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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 7, line 4-6: “the sensor frame estimated gravity vector based on the respective pitch and roll angles of the sensor” should be “the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose based on the respective pitch and roll angles of the respective sensor for the respective pose”; and
in claim 8, line 2: “a vertical direction” should be “the vertical direction”:
in claim 8, line 3: “angle of the sensor” should be “angles of the respective sensor”;
in claim 10, line 2: “of claim 9” should be deleted; and
in claim 11, line 2: “the” should be inserted before “at least two different poses”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor” in lines 13-14, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “an estimated joint axis direction for each sensor of a pair of sensors” of claim 1, lines 1-2. The recitation of lines 14-15 refer to the direction being “for the joint axis” while the recitation of lines 1-2 make no such association with the joint axes. Also, the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor in lines 14-15 is a plural term while the estimated joint axis direction for each sensor of a pair of sensors in lines 1-2 is a singular term. These differences raise a question as to whether these recitations are referring to the same thing. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor” in claim 1. Also, if they are different, it is not what relationship these recitations have with each other. These issues render claim 1 indefinite.
Also, claim 13 recites “the estimated joint axis directions are each three-dimensional vectors in a coordinate system for each sensor” which is a plural term and suffers from the same indefiniteness issue as “the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor” in claim 1, lines 13-14.
Also, claim 20 recites “the estimated joint axis directions for the joint axis for each sensor” which is a plural term and suffers from the same indefiniteness issue as “the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor” in claim 1, lines 13-14.
Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the direction of the gravity vector running along a vertical direction as transformed based on the respective pitch and roll angle of the sensor” in lines 2-3 in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the estimated joint axis direction for a particular sensor” of claim 14, line 4 is referring to “the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor” of claim 1, lines 13-14 and/or “an estimated joint axis direction for each sensor of a pair of sensors” of claim 1, lines 1-2.1 Clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites “combining each of the projections onto the estimated joint axis direction for the respective sensor with the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for one sensor of the pair of sensors with the projection onto the estimated joint axis direction for the respective sensor with the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for the other sensor of the pair of sensors” in lines 2-5, but it is not clear how this combination incorporates the idea that there is a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor. How does the fact that there is a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor fit into the recitation of claim 15.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the loss function is defined by combining each of the projections onto the estimated joint axis direction for the respective sensor with the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for one sensor of the pair of sensors with the projection onto the estimated joint axis direction for the respective sensor with the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for the other sensor of the pair of sensors” in lines 1-5, but it is not clear if the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. Claim 1 from which claim 15 depends does not recite that such a determination is part of the claimed method. It is not clear if claim 15 is simply defining the nature of the loss function or is requiring the method to perform the step of combining. Clarification is required.
Claims 16-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the combination of the projections of the pair of sensors comprises taking a difference between the projections” in lines 1-2, which further compounds the indefiniteness issue of claim 15. That is, it is not clear if the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. Claim 1 from which claims 15-16 depend does not recite that the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. It is not clear if claim 16 is simply defining the nature of the loss function or is requiring the method to perform the step of combining. Clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the loss function is further defined by aggregating the combination of the projections for each pose” in lines 1-2, which further compounds the indefiniteness issue of claim 15. That is, it is not clear if the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. Claim 1 from which claims 15 and 17 depend does not recite that the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. It is not clear if claim 17 is simply defining the nature of the loss function or is requiring the method to perform the step of aggregating. Clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the loss function is further defined by aggregating the combination of the projections for each pose” in lines 1-2, which compounds the indefiniteness issue of claim 15. That is, it is not clear how a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor fits into the recitation of claim 15. Claim 17 highlights the fact that the poses are not a factor in the recitation of claim 15, which contradicts the fact that there is a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor (and therefore the poses must be a factor in claim 15). This contradiction renders claim 17 indefinite.
Claims 18-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 17.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the loss function is further defined by aggregating the combination of the projections for each pose by summing together the combined projections” in lines 1-3, which further compounds the indefiniteness issue of claims 15 and 17. That is, it is not clear if the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. Claim 1 from which claims 15 and 17-18 depend does not recite that the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. It is not clear if claim 18 is simply defining the nature of the loss function or is requiring the method to perform the step of aggregating. Clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the loss function is further defined by aggregating the combination of the projections for each pose by summing together the combined projections” in lines 1-3, which compounds the indefiniteness issue of claim 15. That is, it is not clear how a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor fits into the recitation of claim 15. Claim 18 highlights the fact that the poses are not a factor in the recitation of claim 15, which contradicts the fact that there is a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor (and therefore the poses must be a factor in claim 15). This contradiction renders claim 18 indefinite.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the loss function is further defined by aggregating a square of the combination of the projections for each pose” in lines 1-2, which further compounds the indefiniteness issue of claims 15 and 17. That is, it is not clear if the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. Claim 1 from which claims 15, 17, and 19 depend does not recite that the determination of the loss function is part of the claimed method. It is not clear if claim 19 is simply defining the nature of the loss function or is requiring the method to perform the step of aggregating. Clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the loss function is further defined by aggregating a square of the combination of the projections for each pose” in lines 1-3, which compounds the indefiniteness issue of claim 15. That is, it is not clear how a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor fits into the recitation of claim 15. Claim 19 highlights the fact that the poses are not a factor in the recitation of claim 15, which contradicts the fact that there is a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor (and therefore the poses must be a factor in claim 15). This contradiction renders claim 19 indefinite.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0338621 (Kanchan)(previously cited), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0015611 (Noble)(previously cited).
Kanchan teaches a pair of sensors, one of the pair of sensors being mounted to each side of a joint comprising a joint axis (the sensor packages 11 and 14 on arm sleeve 10 in FIG. 1 of Kanchan; the sensor packages 31 and 35 on leg sleeve 30 in FIG. 3 of Kanchan). These sensor packages are used to determine the orientations of the body segments in two or more dimensions (paragraphs 0007, 0075, 0077, 0080-0081, 0083, and 0086 of Kanchan) which are used to determine the relative and absolute angles of the body segments (paragraphs 0076, 0080, and 0085-0086 of Kanchan). These sensor packages include accelerometers (paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0038, 0040, 0055-0056, 0072, 0075, and 0080-0081 of Kanchan).
Noble teaches a method of determining the orientation of a body segment using X and Y-axis sensors 402, 404. The X and Y-axis sensors 402 and 404 sense tilt and acceleration along the X and Y axes 230 and 235, respectively, by measuring the projection of a force vector on their respective axes that is the sum of the force of gravity at the location of the device 210 and a force of acceleration applied to the device 210 during use (paragraph 0041 of Noble)2. The direction of the apparent gravity vector G can be determined using the measurements provided by the X and Y-axis sensors 402 and 404 (paragraph 0045 of Noble). In particular, the length x of an X-vector representing the magnitude of the apparent gravity vector G as measured by the X-axis sensor 402 along the X-axis and the length y of a Y-vector representing the magnitude of the apparent gravity vector G measured by the Y-axis sensor 404 along the Y-axis are used in equations (1) and (2) of Noble so as to determine the apparent gravity vector G of Noble (paragraph 0045 of Noble). The orientation of the body part can be determined using the apparent gravity vector G (paragraphs 0044 and 0046 of Noble). Also, the X and Y sensors 402, 404 are components of a dual-axis accelerometer (paragraph 0042 of Noble). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the computations of Noble for the orientations of the body segments using the apparent gravity vector G in the computations of Kanchan since Kanchan teaches the determination of the orientations of the body segments in two or more dimensions (paragraphs 0007, 0075, 0077, 0080-0081, 0083, and 0086 of Kanchan) and Noble teaches such determinations and/or it is a simple substitute for one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a method for calibrating an estimated joint axis direction for each sensor of a pair of sensors (the accelerometers of the sensor packages 11 and 14 in FIG. 1 of Kanchan; the accelerometers of the sensor packages 31 and 35 on leg sleeve 30 in FIG. 3 of Kanchan), one sensor of the pair of sensors being mounted to each side of a joint comprising a joint axis (FIGS. 1 and 3 of Kanchan), each sensor of the pair of sensors calculating a pitch angle about a first sensor axis and a roll angle about a second sensor axis (the angles and X and Y-axes of paragraph 0045 of Noble), the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis together with a third sensor axis orthogonal to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis forming a sensor frame, the method comprising:
receiving orientation data for each sensor of the pair of sensors (the readings from the accelerometers of Kanchan), the orientation data being associated with at least two different poses of the joint for each sensor of the pair of sensors and the orientation data comprising the pitch angle and the roll angle for each sensor for each pose (the poses of paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, 0060, and 0062-0063 of Noble);
calculating a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor based on the pitch and roll angles for each pose associated with each sensor and a gravity vector running along a vertical direction (calculating the apparent gravity vector G of Noble for each sensor); and
determining the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor that minimise a loss function concerning projections of each sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor onto the estimated joint axis direction for the respective sensor (determining the orientations of the body segments).
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches that the gravity vector runs along the vertical direction in a negative direction (the actual gravity vector of Noble).
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches that the gravity vector runs along the vertical direction in an upward direction (the actual gravity vector of Noble).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches that calculating the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor comprises forming a rotation matrix for each pose associated with each sensor using the pitch angle and the roll angle for each pose associated with each sensor (the X, Y, and Z vectors for each sensor for each pose; paragraphs 0043-0051 of Noble).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches that forming the rotation matrix for each pose associated with each sensor using the pitch and roll angles for each pose associated with each sensor comprises assuming a rotation about the third sensor axis is zero (the X and Y vectors for each sensor for each pose when the over-range sensor 440 is omitted; paragraphs 0040 and 0043-0051 of Noble).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches that each rotation matrix defines a rotation of the respective sensor about the first sensor axis, the second sensor axis, and the third sensor axis (the X, Y, and Z vectors for each sensor for each pose; paragraphs 0043-0051 of Noble).
With respect to claim 7, the combination teaches that calculating the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor comprises applying the rotation matrix for each pose associated with each sensor to the gravity vector running along the vertical direction to transform the gravity vector into the sensor frame estimated gravity vector based on the respective pitch and roll angles of the sensor (calculating the apparent gravity vector G of Noble for each sensor; paragraphs 0043-0051 of Noble).
With respect to claim 8, the combination teaches that the sensor frame estimated gravity vector defines the direction of the gravity vector running along a vertical direction as transformed based on the respective pitch and roll angle of the sensor (the apparent gravity vector G of Noble for each sensor; paragraphs 0043-0051 of Noble).
With respect to claim 9, the combination teaches or suggest I. receiving a register pose signal which indicates the joint is in one of the poses of the at least two different poses; and II. in response to the register pose signal, storing the orientation data for each of the pair of sensors from when the register pose signal is received as the orientation data for that one of the poses of the at least two different poses (the registering of the poses during calibration; paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, 0060, and 0062-0063 of Noble).
With respect to claim 10, the combination teaches or suggest repeating the steps I. and II. of claim 9 for each pose of the at least two different poses (the registering of the poses during calibration; paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, 0060, and 0062-0063 of Noble).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggest that the poses are selected from, or are all of, a sitting extension pose, a sitting pose, a standing pose and a standing flexion pose (the poses during calibration; paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, 0060, and 0062-0063 of Noble).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggest that the estimated joint axis directions are each three-dimensional vectors in a coordinate system for each sensor of the pair of sensors, the coordinate system being defined by the first sensor axis, the second sensor axis, and the third sensor axis for each sensor of the pair of sensors (the X, Y, and Z vectors for each sensor; paragraphs 0043-0051 of Noble).
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches or suggest that the projections of each sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor onto the estimated joint axis direction for the respective sensor are calculated by taking a scalar product of the estimated joint axis direction for a particular sensor with the respective sensor frame estimated gravity vector (paragraphs 0041-0045 of Noble).
With respect to claims 15-19, according to one interpretation, the claimed method does not require the determination of the loss function as part of the claimed method. As such, the recitations of claims 15-19 which recites limitations drawn to the nature of the loss function do not distinguish the claimed method from the combination.
With respect to claim 20, the combination teaches or suggest calculating an angle of the joint about the joint axis using the estimated joint axis directions for the joint axis for each sensor and the orientation data for each of the pair of sensors (determining the relative and absolute angles of the body segments; paragraphs 0076, 0080, and 0085-0086 of Kanchan).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanchan, in view of Noble, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0262663 (Maclaren)(previously cited).
The combination teaches or suggest using two poses during calibration (paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, 0060, and 0062-0063 of Noble). Maclaren teaches that three or more poses may also be used (paragraph 0028 of Maclaren). From this teaching the number of poses are subject to change depending upon the desired accuracy of the readings and the desired amount of time in calibration. As such, the number of poses for calibration is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the desired accuracy of the readings and the desired amount of time in calibration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the number of poses, using three or more poses as the starting point as suggested by Maclaren, so as to obtain the desired accuracy of the readings and the desired amount of time in calibration. Thus, the recitation “wherein the orientation data being associated with at least two different poses is further defined as four different poses” of claim 11 would have been obvious.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed on 9/8/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim objections
There are new grounds of claim objections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 9/8/2025.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
There are new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 9/8/2025.
Also, the Applicant did not fully address the indefiniteness issue with respect to claim 1. In particular, claim 1 recites “the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor” in lines 13-14, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “an estimated joint axis direction for each sensor of a pair of sensors” of claim 1, lines 1-2. The recitation of lines 14-15 refer to the direction being “for the joint axis” while the recitation of lines 1-2 make no such association with the joint axes. Also, the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor in lines 14-15 is a plural term while the estimated joint axis direction for each sensor of a pair of sensors in lines 1-2 is a singular term. These differences raise a question as to whether these recitations are referring to the same thing. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis, for each sensor” in claim 1. Also, if they are different, it is not what relationship these recitations have with each other. These issues render claim 1 indefinite.
Also, the Applicant did not fully address the indefiniteness issue with respect to the recitation “the estimated joint axis direction for a particular sensor” of claim 14, line 4. The Examiner cannot find a reason to withdraw the rejection.
Also, the Applicant did not fully address the indefiniteness issues with respect to the recitations of claims 15-19. The Examiner cannot find a reason to withdraw the rejections.
Prior art rejections
The Applicant's arguments filed on 9/8/2025 are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the Response, the Applicant explains the nature of the invention, the problem to be solved, how the invention solves the problem, and that neither Kanchen nor Noble teaches the claimed solution to the above problem. These explanations are not persuasive since they do not provide any physical difference between the claimed method and the combination of Kanchan, and Noble. The combination of Kanchan and Noble teaches or suggests all the steps of the claimed method.
The Applicant then asserts:
PNG
media_image1.png
517
1127
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
193
1133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive since Noble is relied upon for teaching calibration and the use of computations for the orientations of the body segments using the apparent gravity vector G. 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).
The Applicant also asserts:
PNG
media_image3.png
711
1119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive since Kanchan is relied upon for teaching a pair of sensors, one of the pair of sensors being mounted to each side of a joint comprising a joint axis (the sensor packages 11 and 14 on arm sleeve 10 in FIG. 1 of Kanchan; the sensor packages 31 and 35 on leg sleeve 30 in FIG. 3 of Kanchan). Kanchan is also relied upon for teaching that these sensor packages are used to determine the orientations of the body segments in two or more dimensions (paragraphs 0007, 0075, 0077, 0080-0081, 0083, and 0086 of Kanchan) which are used to determine the relative and absolute angles of the body segments (paragraphs 0076, 0080, and 0085-0086 of Kanchan). 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).
Further, in response to the Applicant's argument that the references, in particular, Noble, fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the misalignment between the sensor frames and the anatomical axes or the optimization of joint axis direction) are not recited in the rejected claims. Thus, the combination is not required to teach or suggest these features of the misalignment between the sensor frames and the anatomical axes or the optimization of joint axis direction. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For the reasons provided above, claims 1-10 and 12-20 are properly rejected.
Claim 11 is properly rejected since the combination of Kanchen and Noble does not have the deficiencies alleged by the Applicant and the combination of Kanchen, Noble, and Maclaren teaches or suggests all the features of this claim.
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 MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 Note the inconsistent use between the singular and plural forms of “direction” among these recitations.
2 This force vector of Noble is known interchangeably as an apparent acceleration vector or an apparent gravity vector (paragraph 0041 of Noble).