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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claims Accounting
Applicant' s arguments, filed 10/30/2025, have been fully considered.
The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 10/30/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 3, 12-13, 17-18, 22, 24-26, 31-32 and 38 have been amended.
Claims 9, 14, 27-30, and 33 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 12-13, 17-18, 21-26, 31-32, and 38 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “generating generating,” in line 4. This should read “generating,”.
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 17-18, 21-26, and 31-32 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 17, the claim recites “determine, based on third data… a second target altitude value; determine, based on third data… a second current altitude value;” in lines 16-19. Based on this recitation it is unclear how the third data is used both for the target and current altitude value. If both the second current altitude value and the second target altitude value were determined from the same data, then the second target altitude value would always be the same as the a second current altitude value. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “determine, based on third data… a second target altitude value; determine, based on fourth data… a second current altitude value;”.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 17-18, 21-26, and 31-32 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).
Claim 17 recites “a secondary device that is separate from the one or more hearing instruments and worn or carried by a user” in lines 4-5. Based on the current construction of the claim “a user” is a claimed element of claim 17, and therefore the claim is directed towards encompassing a human organism. It is suggested that claim 17 be amended to read “a secondary device that is separate from the one or more hearing instruments and configured to be worn or carried by a user” in order to remove the recitation of human tissue.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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, 12, 17-18, 22, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2018/0125423 by Chang et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Chang”) in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0093383 by Arkans et al. (hereinafter “Arkans”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a method comprising: determining, by a processor, based on first signals that are generated by one or more sensors (Fig. 1 shows signals transferring from the one or more sensors in inertial measuring system 112 to processor module 114 (processing system) in activity monitoring system 110) that are included in one or more hearing instruments ([0033]; Activity monitoring system 110 may be integrated into a head-wearable item 120; head-wearable item 120 may be headwear such as headphones, earbuds, or a hearing aid [0044]) or generated based on first data from the one or more first sensors ([0036]; Inertial measuring system 112 can include at least one accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, and/or other suitable inertial sensor), a first target value ([0091]; “A target posture orientation may alternatively be manually set. For example, a user may position their head in a desired posture orientation and select an option to set the current orientation as a target orientation.”); determining, by the processing system, based on second signals that are generated by or generated based on second data from the one or more first sensors, a first current value ([0065, 0091]; The current data from the first sensor that is used to determine a current posture and compare the current posture to a target posture is considered second data.); determining, by the processing system, based on third data from one or more second instruments in a secondary device that is separate from the one or more hearing instruments and worn or carried by a user of the one or more hearing instruments ([0033,0050]; Secondary monitoring device 160 is separate from head-wearable item 120 and comprises similar instrumentation, thereby providing similar kinematic data and values.), a second target value ([0049, 0050]; When manually setting the target posture, the kinematic value from the secondary monitoring device used as an offset can be considered the second target value); determining, by the processing system, a second current altitude value based on fourth data from the secondary device ([0065, 0091]; The current data from the second sensor that is used to determine a current posture and compare the current posture to a target posture is considered fourth data.); determining, by the processing system, a threshold based on a difference between the first target value and the second target value (The difference between the first and second values when assuming the target posture can be considered the threshold based on the difference. The posture is based on a difference between the first and second monitoring devices); determining, by the processing system, whether a posture of a spine of the user is a target posture for the user ([0065]; Posture processing module can characterize the head/neck posture of the user and can provide a measure of the current posture’s offset from the target posture, therefore the system must also determine if the posture is the target posture (offset of zero). It is noted that the neck is a part of the spine, therefore determining a head/neck posture is equivalent to determining posture of a spine), wherein determining whether the posture is the target posture comprises: determining a difference between the first current and the second current value ([0049]; The value of the secondary device is subtracted from the first when setting the target posture and when sampling current posture values); determining whether the posture is the target posture based on whether the difference is less than the threshold (Any deviation from the target posture comprises being based on whether the difference is less than or greater than the threshold. Therefore the difference being less than the threshold comprises a deviation/offset from the target posture.); and based on the posture not being the target posture, causing, by the processing system, the one or more hearing instruments to output an in-ear audible reminder to assume the target posture ([0065, 0136]; posture processing module can be used to determine if a user is slouching from the neck and alert the user to adjust in an appropriate manner. The alerts can be audible alerts).
Chang does not teach the first sensor being an altitude detection sensor and the second instrument being an altitude detection instrument or the first target value, second target value, first current value, and second current value being altitude values.
Arkans teaches a method of determining postures by using a set of wearable devices and determining the difference in vertical positions (i.e., altitudes) between the sensors. The sensors are disposed on the body, and based on the vertical positions between the sensors, inferences about the posture of the user can be made (i.e., angles of body parts (Fig. 3C); postures (Fig. 4A-4C)) ([0067]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Chang such that the first sensor was an altitude detection sensor and the second instrument was an altitude detection instrument and the first target value, second target value, first current value, and second current value were altitude values. This modification comprises a simple substitution of one known prior art element (determining posture using orientations as taught by Chang) with another (determining posture using altitude as taught by Arkans) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
It is noted that Arkans teaches that the vertical distances (i.e., altitudes) can be obtained with accelerometers, therefore the accelerometers within the inertial measurement systems of Chang can be considered altitude detection sensors when calculating vertical displacement.
Regarding claim 3, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the method further comprises: storing, by the processing system, net displacement values that include a net displacement value for each degree of freedom in a plurality of degrees of freedom (Chang; the orientation of value of rotation about each orthonormal axis, as shown in Fig. 3 are the plurality of degrees of freedom. [0082]; These values are stored during a calibration process.); performing a calibration process (Chang, [0091]; A target posture orientation may be manually set), wherein performing the calibration process comprises, based on receiving an indication that the user has assumed the target posture (Chang, [0091]; A user may position their head in to set the current orientation as the target orientation and select an option to set the current orientation as a target orientation), resetting, by the processing system, the net displacement values (Chang, [0091]; Measuring posture can include detecting activity through the kinematic data, selecting a current target posture orientation for the current activity and measuring orientation relative to the current target posture orientation. If orientation is measured relative to the current target posture orientation, then the displacement values must be reset (i.e., tared or zeroed) to obtain the orientation relative to the target posture.); and updating, by the processing system, the net displacement values based on third signals that are generated by one or more inertial measurement units (IMUs) that are included in the one or more hearing instruments or generated based on fifth data from the one or more IMUs (Chang, [0091]; Measuring orientation relative to the current target posture orientation updates the values, and this data can be considered the fifth data. The IMUs (comprising gyroscopes and magnetometers) are used to determine rotation of the head of the user.), and determining whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture comprises determining, by the processing system, that the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture based on the net displacement values (Chang, [0091]; Measuring posture can be an offset measurement of the head orientation relative to a target orientation. If the offset is zero, the posture of a user is the target posture.).
Regarding claim 12, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: determining whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture comprises determining, by the processing system, based on a change to a characteristic of a wireless signal (Chang, [0089]; the head based activity monitoring system and the second activity monitoring system are communicatively linked wirelessly, and therefore the wireless signal sent between devices comprises characteristics that are used to determine the kinematics (i.e., vertical distances)), a distance of one or more of the hearing instruments relative to the secondary device (The combination of Chang and Arkans uses vertical distances of the head worn device relative to the secondary device, and this vertical distance is determined based on the characteristics of the data wirelessly sent from the secondary device); and determining whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture comprises determining, by the processing system, based at least in part on the distance, whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Chang in view of Arkans, as applied to claim 1, teaches a system comprising: one or more hearing instruments (See the rejection of claim 1; Chang, [0044] Activity monitoring system 110 is integrated into a headwear such as headphones, earbuds, or a hearing aid), wherein the one or more hearing instruments include one or more first altitude sensors (See the rejection of claim 1); a secondary device that is separate from the one or more hearing instruments and worn or carried by a user of the one or more hearing instruments, wherein the secondary device includes one or more second altitude instruments (See the rejection of claim 1 above. Chang, [0051]; The secondary monitoring device 160 is preferably physically coupled… to the user); and a processing system comprising one or more processors implemented in circuitry (Chang, [0034]; Processor 114. A processor must comprise circuitry), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine, based on first signals that are generated by the one or more first altitude detection sensors or generated based on first data from the one or more first altitude detection sensors, a first target altitude value (See the rejection of claim 1); determine, based on second signals that are generated by or generated based on second data from the one or more first altitude detection sensors, a first current altitude value (See the rejection of claim 1); determine, based on third data from the one or more second altitude detection instruments, a second target altitude value (See the rejection of claim 1); determine, based on third data from the one or more second altitude detection instruments in the secondary device, a second current altitude value (See the rejection of claim 1); determine a threshold based on a difference between the first target altitude value and the second target altitude value (See the rejection of claim 1); determine, whether a posture of a spine of the user is a target posture of for the user (See the rejection of claim 1), wherein the one or more processors are configured such that, as a part of determining whether the posture is the target posture, the one or more processors: determine a difference between the first current altitude value and the second current altitude value (See the rejection of claim 1); determine whether the posture is the target posture based on whether the difference is less than the threshold (See the rejection of claim 1); and cause, based on the posture not being the target posture, the one or more hearing instruments to output an in-ear audible reminder to assume the target posture (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, wherein: the hearing instruments include one or more of the processors (Chang, [0044]; the processor module is housed in activity monitoring device 110, which is housed in the head-wearable item that may be headphones, an earbud, or hearing aid), or the secondary device is one of: a mobile device (Chang; the secondary device is wirelessly connected and is capable of moving, thereby making it a mobile device) or a hearing instrument accessory device.
Regarding claim 22, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, wherein: the system comprises one or more storage devices configured to store net displacement values that includes a net displacement value for each degree of freedom in a plurality of degrees of freedom (Chang; The orientation of value of rotation about each orthonormal axis, as shown in Fig. 3 are the plurality of degrees of freedom. [0082]; These values are stored during a calibration process and therefore the system must comprise at least one storage device.), and the processing system is configured to: perform a calibration process (Chang, [0091]; A target posture orientation may be manually set), wherein the processing system is configured to, as part of performing the calibration process and based on receiving an indication that the user has assumed the target posture (Chang, [0091]; A user may position their head in to set the current orientation as the target orientation and select an option to set the current orientation as a target orientation.), reset the net displacement values (Chang, [0091]; Measuring posture can include detecting activity through the kinematic data, selecting a current target posture orientation for the current activity and measuring orientation relative to the current target posture orientation. If orientation is measured relative to the current target posture orientation, then the displacement values must be reset (i.e., tared or zeroed) to obtain the orientation relative to the target posture.); update the net displacement values based on third signals that are generated by one or more inertial measurement units (IMUs) that are included in the one or more hearing instruments or generated based on fifth data from the one or more IMUs (Chang, [0091]; Measuring orientation relative to the current target posture orientation updates the values, and this data can be considered the fifth data. The IMUs (comprising gyroscopes and magnetometers) are used to determine rotation of the head of the user.); and determine that the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture based on the net displacement values (Chang, [0091]; Measuring posture can be an offset measurement of the head orientation relative to a target orientation. If the offset is zero, the posture of a user is the target posture.).
Regarding claim 31, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to, as part of determining whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture, determine, based on a change to a characteristic of a wireless signal in third signals that are transmitted by the secondary device (Chang, [0089]; the head based activity monitoring system and the second activity monitoring system are communicatively linked wirelessly, and therefore the wireless signal sent between devices comprises characteristics that are used to determine the kinematics (i.e., vertical distances)), a distance of one or more of the hearing instruments relative to the secondary device (The combination of Chang and Arkans uses vertical distances of the head worn device relative to the secondary device, and this vertical distance is determined based on the characteristics of the data wirelessly sent from the secondary device.); and determine whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture comprises determining, by the processing system, based at least in part on the distance, whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture (See the rejection of claim 17 above).
Regarding claim 38, Chang in view of Arkans teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Chang, [0143]; The system and methods may be configured as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions) stored thereon that, when executed, cause one or more processors to: determine, based on first signals that are generated by one or more first altitude detection sensors that are included in one or more hearing instruments (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17) or generated based on first data from the one or more first altitude detection sensors, a first target altitude value (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17); determine, based on second signals that are generated by or generated based on second data from the one or more first altitude detection sensors, a first current altitude value (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17); determine, based on third data from one or more second altitude detection instruments in a secondary device that is separate from the one or more hearing instruments and worn or carried by a user of the one or more hearing instruments, a second target altitude value (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17); determine a second current altitude value based fourth data from the secondary device (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17); determine a threshold based on a difference between the first target altitude value and the second target altitude value (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17); determine, whether a posture of a spine of the user is a target posture of for the user (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17), wherein determining whether the posture is the target posture comprises: determining a difference between the first current altitude value and the second current altitude value (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17); determining whether the posture is the target posture based on whether the difference is less than the threshold (See the rejections of claim 1 and 17); and based on the posture not being the target posture, cause the one or more hearing instruments to output an in-ear audible reminder to assume the target posture (See the rejections of claims 1 and 17).
Claims 13 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Arkans, as applied to claims 1 and 17, in view of US Patent Publication 2019/0224443 by Jantunen et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Jantunen”).
Regarding claim 13, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the processing system, whether the user is asleep, and generating, by the processing system, information regarding the posture of the spine of the user based on the user being asleep.
Fig. 5 of Jantunen teaches a method that uses earbuds configured to collect sensor data from a gyroscope and audio/sensor device, such as a microphone ([0112]). The data from the microphone may be used to determine whether the user is asleep ([0116]). Information such as a user’s sleep state may be detected based on the audio data and an indication to provide audio stimuli to the user may be generated ([0113]). Fig. 3 of Jantunen teaches that certain postures (302) may be detrimental to achieving good quality of sleep, and certain postures (304) may be conducive to achieving good quality of sleep. Sleep adjustments such as providing audio stimulation, based posture during sleep, may help achieve a target sleep outcome ([0100]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Chang in view of Arkans to include a microphone as one of the one or more sensors and to include determining, by the processing system, whether the user is asleep, and generating, by the processing system, regarding the posture of the spine of the user based on the user being asleep, as providing sleep adjustments based on posture during sleep may help a user achieve a target sleep outcome, as taught by Jantunen ([0100]).
Regarding claim 32, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the user is asleep; and generate information regarding the posture of the spine of the user based on the user being asleep.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of Chang in view of Arkans to include a microphone as one of the one or more sensors and to configure the processing system to determine whether the user is asleep; and generate information regarding the posture of the spine of the user based on the user being asleep, as providing sleep adjustments based on posture during sleep may help a user achieve a target sleep outcome, as taught by Jantunen ([0100]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Arkans, as applied to claims 17 and 22, in view of US Patent Publication 2016/0089059 by Hu et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 21, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the target posture is a neutral spine posture.
Hu teaches that the neutral spine is a healthy spine position ([0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the target posture as taught by Chang in view of Arkans to be a neutral spine posture, as this is a healthy spine position, as taught by Hu ([0037]).
Regarding claim 23, Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 22, but does not teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture based on each of the net displacement values being within a respective predefined range.
Hu teaches a method where data indicative of the posture of the user is compared to a database of acceptable and/or unacceptable posture data to determine if the analyzed user data is within an acceptable range and whether that posture needs correction and/or improvement. The acceptable range may be a medically recommended range of values ([0083]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of Chang in view of Arkans to configure the one or more processors to determine that the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture based on each of the net displacement values being within a respective predefined range, as an acceptable range of posture values are medically recommended, as taught by Hu ([0083]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Arkans, as applied to claim 17, in view of US Patent Publication 2019/0328314 by Coryell et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Coryell”).
Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, but does not teach wherein: the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on third signals that are generated by one or more inertial measurement units (IMUs) that are included in the one or more hearing instruments or generated based on fifth data from the one or more IMUs, a current direction of gravity; based on receiving an indication that the user has assumed the target posture, establish a gravity bias value for the target posture based on the current direction of gravity; and after establishing the gravity bias value for the target posture, update a current gravity bias value based on subsequent information in the signals, and the one or more processors are configured to, as part of determining whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture, determine, based on the current gravity bias value and the gravity bias value for the target posture, whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture.
Coryell teaches a method for determining the target posture of a user comprising extracting a calibration vector, that represents a calibration pitch angle relative to the gravity vector. After calibration, the measurement of the posture (i.e., subsequent information in the signals) is measured by the posture device (comprising an accelerometer), and the posture vector represents the current posture pitch angle relative to the gravity vector. Subsequently the posture vector can be subtracted from the calibration vector to identify the current posture of the user ([0033-0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of Chang in view of Arkans to configure the one or more processors to determine, based on third signals that are generated by one or more inertial measurement units (IMUs) that are included in the one or more hearing instruments or generated based on fifth data from the one or more IMUs, a current direction of gravity; based on receiving an indication that the user has assumed the target posture, establish a gravity bias value for the target posture based on the current direction of gravity; and after establishing the gravity bias value for the target posture, update a current gravity bias value based on subsequent information in the signals, and the one or more processors are configured to, as part of determining whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture, determine, based on the current gravity bias value and the gravity bias value for the target posture, whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture, as taught by Coryell ([0033-0034]).
It is noted that Chang teaches that a calibration may be initiated based on receiving an indication that the user has assumed the target posture. Therefore the combination of Chang and Coryell teaches that the gravity bias value for the target posture is established based on receiving an indication that the user has assumed the target posture. The method of Coryell is another method of determining whether a posture of the user is the target posture, therefore the combination of Chang and Coryell combines prior art elements to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Arkans, as applied to claim 17, in view of US Patent Publication 2016/0203692 by Ten Kate et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Ten Kate”).
Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, but does not teach wherein: the one or more hearing instruments include one or more microphones, one or more of the one or more hearing instruments includes a speaker, and the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the speaker to periodically emit a sound; obtain information, via the one or more microphones, indicating reflections of the sound emitted by the speaker in one or more audio signals detected by the one or more microphones; and determine whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture based in part on a delay of the reflections of the sound.
Ten Kate teaches a proximity sensor that can measure distance using ultrasound. The emitter of the proximity sensor (i.e., speaker) emits a sound and the receiver (i.e., microphone) listens for the reflected pulse or echo. Given the delay between the transmitted pulse and the received echo, the distance can be determined ([0071]). Using ultrasound to measure distance is advantageous since ultrasound signals have good directionality and there is almost no interference from high-intensity environmental sounds ([0071]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the one or more sensors of Chang in view of Arkans such that the one or more hearing instruments include one or more microphones, one or more of the one or more hearing instruments includes a speaker, and the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the speaker to periodically emit a sound; obtain information, via the one or more microphones, indicating reflections of the sound emitted by the speaker in one or more audio signals detected by the one or more microphones; and determine whether the posture of the spine of the user is the target posture based in part on a delay of the reflections of the sound, as using ultrasound to measure distance is advantageous since ultrasound signals have good directionality and there is almost no interference from high-intensity environmental sounds, as taught by Ten Kate ([0071]).
It is noted that Chang teaches that kinematic data may be used to measure the current posture relative to the target posture ([0091]) and that kinematic data may comprise displacement (i.e., distance) ([0083]), therefore combining the system of Chang with the means to calculate distance as taught by Ten Kate is combining known prior art elements to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Arkans, as applied to claim 17, in view of US Patent Publication US 2020/0312113 by Victor – previously cited (hereinafter “Victor”).
Chang in view of Arkans teaches the system of claim 17, but does not teach wherein: the one or more first altitude detection sensors include a barometer.
Victor teaches using multiple data sensors to measure position and displacement of a device. A barometer may be used to measure altitudes and heights, as well as measure changes in altitudes and heights. ([0075-0076]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of Chang in view of Arkans to include a barometer in the one or more first altitude detection sensors, as taught by Victor ([0075-0076]).
It is noted that Chang in view of Arkans uses a vertical displacement between sensors, and barometers are sensors known to be able to measure changes in vertical distances. Therefore modifying the system of Chang in view of Arkans by using barometers to calculate the vertical distances comprises a simple substitution of one known prior art elements with another to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1, 3, 9, and 12-14. However, the amendments to the claims necessitate new rejections of claims 17-18, 21-26, and 31-32.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the amendments to the claims necessitate new rejections of claims 17-18, 21-26, and 31-32.
Applicant’s assertion regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is acknowledged. This assertion is moot as it is based on amendments to the claims not entered at the time of the previous Office action. The newly presented limitations are rejected on new grounds above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2015/0335288 by Toth et al. teaches a system of wearable devices, wherein a barometer and/or altimeter can be used in the different wearable devices and differences in vertical position of the barometers/altimeters can be used to determine posture.
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 NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791