DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of amendments to the claims on 12/23/2025. As per the amendments, claims 1, 4-6, and 18-19 have been amended, and no claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 2021-10-15. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2021-0137285 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes that the attempt to retrieve the document failed as per the request of 10/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an electronic device that 1) exchanges data, 2) makes determinations regarding raw data and operational parameters, 3) generates sensed data from raw data, 4) determines outputted values and operational parameters based on the sensed data, and 5) control a device based on the determined output.
The claim is considered to be directed towards the abstract idea of collecting, calculating, manipulating, and outputting data in order to control a device. However, all of these steps can be done by a generic computer device. The claim includes communication circuitry in line 2, which is generic computer parts that comprise any electronic device. The claim includes processing circuitry in line 4, which is a generic computer device and does not take the claim beyond the judicial exception. The claim mentions a wearable device that is merely some external device that the generic computer components are able to communicate with and send/ receive data back and forth. Further, there is no structure other than “wearable device” which can conceivably be just about anything, including further generic computer components. The action of “executable by the wearable device” also does not take the claim beyond the judicial exception, as there is no mention over what/ how the control is acting on the wearable device, with no structures being positively controlled. In short, the wearable device receiving data can be considered a “control” of the wearable device, which is just a generic computerized act of sending/ receiving data. As such, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide more than the judicial exception of generic computing that is receiving, computing, and transmitting data, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are directed to the types of data being used, adjustments to the output of the device based on data/ feedback, and further determinations being done with said data.
Claim 6 introduces a server, which is another generic computer element that does not take the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Claims 19-20 are nearly identical to claim 1 and claim 6, having the generic computer element of a server added to the claim, and fails to go beyond the judicial exception for the same reasons.
The limitations as described in the above rejected claims do not provide improvements to any other technical field, applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of the electronic device to a different state, applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, nor adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field to control torque-based limb control devices. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
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 1-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US Pub. 2020/0214925) in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 2019/0083002) in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. 2017/0027801).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses an electronic device (see walking assist device 200 in Fig. 2), comprising: at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, configured to control the electronic device (controller 220 in Fig. 2; see also [0062] where it performs the processing, and has circuitry), wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to: receive target exercise information from a user of the electronic device (see [0066]-[0068] where the controller receives data based on the gait of the user, the current gait being part of a target walking exercise), the target exercise information including target exercise time information and target exercise section information (see [0067]-[0068] where a time delay based on the walking cycle is used by the controller, and data from the targeted walk cycle gait is also collected, such as acceleration); determine an optimal value of a control parameter that satisfies preset target values of assessment items based on at least one of the target exercise time information the target exercise section information and based on current values of gait assessment items (see [0071] and [0093] where the applied torque is optimized based on the gait data; and see [0113] where the optimization of the torque can include a learner which is able to adjust when the assist torque signal is applied which is adjusting the time delay of the torque (target exercise time). Further see [0116] where the optimization of torque can include adjusting the torque control signal base on which leg requires assistance (target exercise section)), the control parameter comprising a parameter for adjusting at least one of a magnitude, and timing of torque (see [0067] where the parameters sent to the controller are used to adjust both the time delay and intensity of the torque); acquire at least one recommended exercise program based on the optimal value of the control parameter (see [0071] and [0093] where the optimal torque control mode is a recommended program for the exercise, utilizing the time delay and intensity of the torque); determine a target exercise program among the at least one recommended exercise program (see [0071] and [0093] where the optimal torque control mode is a recommended program for the exercise, which is then the target exercise based on the recommendation from the optimized torque); control transmission of information regarding the target exercise program to a wearable device worn by the user (see Fig. 2 and [0068] where data from the sensor 240 is transmitted to the controller 220 in order to determine and operate the target exercise program), the target exercise program configured to be executed by the wearable device (see Fig. 2 and [0065] where driver 250 of the walking assist device 200 executes the torque determined by the controller); receive sensing information from the wearable device based on execution of the target exercise program (see [0069] where the sensed first state variable is used to determine a gait phase via the controller 220).
Lim lacks a detailed description of a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to exchange data with an external device. It is understood that Lim has some means of communicating between the components (see Fig. 2 where sensor 240, control device 210, controller 220, memory 230, and driver 250 communicate with one another).
However, Jang teaches a gait monitoring and assisting device, where a communicator is used to communicate between the components, and is made of circuitry (see [0088], which can be a server as seen in [0037]).
Therefore 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 control systems of Lim to include a communicator as taught by Jang, as it would provide a structure for the data to be sent back and forth from the sensor, controller, and driver in order to operate the device.
The modified Lim device lacks a detailed description of the processor controlling a speaker, a display, or a haptic device to provide feedback information to the user based on the sensing information.
However, Choi teaches a walking assistance device, where a display can be provided that provides feedback to the user regarding the operational status of the device (see [0071]-[0073]).
Therefore 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 control system of the modified Lim device to include a display for showing the operational status and other variables of the walking device as taught by Choi, as it would provide a visual representation to the user/ practitioner regarding the operation of the device, for better control and to help alter the device as needed.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Lim device has wherein the gait assessment items comprise one or more of a gait speed (Lim; see [0068] where the speed of the gait is used as a parameter for controlling a time delay).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to acquire the current values of the gait assessment items based on previous sensing information acquired while the user performs a previous exercise program (Lim; see [0070] and [0093] where a previously used “learning mode” is used to configure the gait parameters during normal operation).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to: control transmission of information regarding a test exercise program for acquiring the current values of the gait assessment items to the wearable device (Lim; see [0070] and [0093] the learning mode results are used to configure the gait parameters during normal operation, so as to adjust the torque of the wearable device); receive test sensing information upon execution of the test exercise program from the wearable device (Lim; see [0093] where the information from the learning mode is received by the control device and controller during normal operation); and acquire the current values of the gait assessment items based on the test sensing information (Lim; see [0085] and [0093] where the previous learning mode sessions are used for set the operation of the current gait cycle during normal operation).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to determine the optimal value of the control parameter such that the target values of the gait assessment items are satisfied within a range that satisfies a set objective function (Lim; see [0071] where the processor determines an optimal torque value, which is understood to satisfy the desired gait conditions that the device sets out to accomplish).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to: control transmission of the optimal value of the control parameter to a server (Jang; see [0037] and [0091] where the communication is done with a server that receives and operates the state information of the gait cycle); and receive, from the server, one or more recommended exercise program determined by the server based on the optimal value of the control parameter (Jang; see [0091] where the server uses data to create a personalized gait policy and send it to the processor to operate the exercise program).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to determine a recommended exercise program corresponding to the optimal value (Lim; see [0071] and [0093] where the optimal torque control mode is a recommended program for the exercise).
The modified Lim device lacks a detailed description of wherein the processor is configured to determine one or more recommended exercise program corresponding to the optimal value among a plurality of stored exercise programs.
However, Jang further teaches where the processor can compare multiple gait policies to one another, and pick the policy that is most suitable for the user (see [0146]).
Therefore 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 gait policy of the processor of the modified Lim device to compare policies and choose the best one as taught by Jang, as it would help ensure that the current gait policy selected is the most suitable one for the user (Jang; see [0146]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to determine the one or more recommended exercise program corresponding to the optimal value among the plurality of stored exercise programs based on a history of exercise programs performed by the user (Jang; see [0146] where the selected policy is determined by a comparison between it and previous policies, in order to find the most suitable one).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Lim device has wherein the information on the target exercise program comprises a value of the control parameter during a target exercise time (Lim; see Fig. 2 and [0068] where data from the sensor 240 is transmitted to the controller 220 in order to determine and operate the target exercise program, which is collected during the gait cycle exercise time).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the target values of the assessment items are being satisfied based on the sensing information (Lim; see [0085] and [0088] where the torque is adjusted based on the gait data, in order to make sure the applied torque satisfies the desired operation); in response to the target values being not satisfied, determine a requested action to satisfy the target values (Lim; see [0085] and [0088] where the torque is adjusted based on the gait data, to ensure that a not satisfactory level of torque is adjusted to become satisfactory); and provide the feedback information including the requested action to the user (Lim; see [0085] and [0088] where the applied torque adjustment is a feedback that is felt by the user).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to transmit the feedback information to an additional electronic device (Jang; see [0037] and [0091] where the communication is done with a server that receives and operates the state information of the gait cycle), and wherein the feedback information is configured to be output by the additional electronic device (Jang; see [0037] and [0091] where the communication is done with a server, the server able to output the torque adjustment).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor collects the sensing information.
The modified Lim device lacks a detailed description of wherein the processor is configured to receive a heart rate of the user from the additional electronic device as at least part of the sensing information.
However, Jang further teaches one of the collected bio-signals for the device being heart rate (see [0170]).
Therefore 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 sensor system of the modified Lim device to gather heart rate data as taught by Jang, as it would give additional data of the status of the user to better control the gait cycle and personalize it to the capabilities of the user.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Lim device has wherein the target exercise section information comprises information on a start point, an end point, and detailed routes between the start point and the end point (Lim; see [0020] and [0053] where the current gait phase of the gait cycle is monitored, across each gait cycle, such that each gait cycle has a first phase (start), a last phase (end), and the discrete phase steps between the first and last phase).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Lim device has the gait based on normal performance of the target exercise program (Lim; see [0070] and [0093] where a previously used “learning mode” is used to configure the gait parameters during normal operation).
The modified Lim device lacks a detailed description of wherein an expected gait age is to be provided to the user based on normal performance of the target exercise program.
However, Choi further teaches a walking monitoring and adjustment system, where the age of the user affects the gait of the operational cycle of the device (see [0083] where the user information includes the age of the user, for controlling the exercise done via the device).
Therefore 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 inputted data and adjustments done by the processor of the modified Lim device to include age information for the operational control as taught by Choi, as it would ensure that the operational parameters are appropriate for the age of the user, and consistent with their heart characteristics (Choi; see [0083]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Lim device has wherein the target values of the gait assessment items are to be set based on a target exercise objective to be selected by the user from among a plurality of exercise objectives (Lim; see [0053] and [0055] where the gait characteristics of the user are determined via a plurality of personalized values from the user, such as muscular strength, such that each control policy selected is a personalized and targeted objective).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Lim device has wherein the plurality of exercise objectives comprises two or more of improving gait ability and improving muscular strength (Lim; see [0052] and [0056] where the system is designed to improve the stability of a person’s gait, as well as assist those with weaker muscles, thereby strengthening muscles through use).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Jang in view of Choi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kare et al. (US Pub. 2014/0276262).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Lim device has the additional electronic device.
The modified Lim device lacks a detailed description of wherein the additional electronic device is any one of: an earphone, a glasses-type electronic device, or a watch-type electronic device.
However, Kare teaches a leg locomotion monitoring system, where an external device that can be a watch, is used to receive feedback from the system (see [0034] and [0036]).
Therefore 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 output of the modified Lim device to be sent to an external device, such as a watch, as taught by Kare, as it would provide the user with easy access to the data and controls of the device during locomotion (Kare; see [0034] and [0036]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Jang.
Regarding claim 18, Lim discloses a method performed by an electronic device (see walking assist device 200 in Fig. 2), the method comprising: receiving target exercise information from a user of the electronic device (see [0066]-[0068] where the controller receives data based on the gait of the user), the target exercise information including target exercise time information and target exercise section information (see [0068] where a time delay based on the walking cycle is used, and data from the targeted walk cycle gait is also collected, such as acceleration); determining an optimal value of a control parameter that satisfies preset target values of gait assessment items based on at least one of the target exercise time information and the target exercise section information and based on current values of the gait assessment items (see [0071] and [0093] where the applied torque is optimized based on the gait data; and see [0113] where the optimization of the torque can include a learner which is able to adjust when the assist torque signal is applied which is adjusting the time delay of the torque (target exercise time). Further see [0116] where the optimization of torque can include adjusting the torque control signal base on which leg requires assistance (target exercise section)), the control parameter adjusting at least one of a magnitude and timing of torque (see [0067] where the parameters sent to the controller are used to adjust both the time delay and intensity of the torque); acquiring a recommended exercise programs based on the optimal value of the control parameter (see [0071] and [0093] where the optimal torque control mode is a recommended program for the exercise, utilizing the time delay and intensity of the torque); determining a target exercise program (see [0071] and [0093] where the optimal torque control mode is a recommended program for the exercise, which is then the target exercise based on the recommendation from the optimized torque); transmitting information on the target exercise program to a wearable device of the user (see Fig. 2 and [0068] where data from the sensor 240 is transmitted to the controller 220 in order to determine and operate the target exercise program); receiving sensing information from the wearable device regarding execution of the target exercise program at the wearable device (see [0069] where the sensed first state variable is used to determine a gait phase via the controller 220); and providing feedback information to the user based on the sensing information (see [0070] where the torque adjustment is a feedback sent to the user, based on the gait cycle and phase of the gait that is sensed).
The modified Lim device lacks a detailed description of acquiring a plurality of recommended exercise programs based on the optimal value of the control parameter, and determining a target exercise program among the plurality of exercise programs.
However, Jang further teaches where the processor can compare multiple gait policies to one another, and pick the policy that is most suitable for the user (see [0146]).
Therefore 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 gait policy of the processor of the modified Lim device to compare policies and choose the best one as taught by Jang, as it would help ensure that the current gait policy selected is the most suitable one for the user (Jang; see [0146]).
Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry (controller 220 in Fig. 2; see also [0062] where it performs the processing), configured to: receive an optimal value of a control parameter from an electronic device (see [0071] and [0093] where the applied toque is optimized based on the gait data), the control parameter being a parameter for adjusting at least one of a magnitude and timing of torque (see [0067] where the parameters sent to the controller are used to adjust both the time delay and intensity of the torque), determine at least one recommended exercise program from the exercise program stored in the controller based on the optimal value of the control parameter (see [0071] and [0093] where the optimal torque control mode is a recommended program for the exercise, which is then the target exercise based on the recommendation from the optimized torque); and transmit the at least one recommended exercise program to the electronic device (see Fig. 2 and [0068] where data from the sensor 240 is transmitted to the controller 220 in order to determine and operate the target exercise program).
Lim lacks a detailed description of a server comprising a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to exchange data with an external device, and acquiring a plurality of recommended exercise programs based on the optimal value of the control parameter. It is understood that Lim has some means of communicating between the components (see Fig. 2 where sensor 240, control device 210, controller 220, memory 230, and driver 250 communicate with one another).
However, Jang teaches a gait monitoring and assisting device, where a communicator is used to communicate between the components, and is made of circuitry (see [0088], which can be a server as seen in [0037]), and where the processor can compare multiple gait policies to one another, and pick the policy that is most suitable for the user (see [0146]).
Therefore 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 control systems of Lim to include a communicator and gait selection criteria as taught by Jang, as it would provide a structure for the data to be sent back and forth from the sensor, controller, and driver in order to operate the device, as well as ensure that the current gait policy selected is the most suitable one for the user (Jang; see [0146]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Lim device has wherein the processor is configured to determine the at least one recommended exercise program corresponding to the optimal value among the plurality of stored exercise programs based on a history of exercise programs performed by a user (Jang; see [0146] where the selected policy is determined by a comparison between it and previous policies, in order to find the most suitable one).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record. Specifically, Choi is now applied claim 1 to teach the output to a display device.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the remarks against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. In particular, applicant argues that having an exercise program to be executed by the wearable device, as well as controlling a speaker/ display/ haptic device, provide a practical application that overcomes the judicial exception. The argument is not well-taken. There is no structure to the “wearable device” such that the wearable device could be no more than a smart-watch, and the exercise program no more than an indication from the watch that a user should start walking. As such, the system merely telling the user to exercise, and there being some vague “wearable device” is enough to meet the claim, and are nothing more than abstract components. Furthermore, merely including a speaker or display or haptic device does not provide a practical application, as these are well-known, routine, and generic output components for a control system. Indeed, outputting data from a controller/ processor to a display is the most basic form of output, and does not differentiate the system from a generic computer device.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that the “target exercise information” is being interpreted overly broad, as it is directed to an activity that the user intends to undertake, rather than an activity that is currently being done. The argument is not well-taken. There is no language in the claim that limits a “target” exercise solely to some future exercise that a user wishes to do. Rather, it can be reasonably understood that as a user is currently exercising, they are making a conscious and active effort to perform a particular exercise via controlling their body, and this makes the current exercise a “target exercise” which is capable of having data sensed from it, and being manipulated/ adjusted in-use. Hence, the examiner disagrees that the interpretation is over-broad.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that Lim does not have the optimum value based on target exercise time/ target exercise section information. The argument is not well-taken. As this is a new limitation, the rejection has been amended to show that torque can be optimized based on a time delay to apply the assist torque, as well as switching which leg is being used, which meet the broad interpretation of “target exercise time/ target exercise section information.”
Applicant argues on page 11 that Lim does not disclose a “recommended exercise program based on the optimal value of the control parameter.” The argument is not well-taken. It is understood in that by optimizing torque (timing, delay, magnitude, which leg, etc.) that the system is creating a “recommended” program as the applied torque is intended to solve gait issues. Hence, there exists and initial exercise undergone by the user (target exercise), which is then read by the sensors and system, such that a torque is then applied to the device to modify the exercise (into a “recommended” exercise).
For the reasons above, the rejections hold.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785