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 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.
.
Claims 9 and 17 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 9 contains the phrase a "plurality of laser emitters to emit a laser". It is unclear if the "a laser" of claim 1 is included in the "plurality of laser emitters" of claim 9. It is further unclear if the “a laser” is the emitted light of claim 1. Furthermore, the “a laser” of claim 9 seems to be a laser beam not a structural element, but claim 1 recites “a laser” as if it is a structural element. For purposes of the examination, claim 1 is being interpreted such that the base comprises at least one laser emitter configured to emit light, and that the “a laser” of claim 9 is referring to the emitted light of claim 1.
Claim 17 states that the device has “mechanical buttons (314) to adjust a distance of the laser”. It is unclear what is meant by a distance of a laser. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as “mechanical buttons (314) to adjust a projection distance of the laser”.
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) 1-3, 9-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1).
In regards to claim 1 Sarkar teaches a gait moderation aiding system operable to support body posture of a user, said system characterized in that the gait moderation aiding system (Abstract) comprises:
a smart stick to provide a visual cue upon detection of a gait irregularity of the user ([0016] Walking Aid, display device), wherein the smart stick comprises:
an elongated housing comprising a proximal end and a distal end ([0057] exterior housing 18);
a handle coupled to the proximal end of the elongated housing ([0057] handle 14),
wherein the handle comprising an ergonomic grip ([0045]), and a plurality of pressure sensors placed on the ergonomic grip to detect grip and grip strength of the user ([0011] [0050] sensors 58 are configured to detect a force applied to the handle),
wherein the cane comprises a first and second printed circuit board (PCB) ([0062]);
a base coupled to the distal end of the elongated housing ([0048] base 22),
wherein the base houses a gait detection sensor ([0058]),
wherein the gait detection sensor comprising an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) to detect gait irregularity of the user by measuring orientation of the user's body ([0058]),
a terrain detection sensor to detect terrain to provide a cue to guide the user while walking ([0053] sensor 78)
a shaft ([0057] electronics module 216) connected with the handle to house to connect the multiple printed circuit boards (PCBs) to a microcontroller which can control auditory or vibratory output ([0062-0063] [0053] Microcontroller is electronically coupled to the sensors which contain PCBs, and coupled to a vibratory motor/speaker)
a processor that can train and run a plurality of machine learning models ([0088] classifiers);
a computing device connected with the smart stick and the central device over a network ([0066]] Computing device),
wherein the computing device comprises a memory and a processing unit configured to execute a communication application to present gait analytics to a caregiver, and a medical professional ([0067] [0072]);
Sarkar does not explicitly teach a wire harness. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the connections between the PCBs, microcontroller, and vibratory motor/speaker to be wired connections in the form of a wire harness. Doing so would merely be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (wireless or wired connections), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Sarkar also does not explicitly teach the first circuit board being located in the handle. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board layout of Sarkar so that the first circuit board is located in the handle. Doing so would merely be a rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI
Sarkar also does not explicitly teach the second circuit board and terrain sensor being located in the base. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board and sensor layout of Sarkar so that the second circuit board and terrain sensor is located in the base. Doing so would merely be a rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI
Sarkar fails to teach a device wherein the cue determined by the terrain sensor is visual. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to display the cue on the display device. Doing so would merely be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (visual cues or audio cues).
Sarkar fails to teach a device:
wherein the handle comprises a concealed push button to generate vibration upon receiving a press gesture from the user,
wherein the terrain detection sensors comprising one or more infrared rangefinders to detect terrain to provide the visual cue to guide the user while walking
and a central device wirelessly connected with the smart stick to assess the gait irregularity of the user to provide a vibratory cueing, and an auditory cueing,
wherein the central device is coupled to a wearable device having a plurality of wearable form factors based on body parts of the user,
wherein the central device provides adaptive vibratory cueing, and auditory cueing through an auditory device,
wherein the wearable device logs sensory data to build a balance profile for the user,
wherein the central device comprises an electronic assembly to house a processor that is configured to:
control an output to a display
control a plurality of secondary peripherals;
execute a plurality of instructions to process sensory data received from a plurality of detectors coupled to the wearable device to assess the gait irregularity of the user ,
wherein the detectors are housed in the electronic assembly;
establish a communication with the smart;
a processor that can train and run a plurality of machine learning models;
and actuate a plurality of transducers comprising a vibration transducer, and a sound transducer;
and trigger the vibratory cueing, and the auditory cueing;
and a control algorithm to control the transducers,
wherein the control algorithm comprising a machine learning model and a statistical model to perform data analysis on the sensory data,
wherein the machine learning model is trained to perform supervised prediction of fall risk based on the sensory data,
wherein the machine learning model is trained and transmitted to the communication application that updates the machine learning model in the processor, and the processing unit.
Harada teaches cane wherein the handle comprises a concealed push button to activate lights and vibration upon receiving a press gesture from the user (Col. 4 Lines 31-48; Col.5 Lines 44-47; switch operating button activates warning lights and vibration). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the smart stick of Sarkar to include a push and a lighting system as taught by Harada and have the button activate the vibration system of Sarkar and lighting system. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to activate the vibration manually.
Sarkar in view of Harada fails to teach a device:
wherein the terrain detection sensors comprising one or more infrared rangefinders to detect terrain to provide the visual cue to guide the user while walking
and a central device wirelessly connected with the smart stick to assess the gait irregularity of the user to provide a vibratory cueing, and an auditory cueing,
wherein the central device is coupled to a wearable device having a plurality of wearable form factors based on body parts of the user,
wherein the central device provides adaptive vibratory cueing, and auditory cueing through an auditory device,
wherein the wearable device logs sensory data to build a balance profile for the user,
wherein the central device comprises an electronic assembly to house a processor that is configured to:
control an output to a display
control a plurality of secondary peripherals;
execute a plurality of instructions to process sensory data received from a plurality of detectors coupled to the wearable device to assess the gait irregularity of the user,
wherein the detectors are housed in the electronic assembly;
establish a communication with the smart stick;
a processor that can train and run a plurality of machine learning models;
and actuate a plurality of transducers comprising a vibration transducer, and a sound transducer;
and trigger the vibratory cueing, and the auditory cueing;
and a control algorithm to control the transducers,
wherein the control algorithm comprising a machine learning model and a statistical model to perform data analysis on the sensory data,
wherein the machine learning model is trained to perform supervised prediction of fall risk based on the sensory data,
wherein the machine learning model is trained and transmitted to the communication application that updates the machine learning model in the processor, and the processing unit.
Sullivan teaches a terrain sensor as an infrared rangefinder measures the distance between itself and the terrain ahead of the walking person ([0034]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Sarkar in view of Harada to include the infrared range finder of Sullivan. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of using both ultrasound and infrared sensors to detect terrain.
Sarkar in view of Harada further in view of Sullivan fails to teach a device:
and a central device wirelessly connected with the smart stick to assess the gait irregularity of the user to provide a vibratory cueing, and an auditory cueing,
wherein the base (204) comprising: a laser-servo assembly (346) mounted on the elongated housing (222), wherein the laser-servo assembly (346) comprising a laser and a servo motor, wherein the laser is configured to emit light as a line on a floor and the line is used for visual cueing, wherein the servo is configured to control the position of the laser, wherein the servo is configured to control the position and orientation of the line with respect to the smart stick (102)
wherein the central device is coupled to a wearable device having a plurality of wearable form factors based on body parts of the user,
wherein the central device provides adaptive vibratory cueing, and auditory cueing through an auditory device,
wherein the wearable device logs sensory data to build a balance profile for the user,
wherein the central device comprises an electronic assembly to house a processor that is configured to:
control an output to a display
control a plurality of secondary peripherals;
execute a plurality of instructions to process sensory data received from a plurality of detectors coupled to the wearable device to assess the gait irregularity of the user,
wherein the detectors are housed in the electronic assembly;
establish a communication with the smart stick;
a processor that can train and run a plurality of machine learning models;
and actuate a plurality of transducers comprising a vibration transducer, and a sound transducer;
and trigger the vibratory cueing, and the auditory cueing;
and a control algorithm to control the transducers,
wherein the control algorithm comprising a machine learning model and a statistical model to perform data analysis on the sensory data,
wherein the machine learning model is trained to perform supervised prediction of fall risk based on the sensory data,
wherein the machine learning model is trained and transmitted to the communication application that updates the machine learning model in the processor, and the processing unit.
Hausdorff teaches:
a central device that can connect to an external device wirelessly to assess the gait irregularity of the user ([109] [0118] [0128] detector device 20) to provide a vibratory cueing, and an auditory cueing ([0222-0223]),
wherein the central device is coupled to a wearable device having a plurality of wearable form factors based on body parts of the user ([0109] a belt can be adjusted based on body size),
wherein the central device provides adaptive vibratory cueing, and auditory cueing through an auditory device ([0184] [0222-0223]),
wherein the wearable device logs sensory data to build a balance profile for the user ([0175),
wherein the central device comprises an electronic assembly to house a processor (Fig 2a processor and memory within housing 30 [0184] [0222-0223]) that is configured to:
control a plurality of secondary peripherals ([0184] [0222-0223]) Audio and visual cueing are secondary peripherals);
execute a plurality of instructions to process sensory data received from a plurality of detectors coupled to the wearable device to assess the gait irregularity of the user ([0147]),
wherein the detectors are housed in the electronic assembly (Fig 2a Sensor 32);
establish a communication with an external device ([0128]);
run a plurality of machine learning models ([0014-0015]);
and actuate a plurality of transducers comprising a vibration transducer, and a sound transducer ((0222-0223]);
and trigger the vibratory cueing, and the auditory cueing ([0222-0223]);
and a control algorithm to control the transducers ([0214-0216] [0222-0223] software generates signal is output by vibration and sound cueing devise),
wherein the control algorithm comprising a machine learning model ([0014-0015]) and a statistical model ([0171]) to perform data analysis on the sensory data ([0011] [0088]),
wherein the machine learning model is trained to perform supervised prediction of fall risk based on the sensory data ([0014])
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan to include the central device and control algorithm of Hausdorff and have Hausdorff establish a wireless connection with the smart stick and computing device of Sarkar in view of Harada. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to determine a fall risk of a user.
Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan in view of Hausdorff fails to teach a device wherein the processor is configured to train the machine learning model and the machine learning model is transmitted to the communication application that updates the machine learning model, and wherein the base comprises: a laser-servo assembly mounted on the elongated housing , wherein the laser-servo assembly comprising a laser and a servo motor, wherein the laser is configured to emit light as a line on a floor and the line is used for visual cueing, wherein the servo is configured to control the position of the laser, wherein the servo is configured to control the position and orientation of the line with respect to the smart stick. Coffey teaches training a machine learning model using a processor ([0030] [0152]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan in view of Hausdorff to train the machine learning model the method of Coffey. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of training a machine learning model.
Coffey also teaches updating a machine learning model in order to improve predictions ([0181]). It would have been obvious It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the processing unit of Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan in view of Hausdorff to update the machine learning model like the method of Coffey and use the transceivers of Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan in view of Hausdorff to transmit the machine learning model between the processor and processing unit. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improving predictions.
Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan in view of Hausdorff in view of Coffey fails to teach a device wherein the base comprises: a laser-servo assembly mounted on the elongated housing, wherein the laser-servo assembly comprising a laser and a servo motor, wherein the laser is configured to emit light as a line on a floor and the line is used for visual cueing, wherein the servo is configured to control the position of the laser, wherein the servo is configured to control the position and orientation of the line with respect to the smart stick. Engel teaches a laser-servo assembly mounted on a walker (Col 5 Lines 1-8, Fig. 4A laser line generator 56), wherein the laser-servo assembly comprising a laser and a motor (Col 5 lines 7-18), wherein the laser is configured to emit light as a line on a floor and the line is used for visual cueing (Col 5 Lines 1-8), wherein the motor is configured to control the position of the laser, wherein the motor is configured to control the position and orientation of the line with respect to the walker (Col 5 lines 7-18). It would have been obvious It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the smart stick of Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan in view of Hausdorff in view of Coffey to include the laser cueing system of Engel. Doing so would enable a user of the smart stick to be guided in their forward movement with the smart stick (Engel Abstract). It would have also been obvious to make the laser line adjustable like the system of Engel rather than static. Doing so would provide stronger stimulation to the brain in ways a fixed static laser line cannot (Engel Col 2 Lines 50-55).
Sarkar in view of Harada in view of Sullivan in view of Hausdorff in view of Coffey in view of Engel fails to explicitly teach a servo motor. However Engel teaches that the motor can be any “motor to provide such alternative movements is within the purview of one skilled in the art to which this invention pertains" (Engel Col 5 Lines 11-17). It would have been obvious It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the motor of Engel to be a servo motor. Doing so would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (stepper motor, servo motor, etc.).
In regards to claim 2, Modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the communication application provides a digital platform to establish an interaction between the user, caregiver, and the medical professional (Sarkar [0011]).
In regards to claim 3, Modified Sarkar teaches The gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the handle of the smart stick comprises a microcontroller to process data captured from the sensors to output stimuli (Sarkar [0058] [0051]). Modified Sarkar does not teach the microcontroller being located in the base. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronics of modified Sarkar so that the microcontroller is located in the base. Doing so would merely be a rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI
In regards to claim 9, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1. Modified Sarkar fails to teach a plurality of laser emitters to emit a laser for the visual cueing. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the laser generator of modified Sarkar to have multiple laser emitters. Doing so would merely be a mere duplication of parts.
In regards to claim 10, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base comprising a plurality of legs to provide a vertical support to the smart stick (Sarkar [0044] rubber stop of base can be replaced with a quad-base ferrule).
In regards to claim 11, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1. wherein the shaft houses a battery assembly to power the first and second PCBs, the gait detection sensor, and the terrain detection sensors (Sarkar [0058] Battery).
In regards to claim 12, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the central device comprises a power source to power the electronic assembly (Hausdorff [0134] battery).
In regards to claim 13 modified Sarkar does not teach the material of the wearable device being fabric. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the belt of modified Sarker fabric. Doing so would merely be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solution (leather, plastic, or fabric belt).
In regards to claim 14, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic assembly of the central device is arranged over the wearable form factors that are designed to be worn on and around one or more of knee joint, ankle, wrist, neck, ear, and trunk (Hausdorff [0109] Belt can be wrapped around any body part).
In regards to claim 15, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wearable form factors comprising: a knee form factor, an ankle form factor, a wrist form factor, a neck form factor, an ear form factor, and a trunk form factor (Hausdorff [0109] Belt can be wrapped around any body part).
In regards to claim 20, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of secondary peripherals comprising a sound system and a haptic vibration system (Hausdorff [0184] [0222-0223]) Audio and visual cueing are secondary peripherals).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Shute (US 20200364327 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 4, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the IMU (322) comprises an accelerometer (Sarkar [0061]). Modified Sarkar fails to teach an IMU comprising an accelerator, gyroscope, and magnetometer. Shute teaches an IMU comprising an accelerator, gyroscope, and magnetometer (Shute [0093]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the IMU of modified Sarkar with the IMU of Shute. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known IMU sensor for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bina (WO 2018140429 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 5, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base comprises an infrared (IR) sensor (Sullivan [0034]) , an ultrasonic sensor (Sarkar [0053]), and a force sensor (Sarkar [0058]). Modified Sarkar fails to teach a plurality of each sensor, a flex sensor, and detecting an angle of deflection or bending of a surface while walking. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the sensors of modified Sarkar so there are multiples of each type. Doing so would merely be a simple duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI.
Modified Sarkar fails to teach a flex sensor, and detecting an angle of deflection or bending of a surface while walking. Bina teaches a flex sensor, and detecting an angle of deflection while walking (Bina Page 27 Lines 24-25). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Sarkar to include a flex sensor to detect an angle of deflection of the stick while walking. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determine an angle of deflection.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hershey (US 20060066738 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 6, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system (100) as claimed in claim 1. Modified Sarker fails to teach a system wherein the base comprises a broad-spectrum camera to capture a range of wavelengths and operate in infrared (IR) waves, ultraviolet (UV) waves, and visual spectrum. Hershey teaches a broad-spectrum camera to capture a range of wavelengths and operate in infrared (IR) waves, ultraviolet (UV) waves, and visual spectrum (Hershey Abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Sarkar to include the camera of Hershey. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of capturing visible, UV, and IR spectrums.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Denman (US 20060070646 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 7, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1. Modified Sarkar fails to teach a system wherein the smart stick comprises a plurality of momentum stabilizer wheels to stabilize the smart stick upon an occurrence of freezing of gait and detecting loss of balance. Denman teaches a smart stick comprising a plurality of momentum stabilizer wheels to stabilize the smart stick upon an occurrence of freezing of gait and detecting loss of balance (Denman [0046]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Sarkar to include the gyro stabilizer of Denman and activate it when it senses unstable gait. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of stabilizing the user when their gait is unsteady.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kayser (US 20200315449 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 8, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1. Modified Sarkar fails to teach a system wherein the base of the smart stick comprises a plurality of time-of-flight radar sensors. Kayser teaches using a time-of-flight radar sensor to estimate a three-dimensional space information of the surrounding of the sensor. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the base of modified Sarkar to include the time-of-flight radar sensor of Kayser in order to estimate a three-dimensional space information of the user’s surrounding. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of estimating the terrain around the user. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the time-of-flight radar sensor of modified Sarkar so there are multiples of each type. Doing so would merely be a simple duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Van Gerpen (US 20130014790 A1- previously cited).
In regards to claim 9, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1. Modified Sarkar fails to teach a plurality of laser emitters to emit a laser for the visual cueing. Van Gerpen teaches a plurality of laser emitters to emit a laser for the visual cueing (Van Gerpen [0012 and 0033]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the laser generator of modified Sarkar to include multiple laser emitters like Van Gerpen. Doing so would merely be a mere duplication of parts.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Merril (US 20140149067 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 16, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1. Modified Sarkar fails to teach a system wherein the second PCB is placed in a padded housing. Merril teaches encasing a circuit board in force absorbing material to cushion the board from impact (Merril [0039]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the base of modified Sarkar to include shock absorbing padding around the PCB in order to protect it from shock like the device of Merril. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of protecting the circuit board from damage caused by the cane hitting the ground.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, In view of Collin (US 20230102689 A1) further in view of Mathur (US 20050038326 A1 - previously cited).
In regards to claim 17, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the computing device has a UI (Sarkar [0069]). Modified Sarkar fails to teach a system wherein the handle comprises a mechanic to adjust a distance of the laser and a plurality of mechanical buttons control at least one of an audio signal and a user interface (UI) of the computing device.
Harada teaches the mechanical button can control an audio signal (Col. 4 Lines 50-57, button causes alarm to sound). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the button of modified Sarkar to control an audio signal in the form of an alarm like the device of Harada. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to alert when something is wrong.
Modified Sarkar fails to teach a system wherein the handle comprises a plurality of mechanical buttons to adjust a distance of the laser and control and a user interface (UI) of the computing device. Collin teaches adjusting a distance of a laser from a person ([0069]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify handle of modified Sarkar to include a laser and adjust the distance of a laser from a user like the device of Collin. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to control the distance of the laser from the user.
Modified Sarkar in view of Collin fails to teach controlling a user interface (UI) of the computing device with buttons. Mathur teaches controlling functions and a display using a wireless remote control with buttons (Mathur [0100]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify handle of modified Sarkar to include buttons on the handle of the device for remotely controlling the UI like the buttons of Mathur. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to control UI with the smart stick.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tong (US 20180368738 A1- previously cited).
In regards to claim 18, modified Sarkar teaches the gait moderation aiding system) as claimed in claim 1. Modified Sarkar fails to teach the handle comprising a touch sensor placed on the ergonomic grip to detect a touch of the user. Tong teaches handles with touch sensors to determine a user is grasping the handle (Tong [0060])). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the handle to modified Sarkar to include the touch sensors of Tong. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of detecting when a user is grasping the handle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 11 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 11 and 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although the applicant asserts that “distance” refers to the “projection distance” of the laser, the claim was not amended to reflect this.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of over Sarkar (US 20160262661 A1- previously cited) in view of Harada (US 5588735 A1- previously cited) in view of Sullivan (US 20140180173 A1- previously cited) in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1- previously cited) in view of Coffey (US 20230000396 A1- previously cited), in view of Engel (US 10588814 B1).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791