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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/8/2026 has been entered.
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 1-13 and 15-20 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.
The claims recite the limitations “personal space” and “extended personal space” (claims 1, 19, and 20, etc.). However, the specification does not provide clear, objective boundaries or a precise definition for these terms. While the specification describes “personal space” as “approximately all areas reachable by extending arms, legs, or cane at a particular time” and “extended personal space” as “a region of interest when a user is in motion, including areas which the user may be traveling into within the immediate future or a short span of time based on the user’s gait and walking speed,” these descriptions are inherently subjective and lack quantitative or algorithmic detail. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of “personal space” or “extended personal space” with reasonable certainty.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassert et al. (US 8,922,759 B2) in view of Bell et al. (US 2020/0064141 A1).
Claim 1: Gassert et al. discloses a system comprising: a processor (201); a device (209) connected to an optical sensor (203/204, 206, 207), a cane (including handle 2 and body 3) including a haptic controller (202), wherein the device, in response to determining that an object is within the personal space of the optical sensor, causes the haptic controller in the cane to provide one or more notifications to a user (col. 1, lines 27-36; col. 2, lines 65-67 through col. 3, lines 1-3).
Gassert et al. lacks a server computer comprising the processor. Bell et al. teaches a server computer (112; paragraphs 24-26) comprising a processor (paragraphs 27-28), a device (garment 104/202 or user device/smart phone 220) connected to an optical sensor (206a, 206b), and a haptic controller (208a, 208b), wherein the device, in response to determining that an object is within the personal space of the optical sensor, causes the haptic controller to provide one or more notifications to a user (paragraphs 41-43, 81 and 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gassert et al. to include a separate server computer with a processor, such as taught by Bell et al., so that a user could use AI over a larger network to identify objects in the path of the user and/or a third party (paragraph 31).
Claims 2 and 11: Bell et al. discloses an artificial intelligence core, which receives images from the optical sensor, and an artificial intelligence data memory storage (paragraphs 27-28 40, 53 and 98).
Claim 3: Bell et al. discloses images from the optical sensor being compared against data in the artificial intelligence data memory storage to identify objects detected by the optical sensor (paragraph 40).
Claim 4: Bell et al. discloses the artificial intelligence core as comparing the images from the optical sensor against data in the artificial intelligence memory data storage to identify objects detected by the optical sensor (paragraph 40).
Claim 5: Gassert et al. does not teach the cane as connecting wirelessly to the device (as the device is located inside the cane handle), although Gassert et al. does teach the device may be used independently without a cane (abstract). However, Bell et al. teaches that the device (such as smart phone 220) is wirelessly connected (via 110; paragraph 20) to the element comprising the haptic controller (in this case, garment 104/202). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gassert et al. to include a wireless connection between the device and the cane, as suggested by Bell et al., so that a user could turn their body/the device and use the optical sensors to determine if there are any objects in that direction without having to move the cane, thus ensuring their safety.
Claim 6: Gassert et al. discloses the haptic controller as including a braille printer (col. 6, lines 9-20).
Claim 7: Gassert et al. discloses the haptic controller as including a vibration unit (col. 6, lines 9-20).
Claim 8: Gassert et al. lacks an audible warning but teaches that it is common for ETAs to communicate information to a user via haptics or “some other non-visual form of communication” (col. 1, lines 31-36). Bell et al. teaches an audible warning (paragraph 42) used to communicate with the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gassert et al. to include an audible warning for the user in addition to or in place of the haptic controller if the user would prefer to hear audible warnings.
Claim 9: Gassert et al. is silent on whether the optical (TOF) sensor is a camera. However, Bell et al. teaches cameras (206a, 206b) used as the optical sensor (paragraph 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gassert et al. to include a camera as the optical sensor, as an equivalent alternative that would yield the same results.
Claim 10: Gassert et al. is silent on whether the optical (TOF) sensor is specifically a LIDAR optical sensor. However, Bell et al. teaches LIDAR sensors as at least a portion of the optical sensor (paragraphs 72 and 75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gassert et al. to include a LIDAR optical sensor, as an equivalent alternative that would yield the same results.
Claims 12 and 13: Bell et al. teaches use of both cameras and LIDAR as the optical sensors (paragraph 72) and teaches the use of neural networks (paragraph 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include as many neural networks as needed to analyze and identify objects detected by the optical sensors.
Claim 15: Bell et al. teaches the server computer processor as identifying a location of the user based on data collected by the optical sensor (paragraph 40; data obtained by the optical sensor/cameras can determine a use’s position, which can be combined with the use of GPS to determine the exact location of the user).
Claim 16: Bell et al. teaches the server computer processor as identifying a terrain associated with the location of the user based on data collected by the optical sensor (paragraph 72, data from the optical sensors is used to identify static obstacles and smooth, flat surfaces, thus identifying the terrain associated with the user’s location).
Claim 17: Gassert et al. does not disclose identifying a private space and turning off the optical sensor. Bell et al. teaches a system for providing navigational aid for the visually impaired, including user devices and garments equipped with sensors (cameras, etc.) and processors. Bell describes (paragraphs 49–51) that the system can be trained and set up by the user, including in familiar locations such as the user’s basement or living room, and that the user can configure the system for specific environments and preferences.
It is well known in the art to provide privacy modes or to disable sensors (such as cameras and microphones) in sensitive environments for privacy protection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Gassert et al. and Bell et al. to include a feature that allows the user to disable the optical sensor in private spaces (such as bathrooms or bedrooms), motivated by the common desire to protect user privacy.
Claim 18: Bell et al. teaches user-driven configuration and training for specific locations (paragraphs 49–51), so it would have been obvious to allow the user to specify which locations are private spaces for the purpose of sensor disabling.
Claims 19 and 20: Gassert et al. and Bell et al. don’t explicitly teach the server computer processor as identifying an extended personal space in addition to the personal space. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include an extended space identified by the processor so that the system can detect objects in the user’s pathway even further in advance, giving the user extra time to avoid said objects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM 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, David Dunn can be reached at (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
