storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed individually or collectively by the at least one processor (¶ [15], [49]) cause the wearable device to (perform)/the method comprising: in response to an exercise mode being set in the wearable device (i.e., 514/612, Figs. 5-6, ¶ [12]): controlling/control the motor driver circuit connected to the motor (i.e., 12, Fig. 4, ¶ [52]-[53]); determining/determine a resistance level to apply for a first joint of a user (¶ [50], [63], [66]); and controlling/control the motor driver circuit connected to the motor based on the resistance level (Figs. 5-6, ¶ [12], [14]-[15], [32]-[34], [52]-[53], [63]), and in response to an assistance mode being set in the wearable device (¶ [58], assist mode 508): determining/determine an assistance torque value to apply to the first joint (¶ [50], [68]); providing/provide an assistance force to the user at least by controlling the motor based on the assistance torque value, through the motor driver circuit and the battery (¶ [62], [68]).
Horst teaches various operation modes including an exercise mode that provide resistance and an assist mode that provide assistance, wherein in the exercise/resistance mode, resistance is provided through a regeneration/regenerative braking circuit 412, which can in turn charge a battery/power source of the device (see ¶ [53]). However, Horst is silent about the motor driver circuit including a first switch, a second switch, and a third switch, wherein a first end of the first switch is connected to a first pole of a battery, a second end of the first switch is connected to a first terminal of a motor, a first end of the second switch is connected to the first pole of the battery, the second end of the second switch is connected to a second terminal of the motor, a first end of the third switch is connected to the first terminal of the motor, a second end of the third switch is connected to a second pole of the battery, the method further comprising/the wearable device further to: in response to the exercise mode: controlling/control the first switch and the second switch of the motor driver circuit to be open, such that a battery does not form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit; determining/determine a connection ratio between a connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in a closed loop and a disconnected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically disconnected; and while the first switch and the second switch are controlled to be open, controlling/control the third switch of the motor driver circuit electrically connected between the motor and the second pole of the battery based on the connection ratio; in response to the assistance mode: controlling/control only one of the first switch and the second switch of the motor driver circuit to be turned on such that poles of a battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit; and providing/provide the assistance force to the user at least by controlling the motor based on the assistance torque value, while the first and second poles of the battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit and the battery.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Shimizu teaches a method of controlling a motor driver circuit/A device comprising a motor driver circuit (i.e., regenerative braking circuit 122, Figs. 6, 11(a)-11(d), 14(a)-14(d)) the motor driver circuit including a first switch (i.e., 132), a second switch (i.e., 134), and a third switch (i.e., 131), wherein a first end of the first switch (i.e., 132) is connected to a first pole of a battery/power source (i.e., 101, i.e., the pole connected to the ground, Figs. 11(a)-11(d), 14(a)-14(d), ¶ [52]), a second end of the first switch (i.e., 132) is connected to a first terminal of a motor (35L, Figs. 11(a)-11(d), 14(a)-14(d), ¶ [52]), a first end of the second switch (i.e., 134) is connected to the first pole of the battery/power source (Figs. 11(a)-11(d), 14(a)-14(d), ¶ [52]), the second end of the second switch (i.e., 134) is connected to a second terminal of the motor (Figs. 11(a)-11(d), 14(a)-14(d), ¶ [52]), a first end of the third switch (i.e., 131) is connected to the first terminal of the motor (Figs. 11(c)-11(d), and 14(c)-14(d), a second end of the third switch (i.e., 131) is connected to a second pole of the battery/power source (Figs. 11(a)-11(d), 14(a)-14(d)), the method comprising/the device is caused to: in the resist/braking mode: controlling/control the first switch (i.e., 132) and the second switch (i.e., 134) of the motor driver circuit to be open, such that a battery does not form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit (Figs. 11(c) and 14(c)); determining/determine a connection ratio (duty ratio) between a connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in a closed loop and a disconnected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically disconnected and provide a resistance level (¶ [89]); and while the first switch (i.e., 132) and the second switch (i.e., 134) are controlled to be open, controlling/control the third switch (i.e., 131) of the motor driver circuit electrically connected between the motor (35L) and the second pole of the battery/power source based on the connection ratio (Figs. 11(c)-11(d), and 14(c)-14(d), ¶ [76], [84]-[89], [99]-[103]); in an assistance/drive mode: controlling/control only one of the first switch (i.e., 132) and the second switch (i.e., 134) of the motor driver circuit to be turned on such that poles of the battery/power source form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit (the first switch (i.e., 132) in Figs. 11(a) and the second switch (i.e., 134) in 14(a)); and providing/provide assistance force at least by controlling the motor, while the first and second poles of the battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit and the battery/power source (¶ [82]-[83], [97]-[98], please note that upon modification of Horst’s invention with features of Shimizu, the assistance force provided by the motor would be based on the determined assistance torque value).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Figures 11(a)-11(d) and Figures 14(a)-14(d) of Shimizu)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Horst’s invention with the motor driver circuit including a first switch, a second switch, and a third switch, wherein a first end of the first switch is connected to a first pole of a battery, a second end of the first switch is connected to a first terminal of a motor, a first end of the second switch is connected to the first pole of the battery, the second end of the second switch is connected to a second terminal of the motor, a first end of the third switch is connected to the first terminal of the motor, a second end of the third switch is connected to a second pole of the battery, the method further comprising/the wearable device further to: in response to the exercise mode: controlling/control the first switch and the second switch of the motor driver circuit to be open, such that a battery does not form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit; determining/determine a connection ratio between a connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in a closed loop and a disconnected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically disconnected; and while the first switch and the second switch are controlled to be open, controlling/control the third switch of the motor driver circuit electrically connected between the motor and the second pole of the battery based on the connection ratio; in response to the assistance mode: controlling/control only one of the first switch and the second switch of the motor driver circuit to be turned on such that poles of a battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit; and providing/provide the assistance force to the user at least by controlling the motor based on the assistance torque value, while the first and second poles of the battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit and the battery, as taught by Shimizu in order to provide for a high efficiency braking/resistance and assistance and to save/reduce power consumption.
It is Office’s position that Horst in view of Shimizu teaches the connection ratio being determined based on a determined resistance level/damping/braking force (Shimizu: ¶ [89], [98], The duty ratio of the PWM signal in the regenerative mode may be set so that the electric motor 35L generates an optimal damping force). However, if Applicant is not in agreement with the Office’s position, such limitation is taught by Akiyama.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Akiyama teaches a method of controlling a motor driver circuit/a device comprising a motor driver circuit (i.e., regenerative braking circuit 11, Fig. 2), the motor driver circuit including a first switch (i.e., S1), a second switch (i.e., S3), and a third switch (i.e., S2), wherein a first end of the first switch (i.e., S1) is connected to a first pole of a power source (positive side at Driving voltage in Fig. 2), a second end of the first switch (i.e., S1) is connected to a first terminal of a motor (110, Figs. 1-2), a first end of the second switch (i.e., S3) is connected to the first pole of the power source (positive side/pole at Driving voltage in Fig. 2), the second end of the second switch (i.e., S3) is connected to a second terminal of the motor (Fig. 2), a first end of the third switch (i.e., S2) is connected to the first terminal of the motor (Fig. 2), a second end of the third switch is connected to a second pole of the power source (negative side/pole connected to the ground, Fig. 2), the method comprising/the device is caused to: in a resist/braking mode: controlling/control the first switch (i.e., S1) and the second switch (i.e., S3) of the motor driver circuit to be open, such that the power source does not form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit (¶ [20]-[21], [139]-[141]); determining/determine a connection ratio between a connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in a closed loop and a disconnected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically disconnected (¶ [20]-[21], [139]-[141]); and while the first switch and the second switch are controlled to be open, controlling the third switch of the motor driver circuit electrically connected between the motor and the second pole of the battery based on the connection ratio (¶ [20]-[21], [139]-[141]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Horst’s invention in view of Shimizu wherein the connection ratio being determined based on a determined resistance level as taught by Akiyama in order to provide the user with a wider range and more precise braking/resistance forces, for various rehabilitation/exercise purposes and thereby provide a more efficient device.
Regarding claims 22-23 and 30, Horst in view of Shimizu and Akiyama teaches wherein the connection ratio is represented by a pulse width modulation (PWM) (Shimizu: ¶ [89], [103]; Akiyama: ¶ [140]-[141]), and wherein the resistance level/force to be provided to the user is adjusted based on the connection ratio such that, as the connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in the closed loop increases, the resistance level is increased (Shimizu: ¶ [82]-[87], [89], [95]-[103]; Akiyama: ¶ [140]-[141], as the connected time, time that S2 and S4 are on/closed increases, the resistance increases. If both S2 and S4 are on/closed constantly (i.e. 100% duty cycle), maximum braking/resistance is provided).
Regarding claims 24 and 31, Horst in view of Shimizu and Akiyama teaches wherein, in a state in which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in the closed loop, the motor is configured to operate as a generator with respect to an external force by the user (Horst: (¶ [53], when operation mode of the muscle assistance device is set to apply a force that opposes the motion of the joint, the energy input from that ‘external’ force must be absorbed by the control circuit. While this energy can be dissipated as heat in a resistive element, it is preferably returned to the battery in the actuator power supply 408 via a regenerative braking circuit 412; Shimizu: Figs. 11(d) and 14(d), ¶ [4], [49], [53], [74], [76], [82]-[87], [89], [95]-[103]; Akiyama: ¶ [140]-[141], the motor operates as a generator when braking becomes effective).
Regarding claim 25, Horst in view of Shimizu and Akiyama teaches the method further comprising: charging the battery of the wearable device based on energy generated by the generator, when the motor operates as the generator (Horst: ¶ [53], when operation mode of the muscle assistance device is set to apply a force that opposes the motion of the joint, the energy input from that ‘external’ force must be absorbed by the control circuit. While this energy can be dissipated as heat in a resistive element, it is preferably returned to the battery in the actuator power supply 408 via a regenerative braking circuit 412; Shimizu: ¶ [4], [49], [53], [74], [76], [82]-[87], [89], [95]-[103]).
Regarding claims 26 and 32, Horst in view of Shimizu and Akiyama teaches the method/device further comprising: wherein the instructions, when executed individually or collectively by the at least one processor cause the wearable device to, receive/receiving, from the user, an instruction to set an operation mode of the wearable device to the exercise mode (Horst: Figs. 5-6, ¶ [58]), and determine, based on the operation mode set, the resistance level to apply to the first joint (Horst: ¶ [50], [63], [66]).
Regarding claim 27, Horst in view of Shimizu and Akiyama teaches wherein, when the exercise/resistance mode is set, the motor is not provided with energy from the battery of the wearable device (Horst: ¶ [53], when the operation mode of the device is set to apply a force that opposes the motion of the join, the energy input from that ‘external’ force must be absorbed by the control circuit. While this energy can be dissipated as heat in a resistive element, it is preferably returned to the battery in the actuator power supply via a regenerative braking circuit 412. As such, in the resist/exercise mode of Horst, the motor is not being supplied power/energy from the battery, rather it charges the battery; Shimizu: Figs. 11(c)-11(d) and 14(c)-14(d), ¶ [76], [84]-[89], [99]-[103]; Akiyama: Fig. 2, ¶ [140]-[141], when braking becomes effective, the motor it not provided with energy from a power source/driving voltage).
Regarding claims 28 and 33, Horst in view of Shimizu and Akiyama teaches wherein the motor driver circuit includes a fourth switch (Shimizu: i.e., 133, Figs. 6, 11(a)-11(d) and 14(a)-14(d); Akiyama: i.e., S4, Fig. 2), wherein a first end of the fourth switch is connected to the second terminal of the motor (Shimizu: Figs. 6, 11(a)-11(d) and 14(a)-14(d); Akiyama: Fig. 2), and a second end of the fourth switch is connected to the second pole of the battery (Shimizu: Figs. 6, 11(a)-11(d) and 14(a)-14(d); Akiyama: positive side/pole at Driving Voltage, Fig. 2), the method further comprising/the device is further caused to: in response to an exercise/resistance mode being set in the wearable device: while the first switch and the second switch are controlled to be open, controlling the fourth switch of the motor driver circuit to be closed (Shimizu: Figs. 11(c)-11(d), and 14(c)-14(d), ¶ [76], [84]-[89], [99]-[103]; Akiyama: Fig. 2, ¶ [139]-[141],).
Regarding claim 34, Horst in view of Shimizu and Akiyama teaches wherein the resistance level is determined based on a position and an angle of the first joint (Horst: ¶ [14], [54], [66], [68], [75]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 21, stating:
“Horst, Shimizu, and Akiyama, alone or in combination fail to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 21.
The Office Action acknowledges that Horst does not disclose "controlling a first switch and a second switch of the motor driver circuit so that the battery does not form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit, the motor driver circuit including the first switch, and the second switch, wherein a first end of the first switch is connected to a first pole of the battery, a second end of the first switch is connected to a first terminal of the motor, a first end of the second switch is connected to the first pole of the battery, the second end of the second switch is connected to a second terminal of the motor, determining a connection ratio between a connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in a closed loop and a disconnected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically disconnected; while the first switch and the second switch are controlled to be open, controlling a third switch of the motor driver circuit electrically connected between the motor and a second pole of the battery based on the connection ratio; and providing the assistance force while the poles of the battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit" (see pages 4 of the Office Action).
The Office Action relies on the regenerative braking circuit 122 and Figs. 6, 11(a)- 11(d), 14(a)-14(d) of Shimizu for these features. In Figs. 11(a) and 11(b), Shimizu discloses the control states of FETs (i.e., switches) in the motor driver circuit during the drive mode, and in Figs. 11(c) and 11(d) Shimizu discloses the control states of FETs in the regenerative mode. Fig. 11(c) of Shimizu discloses a configuration in which a motor operates as a generator by means of an external force.
The OA alleges that switch (132) corresponds to the first switch and switch (134) corresponds to the second switch. However, Shimizu's switch (132) can be switched by PWM, whereas the first switch of the claim is not necessarily a subject of PWM control and is to remain in an open (off) state in the exercise mode in certain example non-limiting embodiments. The embodiments of Figures 11(c) and 11(d) can occur alternately, and in the embodiment of Figure 11(d), conversely, a state in which switch (132) is closed (on) appears. Such an embodiment corresponds to an embodiment that conflicts with the claimed step of controlling the third switch based on a connection ratio. Accordingly, OA's position lacks merit.
Regarding configuration "determining a connection ratio between a connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in a closed loop and a disconnected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically disconnected, based on the resistance level" in claim 1, Shimizu discloses a configuration that controls the connection state between a motor and a circuit by controlling the switches of an H-bridge according to their states, and more specifically, discloses a configuration controlled by PWM (see paragraph [0089] of Shimizu). However, since Shimizu discloses the control of a motor for controlling the wheels of a vehicle, rather than a motor for controlling a user's joint movements, it does not disclose or suggest a configuration for determining a connection ratio "based on a resistance level" as called for in claim 1. Thus, the cited art also fails to disclose or suggest this claimed subject matter. Rather, Shimizu teaches away from claim 1 in this respect, as it explains that the connection ratio of the PWM is a ratio for optimally damping the vertical movement of the wheel 25L.
Furthermore, claim 1 also requires "controlling only one of the first switch and the second switch of the motor driver circuit to be turned on such that poles of a battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit; and providing an assistance force to the user at least by controlling the motor based on the assistance torque value, while the first and second poles of the battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit and the battery." For example and without limitation, the instant application discloses an embodiment in which the first switch and the second switch are controlled to be opened as it is 'set to an exercise mode,' and in which only one of the first switch and the second switch is controlled to be turned on such that the motor can generate an auxiliary force as it is 'set to an auxiliary mode.' The above quoted subject matter is also not disclosed or suggested by the cited art.
Akiyama fails to overcome at least these deficiencies of Horst and Shimizu. For example, Akiyama fails to disclose that elements S1 to S4 are controlled in the manner recited in claim 21.
At least for these reasons, Horst, Shimizu, and Akiyama fail to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 21.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments stating:
“The OA alleges that switch (132) corresponds to the first switch and switch (134) corresponds to the second switch. However, Shimizu's switch (132) can be switched by PWM, whereas the first switch of the claim is not necessarily a subject of PWM control and is to remain in an open (off) state in the exercise mode in certain example non-limiting embodiments. The embodiments of Figures 11(c) and 11(d) can occur alternately, and in the embodiment of Figure 11(d), conversely, a state in which switch (132) is closed (on) appears. Such an embodiment corresponds to an embodiment that conflicts with the claimed step of controlling the third switch based on a connection ratio. Accordingly, OA's position lacks merit.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimizu in ¶ [84]-[89], corresponding to Figs. 11(c) – 11(d), describes when a regenerative/regeneration mode is executed using an H-bridge circuit (122). The H-bridge circuit (122) comprising four MOSFET transistors (hereinafter referred to as switches). Shimizu, with respect to Fig. 11(c), describes that switch (131) receives the on signal (ON) of the PWM signal, switch (132) receives the off signal (OFF) OR the off signal (OFF) of the PWM signal, switch (133) receives an on signal (ON) and switch (134) receives an off signal (OFF) (see ¶ [84]-[86]). As such, in Fig. 11(c), switch (132) receives an off signal (OFF) and is therefore OFF/open. Switch (134) also receives an off signal (OFF) and is therefore OFF/open. Fig. 11(c), shows a generation braking circuit. As the motor is rotated in the reverse direction, an induced electromotive voltage is generated in the motor. The induced current (regeneration current), which is large, flows through the dynamic braking circuit (see ¶ [86]).
Shimizu, with respect to Fig. 11(d), describes that (while switch (133) receives the on signal (ON) and switch (134) receives the off signal (OFF)), switch (131) receives the off signal (OFF) of the PWM signal, and switch (132) receives the on signal (ON) OR the off signal (OFF) of the PWM signal. Fig. 11(d) shows a regenerative/regeneration braking circuit, in which the induced current (regeneration current) is reduced, by being directed back the battery to charge the battery (see ¶ [87]-[88]). Shimizu further teaches that, when the regeneration mode is performed, the bridge circuit (122) is controlled by the PWM signal to alternately switch the generation braking circuit and the regeneration braking circuit in accordance with the PWM cycle (the switches 131 to 134 alternately receive the signal shown in Fig. 11(c) and the signal shown in Fig. 11(d)). Therefore, the regenerative current can be gradually reduced according to the duty ratio (ratio of an on and off) of the PWM signal. Accordingly, the motor can generate/provide an optimal resistance/braking/damping force (see ¶ [87]-[89]).
As stated above, when performing the regeneration mode, the switches (131) to (134), alternately receive the signal shown in Fig. 11(c) and the signal shown in Fig. 11(d). Looking at these two figures (also provided below), it can be seen that the signal received by each of switch (133) and switch (134) is the same between these two figures. In other words, switch (133) receives an on signal (ON) and switch (134) receives an off signal (OFF), in both 11(c) and 11(d). Furthermore, according to ¶ [87] of Shimizu regarding Fig. 11(d), the switch (132) can either receive the on signal (ON) OR the off signal (OFF) of the PWM signal (this is also shown in Fig. 11(d)). Therefore, switch (132) can also receive the off signal (OFF). As such, to perform the regeneration mode, switch (131) alternately receives the on signal (ON) of the PWM signal, shown in Fig. 11(c) (generation braking), and receives the off signal (OFF) of the PWM signal, shown in Fig. 11(d) (regeneration braking), while switches (132) and (134) receive the off signal (OFF) (are open) and switch (133) receives the on signal (ON) (is closed).
PNG
media_image2.png
40
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
326
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The regeneration/regenerative mode is performed according to the duty ratio of the PWM signal (ratio of switch (131) receiving the on signal of the PWM (Fig. 11(c)) and off signal of the PWM signal (Fig. 11(d))), to generate/provide a damping force/resistance/braking force by the motor.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments stating:
“Regarding configuration "determining a connection ratio between a connected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically connected in a closed loop and a disconnected time for which the terminals of the motor are to be electrically disconnected, based on the resistance level" in claim 1, Shimizu discloses a configuration that controls the connection state between a motor and a circuit by controlling the switches of an H-bridge according to their states, and more specifically, discloses a configuration controlled by PWM (see paragraph [0089] of Shimizu). However, since Shimizu discloses the control of a motor for controlling the wheels of a vehicle, rather than a motor for controlling a user's joint movements, it does not disclose or suggest a configuration for determining a connection ratio "based on a resistance level" as called for in claim 1. Thus, the cited art also fails to disclose or suggest this claimed subject matter. Rather, Shimizu teaches away from claim 1 in this respect, as it explains that the connection ratio of the PWM is a ratio for optimally damping the vertical movement of the wheel 25L.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention that using H-bridge circuitry (such as the one in Shimizu) to control a motor in various ways to obtain desired outcome, including providing assistance/drive and resistance/brake, via controlling the state of the switches within the H-bridge (through PWM), is well-known, and such circuitries is used in various technology fields whereby motors are used. As stated previously and above, Horst teaches various operation modes including an exercise mode that provides resistance and an assist mode that provides assistance, wherein in the exercise/resistance mode, resistance is provided through a regeneration/regenerative braking circuit 412, which can in turn charge a battery/power source of the device (see ¶ [53]). Shimizu teaches a regeneration/regenerative braking circuit that also provides resistance/damping/braking force. However, Horst is silent about the details of the regeneration/regenerative braking circuit 412, as claimed. Shimizu has been used to teach the claimed details (see above for details). As mentioned above, it is Office’s position that Horst in view of Shimizu teaches the connection ratio being determined based on a determined resistance level/damping/braking force (Shimizu: ¶ [89], [98], The duty ratio of the PWM signal in the regenerative mode may be set so that the electric motor 35L generates an optimal damping force). However, if Applicant is not in agreement with the Office’s position, such limitation is taught by Akiyama. As also shown above, Akiyama teaches an H-bridge circuitry connected to and used for controlling a motor (Fig. 2) to provide resistance/braking. Akiyama further teaches determining a connection ratio, based on a resistance/braking level (see ¶ [140]-[141]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Horst’s invention in view of Shimizu wherein the connection ratio being determined based on a determined resistance level as taught by Akiyama in order to provide the user with a wider range and more precise braking/resistance forces, for various rehabilitation/exercise purposes and thereby provide a more efficient device. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., Shimizu), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments stating:
“Furthermore, claim 1 also requires "controlling only one of the first switch and the second switch of the motor driver circuit to be turned on such that poles of a battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit; and providing an assistance force to the user at least by controlling the motor based on the assistance torque value, while the first and second poles of the battery form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit and the battery." For example and without limitation, the instant application discloses an embodiment in which the first switch and the second switch are controlled to be opened as it is 'set to an exercise mode,' and in which only one of the first switch and the second switch is controlled to be turned on such that the motor can generate an auxiliary force as it is 'set to an auxiliary mode.' The above quoted subject matter is also not disclosed or suggested by the cited art.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, Shimizu teaches in an assistance/drive mode: controlling/control only one of the first switch (i.e., 132) and the second switch (i.e., 134) of the motor driver circuit to be turned on such that poles of the battery/power source form a closed loop through the motor driver circuit (the first switch (i.e., 132) in Figs. 11(a) and the second switch (i.e., 134) in 14(a)).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments stating:
“Akiyama fails to overcome at least these deficiencies of Horst and Shimizu. For example, Akiyama fails to disclose that elements S1 to S4 are controlled in the manner recited in claim 21.”,
the Examiner would like to mention that it is unclear to which specific limitations of claim 21, regarding elements S1 and S4, Applicant is referring, that Akiyama fails to disclose. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., Akiyama), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights