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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high” in claims 3, 6, 15, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what amount of resistance would render the resistance to be “high”.
For claims 4, 5, 16, and 17, it is unclear how the motion type can be a walk motion type, walk-to-run motion type, and run motion type simultaneously. In paragraph 59 of the specification, it seems that motion types are determined in the alternative only. Claims would be proper if “and” in line 7 of claims 4 and 16 is changed to “or.”
Dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 11-14, 20, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozsecen (US 20190160321 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ozsecen teaches an operation method of a wearable device, the operation method comprising: processing a state variable to generate a processed state variable (paragraph 0111; low pass filter 1622), the state variable being based on motion information of a user (paragraph 0111; the position factor 1602); determining an interactive mode of the wearable device (paragraphs 0094 and 0096 teaches how different modes such as transient and steady state require different torque profiles, demonstrating different modes that are classified based on the torque profiles) based on a gain associated with a magnitude of a torque of the wearable device (paragraph 0063 “Additionally, flexion peak gain 404 and extension peak gain 405 are factors that define peak torque command of the base controller torque profile during a leg swing (Flexion) and stance (Extension) phases of gait for the user 12”; the torque is dependent on the gain therefore the different modes are also based on the gain); selecting a motion type from among a plurality of motion types associated with the interactive mode (paragraph 0050 mode detection and selection 302) based on a gait parameter of the user (paragraph 0050 discusses the mode selection based on input from sensors 340 that would disclose gait parameters); determining a control factor for the torque based on the motion type (paragraph 0076 teaches a time response the changes the torque profile over time based in the user’s motion); and generating the torque based on the processed state variable, the gain, and the control factor (see paragraphs 0063, 0064, and 0076).
Regarding claim 2, Ozsecen teaches the method of claim 1.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the processing of the state variable comprises: smoothing the state variable to generate the processed state variable (paragraph 0111; low pass filter 1622).
Regarding claim 8, Ozsecen teaches the method of claim 1.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the determining of the control factor comprises: adjusting at least one of a smoothing factor associated with the processing of the state variable and a delay in output timing of the torque, in response to a motion type change event occurring by the selecting of the motion type (see paragraph 0076 that discusses a delay).
Regarding claim 11, Ozsecen teaches the method of claim 1.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the generating of the torque comprises: set a torque value by applying, to the processed state variable, the gain, the control factor (see paragraphs 0063, 0064, and 0076), and a compensation factor (see paragraphs 0131 “For example, the user's weight, height, and other such factors can be taken into account when predicting the assist torque for the user 12 in case of the assistive device 10”) and generating the torque based on the torque value.
Regarding claim 12, Ozsecen teaches the method of claim 1.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the motion information includes angles of hip joints of the user (paragraph 0050 “The state machine may be operated based on the sensor input, such as position of a hip, leg, or other types of joints of the user 12”; paragraph 0062 teaches angular velocity 420 of a joint, therefore to measure the joint’s angular velocity where the sensor input is positioned on the hip would include information about the hip joint angle).
Regarding claim 13, Ozsecen teaches a wearable device comprising: a driver configured to generate a torque (paragraph 0051 “The motor control system 320 uses the input commands to operate the motor (actuator) 24 of the assistive device 10 to generate a corresponding amount of torque and/or displacement of the motor 24 to provide the assist to the user 12”); and a controller (see controller 200) configured to process a state variable to generate a processed state variable (paragraph 0111; low pass filter 1622), the state variable being based on motion information of a user (paragraph 0111; the position factor 1602), determine an interactive mode of the wearable device (paragraphs 0094 and 0096 teaches how different modes such as transient and steady state require different torque profiles, demonstrating different modes that are classified based on the torque profiles) based on a gain associated with a magnitude of the torque of the wearable device (paragraph 0063 “Additionally, flexion peak gain 404 and extension peak gain 405 are factors that define peak torque command of the base controller torque profile during a leg swing (Flexion) and stance (Extension) phases of gait for the user 12”; the torque is dependent on the gain therefore the different modes are also based on the gain), select a motion type from among a plurality of motion types associated with the interactive mode (paragraph 0050 mode detection and selection 302) based on a gait parameter of the user (paragraph 0050 discusses the mode selection based on input from sensors 340 that would disclose gait parameters), determine a control factor for the torque based on the motion type (paragraph 0076 teaches a time response the changes the torque profile over time based in the user’s motion), and control the driver based on the processed state variable, the gain, and the control factor (see paragraphs 0063, 0064, and 0076).
Regarding claim 14, Ozsecen teaches the device of claim 13.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the processing of the state variable comprises: smoothing the state variable to generate the processed state variable (paragraph 0111; low pass filter 1622).
Regarding claim 20, Ozsecen teaches the device of claim 13.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: adjust at least one of a smoothing factor associated with the processing of the state variable or a delay in output timing of the torque, in response to a motion type change event occurring by the controller selecting the motion type (see paragraph 0076 that discusses a delay).
Regarding claim 23, Ozsecen teaches the device of claim 13.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: set a torque value by applying, to the processed state variable, the gain, the control factor (see paragraphs 0063, 0064, and 0076), and a compensation factor (see paragraphs 0131 “For example, the user's weight, height, and other such factors can be taken into account when predicting the assist torque for the user 12 in case of the assistive device 10”).
Regarding claim 24, Ozsecen teaches the device of claim 13.
Ozsecen further teaches wherein the motion information includes angles of hip joints of the user (paragraph 0050 “The state machine may be operated based on the sensor input, such as position of a hip, leg, or other types of joints of the user 12”; paragraph 0062 teaches angular velocity 420 of a joint, therefore to measure the joint’s angular velocity where the sensor input is positioned on the hip would include information about the hip joint angle).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozsecen (US 20190160321 A1) as applied above and in view of Chen (WO 2019228418 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ozsecen teaches the method of claim 1.
Ozsecen is silent wherein the gait parameter includes a first gait feature value, and the selecting of the motion type comprises: determining the motion type of the wearable device to be a walk motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being less than or equal to a first threshold value; determining the motion type to be a walk-to-run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the first threshold value and less than or equal to a second threshold value; and determining the motion type to be a run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the second threshold value.
However, Chen teaches wherein the gait parameter includes a first gait feature value (page 7 paragraph 5; the variation range of the air pressure value), and the selecting of the motion type comprises: determining the motion type of the wearable device to be a walk motion type in response to the first gait feature value being less than or equal to a first threshold value (page 7 paragraph 5 “when the variation range of the air pressure value is smaller than the first determination threshold, determining that the walking mode is slow walking”),; determining the motion type to be a walk-to-run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the first threshold value and less than or equal to a second threshold value (page 7 paragraph 5 “when the variation range of the air pressure value is greater than the first determination threshold and less than the second determination threshold , Determining that the walking mode is fast walking”); and determining the motion type to be a run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the second threshold value (page 7 paragraph 5 “determining that the walking mode is jogging when the variation range of the air pressure value is greater than the second determination threshold value and less than the third determination threshold value”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ozsecen to determine different motions types based on the gait feature value being in different threshold ranges. This allows the device to identify the motion speed of the user and self-adjust or notify the user based on the motion detected to better achieve the desired output (page 8 paragraph 2 “For example, the identified walking mode is walking, and the reference walking corresponding to the collected air pressure measurement data should be fast walking. Therefore, according to the above three judgments, it can be determined that the pedestrian is currently walking in fatigue status. That is, each parameter in the gait information can be matched with a reference value corresponding to each parameter described in the detection rule red to determine whether the pedestrian currently reaches a condition of fatigue status, and if so, can determine that the pedestrian is currently In a fatigue state, the pedestrian may be reminded of fatigue at this time”).
Regarding claim 16, Ozsecen teaches the device of claim 13.
Ozsecen is silent wherein the gait parameter includes a first gait feature value, and the controller is configured to: determine the motion type of the wearable device to be a walk motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being less than or equal to a first threshold value, determine the motion type to be a walk-to-run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the first threshold value and less than or equal to a second threshold value, and determine the motion type to be a run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the second threshold value.
However, Chen teaches wherein the gait parameter includes a first gait feature value (page 7 paragraph 5; the variation range of the air pressure value), and the selecting of the motion type comprises: determining the motion type of the wearable device to be a walk motion type in response to the first gait feature value being less than or equal to a first threshold value (page 7 paragraph 5 “when the variation range of the air pressure value is smaller than the first determination threshold, determining that the walking mode is slow walking”),; determining the motion type to be a walk-to-run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the first threshold value and less than or equal to a second threshold value (page 7 paragraph 5 “when the variation range of the air pressure value is greater than the first determination threshold and less than the second determination threshold , Determining that the walking mode is fast walking”); and determining the motion type to be a run motion type, in response to the first gait feature value being greater than the second threshold value (page 7 paragraph 5 “determining that the walking mode is jogging when the variation range of the air pressure value is greater than the second determination threshold value and less than the third determination threshold value”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Ozsecen to determine different motions types based on the gait feature value being in different threshold ranges. This allows the device to identify the motion speed of the user and self-adjust or notify the user based on the motion detected to better achieve the desired output (page 8 paragraph 2 “For example, the identified walking mode is walking, and the reference walking corresponding to the collected air pressure measurement data should be fast walking. Therefore, according to the above three judgments, it can be determined that the pedestrian is currently walking in fatigue status. That is, each parameter in the gait information can be matched with a reference value corresponding to each parameter described in the detection rule red to determine whether the pedestrian currently reaches a condition of fatigue status, and if so, can determine that the pedestrian is currently In a fatigue state, the pedestrian may be reminded of fatigue at this time”).
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 1-2, 4-14, 16-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,707,400 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent.
Regarding claim 1, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 19).
Regarding claim 20, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 20).
Regarding claim 21, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 21).
Regarding claim 22, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 22).
Regarding claim 23, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 23).
Regarding claim 24, 11,707,400 teaches all of the claimed invention (claim 24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 3 and 15 are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claims 3 and 15, the prior art of record (Ozsecen; US 20190160321 A1) discloses negative shaping factor values, but not negative gain values (see paragraph 62). Ozsecen also offers three interactive modes (see paragraph 48) but does not disclose the appropriate gain comparisons to select between the modes. Additionally, Lerner (US 20210267834 A1) discloses selectively applying resistance or assistance depending on the mode of operation (see paragraph 110) but does not use gain as the parameter to change the modes.
Claims 9-10 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 21-22, the prior art of record (Ozsecen; US 20190160321 A1) discloses delaying the assist timing based on the motion of the user. However, the art does not disclose adjusting, either increasing or decreasing, a smoothing factor in response to the same motion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHIL A JAYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 5712729034. 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.
/AKHIL A JAYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785