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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 12-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 1, the specification fails to provide support for the limitations recited in lines 32-39. More specifically, the specification fails to provide support for the following elements:
“determine whether a first warning has been output within a predetermined time period”;
“in a case where the first warning has not been output within the predetermined time period, output the first warning”; and
“in a case where the first warning has been output within the predetermined time period, output a second warning that is different from a first warning”.
Regarding Claim 12, the specification fails to provide support for the limitations recited in lines 6-9. More specifically, the specification fails to provide support for the following elements:
“the fourth vibration intensity to warn the subject to return the entirety of the sole to within the first target area, the fourth vibration intensity being stronger than the third vibration intensity”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation recites “determine whether a first warning has been output within a predetermined time period” in lines 33-34 but it is unclear what would cause a first warning to be output as the claim fails to recite any direct cause. It is being interpreted that a first warning would be output if “an entirety of the sole of the subject is located within the second target area, and a portion of the sole is outside of the first target area” as recited in lines 30-31 of the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites the limitation “output a second warning that is different from the first warning” in line 39 of the claim but it is unclear what would cause a second warning to be output as the claim fails to recite any direct cause. It is being interpreted that a second warning is not caused by a change in position, but rather the second warning is a change in what type of warning is presented to the user that differs to the first warning. For additional clarity, as best understood, the claim is being interpreted to mean if a sole of a user in a given position, apply a first warning. If a person fails to react, apply a second warning.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation recites “a visual warning provided to a first screen disposed in a front side of the subject” in lines 10-11 in the claim but it is unclear what “disposed in a front side” means. It is unclear how a screen could be positioned in a front side of a person that is not wearing specific material that would enable a screen to be in that position on the person themselves. This limitation is being interpreted to mean “a visual warning provided to a screen that is disposed in front of a subject”.
Furthermore, Claim 12 recites the limitation “a visual warning provided to a first screen disposed in a rear side of the subject” in lines 12-13 of the claim but it is unclear what “disposed in a rear side” means. It is unclear how a screen could be positioned in a rear side of a person that is not wearing specific material that would enable a screen to be in that position on the person themselves. This limitation is being interpreted to mean “a visual warning provided to a screen that is disposed behind a subject”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they involve human tissue/parts.
Claims 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding Claim 12, the applicant cannot claim parts of the human tissue and/or body. The applicant has claimed “screen disposed in a front side of the subject” and “screen disposed in a rear side of the subject”. These elements cannot be claimed since “in a front side” and “in a rear side” is referring to a part of the body.
Claim 12 improperly recites human tissue as part of the claimed invention. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to recite that “disposed in front of the subject” and “disposed behind a subject” in order to remove the recitation of human tissue in the visual warning limitations of Claim 12.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuki et. al.’337 (U.S. Patent Application 20190160337 – previously cited) in view of Frank’289 (U.S. Patent Application 20170136289 – US patent previously cited), further in view of Harper et. al.’053 (WO Patent Publication 2011026053) as evidenced by Proud’198 (U.S. Patent Application 20160220198), and further in view of Fung’170 (U.S. Patent Application 20210001170 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Otsuki et. al.’337 discloses a gait state measurement system that measures a gait state of a subject who is walking on a walking surface formed on a continuous belt running along a circulation track (Paragraph [0025] - The walking training apparatus 100 mainly includes a control panel 133 attached to a frame 130 forming an overall framework, a treadmill 131 on which the trainee 900 walks, and a walking assistance apparatus 120 attached to the diseased leg, i.e., the leg on the paralyzed side of the trainee 900), the gait state measurement system comprising:
a load distribution sensor that detects a load of the subject (Paragraph [0030] - the walking assistance apparatus 120 includes a sensor and the like for measuring a load on the sole, and outputs their outputs as data on the moving leg to the overall control unit 210);
a harness tensioner (Paragraph [0029] - When the assisting level is set high, the front pulling unit 135 winds up the front wire 134 with a relatively strong force in synchronization with the swinging motion of the diseased leg);
a harness belt having a first end and a second end, the first end being coupled to the harness tensioner, and the second end being coupled to a supporting belt – frame - that supports the subject (Paragraph [0028] - The winding mechanism of the front pulling unit 135 winds up and pays out the front wire 134 according to the movement of the diseased leg by turning on or off the motor (not shown). Similarly, one end of a rear wire 136 is connected to a winding mechanism of the rear pulling unit 137 and the other end of the rear wire 136 is connected to the walking assistance apparatus 120);
a first processor (Paragraph [0032] - The overall control unit 210 is, for example, an MPU, and controls the overall operation of the apparatus by executing a control program loaded from a system memory);
a gait assistive device that is worn on a leg of a subject and is connected to a harness belt - such as pulling cables (Figure 1; Paragraph [0028] - one end of a rear wire 136 is connected to a winding mechanism of the rear pulling unit 137 and the other end of the rear wire 136 is connected to the walking assistance apparatus 120. The winding mechanism of the rear pulling unit 137 winds up and pays out the rear wire 136 by turning the motor (not shown) on/off according to the movement of the diseased leg);
a motor (Paragraph [0026] - The frame 130 supports the control panel 133 that houses an overall control unit 210 that controls motors or sensors);
a second processor (Paragraph [0043] - assisting control unit 220 – second processor - is, for example, an MPU, and controls the walking assistance apparatus 120 by executing a control program provided from the overall control unit 210 – main processor), and
an upper leg frame and a lower leg frame, the lower leg frame being turnably coupled to the upper leg frame, both the upper leg frame and the lower leg frame turn relatively around a first hinge shaft (Paragraph [0044] - the upper and lower legs open and close relative to each other around a hinge axis), wherein
a second processor is configured to control a motor to rotate an upper leg frame and a lower leg frame to open or close relatively around a hinge shaft to assist a subject with bending movements of a knee of a leg when using an apparatus with a continuous belt (Figure 1; Paragraph [0044] - A second drive unit 221 includes a motor of the walking assistance apparatus 120 and its drive circuit. The assisting control unit 220 assists the upper and lower legs of the trainee 900 by sending a drive signal to the second drive unit 221 so that the upper and lower legs open and close relative to each other around a hinge axis. By performing such movements, the assisting control unit 220 assists extending and bending motions of the knee, prevents the knee from accidentally bending, and so on); and
a memory storing program instructions that cause the first processor to acquire measured load information, indicating the detected load of the subject from the load distribution sensor (Paragraph [0030] - the walking assistance apparatus 120 includes a sensor and the like for measuring a load on the sole, and outputs their outputs as data on the moving leg to the overall control unit 210; Paragraph [0045] - An example of the sensors included in the second sensor unit is a load sensor for detecting magnitude and a distribution of a vertical load that the sole of the trainee 900 receives).
Otsuki et. al.’337 fails to disclose a first target area and a second target area defined according to an installation area of the load distribution sensor, the second target area encompassing the first target area; a memory storing program instructions that cause a first processor to estimate a position of a sole of a subject based on a measurement load information; determine whether an entirety of the sole of the subject is located within the second target area, and a portion of the sole is outside of the first target area; and output a first warning in a case where an entirety of a sole of a subject is located within the second target area, and a portion of the sole is outside of the first target area. Frank’829 teaches a load distribution sensor that detects a load of a subject through a continuous belt, wherein a first target area is defined according to an installation area and a second target area encompasses the first target area (Paragraph [0084] - the sensors can comprise piezoelectric actuators that respond to a pressure by generating electrical voltage…furthermore, the sensors can include accelerometers that indicate how much force is exerted on a sensor patch by the user's foot; Paragraphs [0074 and 0075] - lighting strips are used in conjunction with the sensors of control units 103A and 103B, the entire lighting strip may light a single color to notify or warn the user of his/her position on the platform…indicate to a user that he has drifted forward or backward from the center of treadmill belt). Additionally, Frank’829 teaches estimating a position of a sole of a subject based on a measurement load information (Paragraph [0084] - lengthwise and/or lateral position of the user, the impact of the user on the treadmill belt 110, the duration of the time the user foot is in contact with the treadmill belt…such information can be used to provide feedback to the user…a running form of the user, the number of strides per minute that the user is making, as well as the area of contact of the user foot with the treadmill), and outputting a first warning in a case where an entirety of a sole of a subject is located within the second target area, and a portion of the sole is outside of the first target area (Paragraph [0075] - if the sensors detect that the user drifts or moves too far forward or back from the central area of the platform 108, the strips may illuminate yellow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337 - that includes a processor and memory - to include estimating a position of a sole of the subject in comparison to a target area and outputting a warning in case an entirety of the sole is located within different target areas in order to provide feedback and assistance to the subject as well as alert the subject, or those involved, of the subject’s current gait and potentially risky stepping patterns as seen in Frank’829.
Otsuki et. al.’337 in view of Frank’289 fails to disclose outputting a second warning that is different from a first warning if a person does not respond to the first warning within a predetermined amount of time. Harper et. al.’053 teaches an alarm that increases in volume or changes in pitch if a first alarm is not responded to by the user (Paragraph [0098] - If the user disregards the alarm, or uses a "snooze" feature, the alarm is output a second time after a predetermined or user selectable amount of time has elapsed. In certain embodiments, if an alarm is unheeded by the user for a substantial period of time, the alarm may increase in volume or pitch or change tone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337 in view of Frank’289 to include a second warning that is different from a first warning as seen in Harper et. al.’053 in order to arouse a user’s attention towards the alarm as evidenced by Proud’198 (Paragraph [0220] - In one specific embodiment, if monitoring device user or patient acknowledgement is not received or detected at block 718, the intensity of the feedback or alert signal may be increased… In other words, the sensor signal is compared to a different, increased intensity, threshold than an initial threshold in order to control the feedback or alert signal to elicit a stronger response as compared to the initial feedback or alert signal settings). Furthermore, the modification to Otsuki et. al.’337 in view of Frank’289 would ensure that the user responds to the alarm.
Otsuki et. al.’337 in view of Frank’289 also fails to disclose outputting of the first warning by the processor includes instructing the harness tensioner to vibrate the harness belt a first vibration intensity to warn the subject to return the entirety of the sole to within the first target area. Fung’170 teaches outputting a warning instructing a harness tensioner to vibrate a harness belt at a vibration intensity to warn a subject (Paragraph [0067] - the motors of the sensors/actuators 523a,b may also act as actuators, and varying voltages and currents may be applied to the motors to provide haptic feedback to the individual, such as resistance to movement, jerking, or vibration. This haptic feedback may be provided in response to interactions with the computer, such as to indicate game events, interactions with the virtual reality environment, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the exercise platform of Otsuki et. al.’337 in view of Frank’289, wherein harnesses and belts are attached to a user’s body while walking on a continuous belt (see Annotated Figure 1 below from Otsuki et. al.’337), to have included the claimed harness tensioner and harness belt wherein a vibrational warning is provided based on the subject’s positioning of their sole being located outside of a particular target area because as taught by Fung’170 (Paragraph [0067]), because this would provide a haptic warning to the subject indicating a need to adjust the positioning of their sole as a form of interactive feedback based on the user’s position.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding Claim 2, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 discloses the system as discussed above in Claim 1. Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289 further in view of Fung’170 fails to disclose a processor that outputs a third warning in a case where at least part of the sole of the subject deviates from the second target area, the third warning being different from the first warning and the second warning. Frank’289 teaches a warning control unit that performs a second warning when at least part of a sole of a subject deviates from a second target area (Paragraphs [0074 and 0075] - when a user is aligned with the red lights of the light strip, the user may be approaching or be close to an end). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 to include red lights as a warning system on the treadmill that notifies a subject that a part of their foot has deviated from a second target area in order to provide the subject with a visual cue that their gate is not where it is supposed to be as seen in Frank’289.
Regarding Claim 3, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 2 above. Further, Otsuki et. al.’337 discloses estimating a position of a sole of a subject based on a captured image created by imaging a subject in walking and on measured load information (Paragraph [0040] - the image processing unit 216 detects a position of the diseased leg (leg-standing position) in contact with the treadmill 131 by performing the image analysis), but fails to disclose outputting a third warning in a case where the entire sole of the subject deviates from the second target area, the third warning being different from the first warning and the second warning. Frank’289 teaches performing a fourth warning when the entirety of the sole of a subject deviates from a second target area, wherein the fourth warning is different from a first warning, a second warning, and a third warning (Paragraph [0034] - treadmill base can include a flat surface or a pitched ramp at the front and/or the back of the treadmill platform, which can provide a safety element and that can further provide "tactile" feedback to the user to prevent him/her from going too far forward or backwards; the ramp(s) also can have a surface or surface mechanism adequate to allow the foot to slide back (front) to the roller or grip (back ramp) in order for the user to find his/her way back to the moving surface). This third warning, which has been identified as “tactile”, is positioned at the end of the belt/treadmill where the person’s sole is about to lose contact with the moving surface which is different than the first and second warnings recited above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 to include a warning on the treadmill that is “tactile” such as a pitched ramp that notifies a subject that their entire sole has deviated from a target area of the walking belt and that the subject is walking in an unadvised manner as seen in Frank’289.
It is noted by the examiner that the numerical nomenclature of “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. are not given patentable weight and are seen as “a warning”.
Regarding Claim 5, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 1 above. Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289 further in view of Fung’170 fails to disclose altering at least one of a position, an area, and a shape of the first target area and the second target area based on at least one of attribute information on the subject and an initial position of the sole of the subject. Frank’289 teaches altering at least one of a position, an area, and a shape of the first target area and second target area based on at least one of attribute information on a subject and an initial position of a sole of a subject (Paragraph [0019] - one or more aspects of the belt rotation can be dynamically adjusted based on a position of the user on the treadmill, a target performance of the user (e.g., physiological data, a target speed, etc.), and/or the like…when the user is located too far forward on the platform, the electronic motor (e.g., under the direction of a computer system described herein) can dynamically increase the belt speed…when the user is located too far to the rear of the platform, the electronic motor can dynamically reduce the belt speed; Paragraph [0101] - embodiments can dynamically adjust one or more aspects of the rotation of the belt based on a position of the user on the platform and/or one or more targets for the user). Here, “physiological data” could fall under “attribute information” as described by the applicant to include: “attribute information is at least one of information showing which of the left and right legs is the affected leg, the stage of rehab, the length of the leg, the size of the foot, the gender, and the age” (Paragraph [0075]).
In respect to altering a position, area, or shape of the target area, controlling the speed of the belt helps the user maintain being within a target area. In this case, if a person goes outside their target area too far forward, the belt will increase speed until the user is back within the target area. If a person goes too far backwards, the belt decreases speed until the user is back within the target area (Paragraph [0101]). The target areas being classified “too far forward or rear” (Paragraph [0103]) from the centerline may be adjusted based on how long it takes the individual to get back to “center” on average. Frank’289 recites that “duration can be varied based on a speed of the belt” (Paragraph [0101]), so it is clear that depending on how fast or a slow the belt is rotating, the target areas may need to be more narrow or broad in relation to the center in order to have time for the belt to adjust and keep the user safe and on the track/belt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 to include a system that can adjust or alter levels of assistance and how the assistance is presented to the subject based on the subject’s response and performance while training as seen in Frank’289 in order to achieve the best results during each session.
Regarding Claim 6, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 1 above. Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289 further in view of Fung’170 fails to disclose altering at least one of a position, an area, and a shape of the first target area and the second target area based on either the number of times of warnings or a chronological pattern of warning recorded in the memory. Frank’289 teaches altering at least one of a position, an area, and a shape of a target area based on at least either the number of times of warnings or a chronological pattern of warnings recorded in the memory (Paragraphs [0101-0102] - embodiments can dynamically adjust one or more aspects of the rotation of the belt based on a position of the user on the platform and/or one or more targets for the user…the duration of the time value can be altered in the program and can be learned and adjusted over a number of uses…a short duration interruption above the minimum threshold but below a maximum threshold can result in a small change…a longer duration (e.g., above the maximum threshold) or continuous obstruction may cause a continuous change in speed (increase or decrease depending on the front or rear blockage) until the obstruction is removed; Paragraph [0103] - a location of the sensors reporting blockages can be used to determine the corresponding adjustment…in this case, blockages of sensors too far forward or rear, but more centrally located can result in small adjustments, while blockages of sensors located even further forward or rear can result in larger adjustments; Paragraph [0114] - operate one or more warning devices in response to data acquired using the set of I/O devices 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 to include target areas with sensors that react differently based on how often or how long the sensors receive unfavorable readings in order to adjust the system in a way that corresponds more directly to assisting the subject’s needs for keeping a proper gait as seen in Frank’289.
Regarding Claim 10, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 1 above. Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 fails to disclose shape of the first target area is a trapezoid of which a longer side of the two opposite parallel sides of the trapezoid is positioned on a front side of the walking surface in the walking direction. Frank’289 teaches a shape of a target area as different shape possibilities (Paragraph [0091] - different texture patterns 455A, 455B, 455C, 455D may be used as shown by different domains or shape (circles, squares, triangles and so on)). Although Frank’289 does not disclose a trapezoid of which a longer side of the two opposite parallel sides of the trapezoid is positioned on a front side of a walking surface in a walking direction, it is noted that the applicant has failed to provide details of criticality or unexpected results in the specification with regard to the trapezoid shape as a target area. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine an optimal target area shape. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). “The configuration…a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed…was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuki et. al.’337 (U.S. Patent Application 20190160337 – previously cited) in view of Frank’289 (U.S. Patent Application 20170136289 – US patent previously cited), further in view of Harper et. al.’053 (WO Patent Publication 2011026053) as evidenced by Proud’198 (U.S. Patent Application 20160220198), and further in view of Fung’170 (U.S. Patent Application 20210001170 – previously cited), as applied to Claim 2, further in view of Hou et. al.’111 (U.S. Patent Application 20170092111) as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 (U.S. Patent Application 20190328314 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 12, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 2 above. Additionally, Fung’170 teaches a warning that instructs a harness tensioner to vibrate a harness belt at various intensities (see additional Paragraphs [0058-0059] and [0064]; Paragraph [0067] - Further, the motors of the sensors/actuators 523a,b may also act as actuators, and varying voltages and currents may be applied to the motors to provide haptic feedback to the individual, such as resistance to movement, jerking, or vibration. This haptic feedback may be provided in response to interactions with the computer such as to indicate game events, interactions with the virtual reality environment, etc.). However, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 fails to disclose or teach a second warning that includes instructing a harness tensioner to vibrate a harness belt at a third or even fourth vibration intensity that is greater than a prior vibration intensity. Hou et. al.’111 teaches a system that vibrates at various levels of intensities as a warning (Paragraph [0031] - For example, the wearable device may be caused to vibrate with a higher intensity for a fast moving state and to vibrate with a lower intensity for a slow moving state; Paragraph [0039] - Specifically in step 405, the warning operation corresponding to the non-sleeping state and the do-not-disturb mode is acquired according to the correspondence table and may be a third type of warning operation such as a vibration of a third intensity and/or a flashing. Correspondingly, the wearable device is caused to perform a vibration of the third intensity and/or a flashing in step 406…Specifically in step 407, the warning operation corresponding to the sleeping state and the non-do-not-disturb mode is acquired according to the correspondence table and may be a fourth type of warning operation such as a vibration of a fourth intensity. Correspondingly, the wearable device is caused to perform a vibration of the fourth intensity in step 408; Paragraph [0040] - Further, vibration with higher intensity may be more disturbing than vibration with lower intensity). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the treadmill - exercise platform – of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170, to include a warning system wherein the harness tensioner causes a harness belt to vibrate at various intensities, to include a vibratory alarm that causes a second intensity level of vibration to be greater than a first intensity level of vibration as seen in Hou et. al.’111 in order to alert a subject of their improper movements as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 (Paragraph [0122] - the apparatus could vibrate gently at first. With no feedback from the user, the vibration could increase in intensity). It is noted that “no feedback from the user” of Coryell et. al.’314 is analogous to the concept of a user not moving their sole to the correct position following the vibratory alarm at the first level of intensity).
Additionally, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 fails to disclose monitors that are positioned in front of a user as well as behind a user to provide visual warnings. Otsuki et. al.’337 discloses a monitor that communicates a user’s progress through visual cues (Paragraph [0026] - a training monitor 138 that is formed by, for example, a liquid-crystal panel, and shows progress of the training etc. to the trainee 900, and so on). Frank’289 teaches a monitor that can display visual indications – which can include warnings or alerts – to a user positioned in front of a user as well as remotely – which could be positioned behind a user (Paragraph [0025] - Therefore, the controls are positioned where they are best for the user, near the longitudinal center, while the monitor(s) can be positioned further up but also off to the side so that counting miles doesn't become the sole and central focus for the user; Paragraph [0061] - Alternatively, the monitor 101 can be mounted remotely from the treadmill 100; Paragraph [0083] - The S buttons 104 can be used to stop the treadmill 100, and the monitors 101A and 101B can show different information for the user; Paragraph [0091] - The user can both feel the textures with his/her feet as well as obtain a sensor reading about the user's strides. In addition, the monitor system described herein can further inform the user about his/her location on the belt). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, and further in view of Fung’170 to include monitors in front of a user so that a user could track their progress as well as monitors that were positioned out of sight of a user so that a user is not solely focused on what is visible on a screen as seen in Frank’289.
Regarding Claim 13, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 12 above. Otsuki et. al.’337 additionally discloses a walking surface coincides with a target area as well as a target area provided on an upper surface of the continuous belt (Paragraph [0040] - Further, the image processing unit 216 can perform a specific image analysis by image-processing the image signal received from the camera 140 according to the overall control unit 210. For example, the image processing unit 216 detects a position of the diseased leg (leg-standing position) in contact with the treadmill 131 by performing the image analysis. Further, the image processing unit 216 can generate image data by performing a trimming or the like in order to adapt image data to the data format of training data. For example, the image processing unit 216 cuts out an area near the foot from the image data when generating moving image data of the moving leg).
Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 fails to disclose a third target area encompasses a second target area; a shape of the first target area and the second target area are rectangular in shape; the first target area is located inside the second target area towards a center of the continuous belt. Frank’289 teaches a target area that encompasses another target area (Paragraph [0074] - For example, the lighting strips may be positioned along substantially the entire length of control unit 103A and 103B and from back to front may vary in color in the following order: red-yellow-green-yellow-red. When a user is aligned with the red lights of the light strip, the user may be approaching or be close to an end (e.g., front or back) of treadmill 110, and the yellow lit portion may indicate to a user that he has drifted forward or backward from the center of treadmill belt 110, which may be indicated by the green lit portion of the light strip). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 to include encompassing target areas within other target areas in order to monitor a user’s positional drift across a walking platform and notify the user of their drift before falling or stepping off of the platform as seen in Frank’289.
Frank’289 further teaches a shape of a target area as different shape possibilities (Paragraph [0091] - different texture patterns 455A, 455B, 455C, 455D may be used as shown by different domains or shape (circles, squares, triangles and so on)). Although Frank’289 does not disclose a “rectangle” – it is noted that a square is a type of rectangle. As well as, it is noted that the applicant has failed to provide details of criticality or unexpected results in the specification with regard to the rectangular shape as a target area. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine an optimal target area shape. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). “The configuration…a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed…was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Frank’289 further teaches the first target area is located inside the second target area towards a center of the continuous belt (Paragraph [0075] - The lighting scheme may function in a similar manner as discussed herein. Specifically, when the sensors detect that a user is positioned in the lengthwise center of the platform 108, the lighting strips may illuminate green. However, if the sensors detect that the user drifts or moves too far forward or back from the central area of the platform 108, the strips may illuminate yellow or red). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 to include a target area located inside a second target area toward a center of a continuous belt in order to monitor if a subject moves too far forward or too far back on the platform as seen in Frank’289.
Regarding Claim 14, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 12 above, but fails to disclose a central axis of the target area in a direction perpendicular to a moving direction of the continuous belt is positioned forward of a central axis of the second target area in the direction perpendicular to the moving direction of the continuous belt. Frank’289 further teaches a central axis of one target area is positioned forward from a central axis of another target area (Paragraph [0074] - For example, the lighting strips may be positioned along substantially the entire length of control unit 103A and 103B and from back to front may vary in color in the following order: red-yellow-green-yellow-red. When a user is aligned with the red lights of the light strip, the user may be approaching or be close to an end (e.g., front or back) of treadmill 110, and the yellow lit portion may indicate to a user that he has drifted forward or backward from the center of treadmill belt 110, which may be indicated by the green lit portion of the light strip; Paragraph [0075] - The lighting scheme may function in a similar manner as discussed herein. Specifically, when the sensors detect that a user is positioned in the lengthwise center of the platform 108, the lighting strips may illuminate green. However, if the sensors detect that the user drifts or moves too far forward or back from the central area of the platform 108, the strips may illuminate yellow or red; see Annotated Figure 2 wherein the preferred walking area 202 has a different central area than what the light bar provides to a user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 to include a target area located inside a second target area toward a center of a continuous belt in order to alert a subject if they are about to leave a preferred walking area as seen in Frank’289.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding Claims 15, 17, and 19, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 12 above, but fails to disclose outputting a second warning that is different from a first warning if a person does not respond to the first warning within a predetermined amount of time. Harper et. al.’053 teaches an alarm that increases in volume or changes in pitch if a first alarm is not responded to by the user (Paragraph [0098] - If the user disregards the alarm, or uses a "snooze" feature, the alarm is output a second time after a predetermined or user selectable amount of time has elapsed. In certain embodiments, if an alarm is unheeded by the user for a substantial period of time, the alarm may increase in volume or pitch or change tone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 to include a second warning that is different from a first warning as seen in Harper et. al.’053 in order to arouse a user’s attention towards the alarm as evidenced by Proud’198 (Paragraph [0220] - In one specific embodiment, if monitoring device user or patient acknowledgement is not received or detected at block 718, the intensity of the feedback or alert signal may be increased… In other words, the sensor signal is compared to a different, increased intensity, threshold than an initial threshold in order to control the feedback or alert signal to elicit a stronger response as compared to the initial feedback or alert signal settings).
Regarding Claims 16, 18, and 20, Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 discloses the system as discussed in Claim 12 above, but fails to disclose wherein the predetermined number of times is five. Harper et. al.’053 teaches an alarm being issued to a user for a predetermined amount of time as well as repeating a number of times (Paragraph [0256] - In certain embodiments, an intermediate alert may be put "on hold" or "snoozed" for a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 5 minutes). If the intermediate alert is not addressed after the "on hold" time has elapsed, the alert, including the message screen and/or the tactile/audible alarm, is output a second time. Intermediate alerts may be silenced when the alert message is acknowledged by the user or the condition that triggered the alert ceases to exist. As discussed above, the alarm tones and snooze time of intermediate alerts may be user selectable). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Otsuki et. al.’337, in view of Frank’289, further in view of Harper et. al.’053, as evidenced by Proud’198, further in view of Fung’170, and further in view of Hou et. al.’111 as evidenced by Coryell et. al.’314 to include assigning an alert that repeats itself a number of times or for an amount of time based on a user’s needs as seen in Harper et. al.’053. Additionally, it is noted that the applicant has failed to provide details of criticality or unexpected results in the specification with regard to the predetermined number of times a warning is output to a user. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine an optimal number of alert outputs to a user. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). “The configuration…a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed…was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previous objections of the specification. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous objections. Applicant’s withdrawal of Claim 11 has overcome previous 112(a) rejections, but new 112(a) rejections exist and are addressed in Paragraph 4 above. Additionally, new 112(b) rejections have been addressed in Paragraph 5 above. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and have been addressed in view of additional references, as necessitated by amendment, in Paragraphs 6-7 above.
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 SARAH ANN WESTFALL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4:30pm EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/SARAH ANN WESTFALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791