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 .
Response to Arguments
The office action is a response to Request for Reconsideration filed on. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 – 32 are pending, no claims have been amended, claims 1 – 24 have been canceled and claimed 25 – 32 have been added.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Paragraph 0076 of Ozsecen does not disclose “a value of a delay associated with torque output timing of the wearable device”, however, it is clearly disclosed the time response of the actuator is changed causing a delay which changed the torque profile. Based on this, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the new claim limitation are not double patented by App. 16/810,247, however, the examiner does not consider that persuasive based on the limitation not being the same, but are made obvious by the cited patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 25 – 27 & 29 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ozsecen et al. (US 20190160321 A1)
Regarding claim 25, An operation method of a wearable device, the operation method comprising:
measuring angles of hip joints of a user (Paragraph 0050 & 0062);
determining, based on gait information of the user (Paragraph 0050 discloses the mode selection based on the sensors capability of determining gait parameters), a motion type of the user among a plurality of motion types classified by movement speed (Paragraph 0037 discloses offering a plurality of interactive modes & Paragraph 0055 discloses the motion type is based on the speed of movement of the user), wherein the gait information is based on a time used when the user walks or a walking distance of the user (Paragraph 0088 & 0091); and
controlling a driver of the wearable device based on the measured the angles of the hip joints (Paragraph 0050 – 0053 discloses the user activity such as position of the user used by the motor control system), a gain associated with a magnitude of a torque of the wearable device (Paragraph 0063), and a value of a delay associated with torque output timing of the wearable device (Paragraph 0076), such that the torque associated with the determined motion type is generated delayed by the value of the delay (Paragraph 0093 & 0076) .
Regarding claim 26, Ozsecen discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 25.
Ozsecen discloses further comprises determining an interactive mode of the wearable device 10 using the gain. (Paragraph 0094, 0093 & 0063)
Regarding claim 27, Ozsecen discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 26.
Ozsecen discloses wherein the determining of the interactive mode comprises: determining a first interactive mode that assists the user in a movement of the user, in response to a sign of the gain being a first sign (Paragraph 0062); and determining a second interactive mode that applies resistance to a movement of the user, in response to the sign of the gain being a second sign. (Paragraph 0047 – 0048 & 0062).
Regarding claim 29, A wearable device, comprising:
a driver configured to generate torque (Paragraph 0051);
a sensor 340 configured to measure angles of hip joints of a user (Paragraph 0050); and
a controller 320 configured to: determine, based on gait information of the user, a motion type of the user among a plurality of motion types classified by movement speed (Paragraph 0037 discloses offering a plurality of interactive modes & Paragraph 0055 discloses the motion type is based on the speed of movement of the user), and control the driver based on the angles of the hip joints measured via the sensor 340 (Paragraph 0050 – 0053 discloses the user activity such as position of the user used by the motor control system), a gain associated with a magnitude of the torque (Paragraph 0063), and a value of a delay associated with torque output timing of the wearable device (Paragraph 0076), such that the torque associated with the determined motion type is generated delayed by the value of the delay (Paragraph 0093 & 0076), wherein the gait information is based on a time used when the user walks or a walking distance of the user (Paragraph 0088 & 0091).
Regarding claim 30, Ozsecen discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 29.
Ozsecen discloses further comprises determining an interactive mode of the wearable device 10 using the gain. (Paragraph 0094, 0093 & 0063)
Regarding claim 31, Ozsecen discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 30.
Ozsecen discloses wherein the controller (Paragraph 0040) is further configured to: determine a first interactive mode that assists the user in a movement of the user, in response to a sign of the gain being a first sign, and determine a second interactive mode that applies resistance to a movement of the user, in response to the sign of the gain being a second sign (Paragraph 0047 – 0048 & 0062).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 28 & 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ozsecen et al. (US 20190160321 A1) as claimed in claim 25 & 29, in view of Chen et al. (WO 2019228418 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Ozsecen discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 25.
Ozsecen does not disclose wherein the determining of the motion type comprises: determining a cadence of the user using the gait information; determining the motion type as a walk motion type in response the cadence being equal to or less than a first threshold value; determining the motion type as a walk-to-run motion type in response the cadence being greater than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value; and determining the motion type as a run motion type in response to the cadence being greater than the second threshold value.
Chen discloses wherein the determining of the motion type comprises: determining a cadence of the user using the gait information (Page 7, Paragraph 5); determining the motion type as a walk motion type in response the cadence being equal to or less than a first threshold value (Page 7, Paragraph 5); determining the motion type as a walk-to-run motion type in response the cadence being greater than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value (Page 7, Paragraph 5); and determining the motion type as a run motion type in response to the cadence being greater than the second threshold value (Page 7, Paragraph 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Ozsecen wherein the determining of the motion type comprises: determining a cadence of the user using the gait information; determining the motion type as a walk motion type in response the cadence being equal to or less than a first threshold value; determining the motion type as a walk-to-run motion type in response the cadence being greater than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value; and determining the motion type as a run motion type in response to the cadence being greater than the second threshold value as it would allow the device to have different thresholds to determine the motion speed of the user and be able to self-adjust based on this determination. It would also allow notifications based on the motion detected to better achieve the desired output. (Page 8, Paragraph 2)
Regarding claim 32, Ozsecen discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 29.
Ozsecen disclose the controller (Paragraph 0040)
Ozsecen does not disclose further configured to: determine a cadence of the user using the gait information; determine the motion type as a walk motion type in response the cadence being equal to or less than a first threshold value; determine the motion type as a walk-to-run motion type in response the cadence being greater than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value, and determine the motion type as a run motion type in response to the cadence being greater than the second threshold value.
Chen discloses further configured to: determine a cadence of the user using the gait information (Page 7, Paragraph 5); determine the motion type as a walk motion type in response the cadence being equal to or less than a first threshold value (Page 7, Paragraph 5); determine the motion type as a walk-to-run motion type in response the cadence being greater than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value (Page 7, Paragraph 5), and determine the motion type as a run motion type in response to the cadence being greater than the second threshold value (Page 7, Paragraph 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the controller of Ozsecen further configured to: determine a cadence of the user using the gait information; determine the motion type as a walk motion type in response the cadence being equal to or less than a first threshold value; determine the motion type as a walk-to-run motion type in response the cadence being greater than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value, and determine the motion type as a run motion type in response to the cadence being greater than the second threshold value as it would allow the device to have different thresholds to determine the motion speed of the user and be able to self-adjust based on this determination. It would also allow notifications based on the motion detected to better achieve the desired output. (Page 8, Paragraph 2)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25 – 26 & 29 – 30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 & 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,707,400 in view of Ozsecen et al. (US 20190160321 A1).
Regarding claim 25, An operation method of a wearable device, the operation method comprising:
determining, based on gait information of the user, a motion type of the user among a plurality of motion types classified by movement speed (Claim 1); and
controlling a driver of the wearable device based on the measured the angles of the hip joints, a gain associated with a magnitude of a torque of the wearable device (Claim 1), and a value of a delay associated with torque output timing of the wearable device (Claim 8), such that the torque associated with the determined motion type is generated delayed by the value of the delay (Claim 9).
App. 11,707,400 does not disclose measuring angles of hip joints of a user;
wherein the gait information is based on a time used when the user walks or a walking distance of the user.
Ozsecen discloses measuring angles of hip joints of a user (Paragraph 0050);
wherein the gait information is based on a time used when the user walks or a walking distance of the user (Paragraph 0091).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify App 11,707,400 to include measuring angles of hip joints of a user as it would ensure the information of the position of a hip and allows the identification of the different activities done by the user such as sitting or standing. (Paragraph 0050) By acquiring the gait information based on this parameters it is able to identify the gait cycle progression which is then used as the basis of the predictive dynamic controller torque profile generation. (Paragraph 0091)
Regarding claim 26, App. 11,707,400 discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 25.
further comprises determining an interactive mode of the wearable device using the gain (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 29, A wearable device, comprising:
a driver configured to generate torque (Claim 1);
a controller configured to: determine, based on gait information of the user, a motion type of the user among a plurality of motion types classified by movement speed (Claim 1), a gain associated with a magnitude of the torque (Claim 1), and a value of a delay associated with torque output timing of the wearable device (Claim 8), such that the torque associated with the determined motion type is generated delayed by the value of the delay (Claim 9),
App. 11,707,400 does not disclose a sensor configured to measure angles of hip joints of a user;
and control the driver based on the angles of the hip joints measured via the sensor,
wherein the gait information is based on a time used when the user walks or a walking distance of the user.
Ozsecen discloses a sensor configured to measure angles of hip joints of a user (Paragraph 0047);
and control the driver based on the angles of the hip joints measured via the sensor (Paragraph 0050 – 0053 discloses the user activity such as position of the user used by the motor control system),
wherein the gait information is based on a time used when the user walks or a walking distance of the user.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify App. 11,707,400 to include a sensor configured to measure angles of hip joints of a user and control the driver based on the angles of the hip joints measured via the sensor, wherein the gait information is based on a time used when the user walks or a walking distance of the user as including a position sensor facilitates the assistive device to recognize a new activity of a user with no additional user input and transition to a controller torque profile for the new activity within the predetermined duration. By using the information of the sensor to lead the driver provides information of the state of the user to provide the torque needed in that moment. (Paragraph 0050 – 0053) By acquiring the gait information based on this parameters it is able to identify the gait cycle progression which is then used as the basis of the predictive dynamic controller torque profile generation. (Paragraph 0091)
Regarding claim 30, App. 11,707,400 discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 29.
App. 11,707,400 discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine an interactive mode of the wearable device using the gain (Claim 1)
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 GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights