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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 8/7/2023. As directed by the Preliminary amendment, claims 1-24 were cancelled, and claims 25-44 have been added. Thus, claims 25-44 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/14/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because reference #1 in the Non-Patent Literature Documents lacks a date. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification/Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because has the form and legal phraseology used in patent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 31-33, 38, 41, and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites “the device;” in line 3, and is suggested to read --the shoe balancing device;-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 25 recites “the device;” in line 6, and is suggested to read --the shoe balancing device;-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 25 recites “the device” in line 11, and is suggested to read --the shoe balancing device-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 31 recites “the device” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the shoe balancing device-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 32 recites “the device” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the shoe balancing device-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 33 recites “the device” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the shoe balancing device-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 38 recites “the device” in line 2, and is suggested to read --the shoe balancing device-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 41 recites “the threshold” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the predetermined threshold-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 44 recites “the threshold” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the predetermined threshold-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 25-44 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 25 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, the limitation “if” in line 7 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the following limitations are required for the claimed invention. The Examiner suggests using claim language such as --when-- in order to avoid indefiniteness. Furthermore, the limitations “an imbalance state” in line 8 and “a wearer” in line 11 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these limitations are the same as or different from “an imbalance state” in line 4 and “a wearer” in line 2, respectively. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same respective limitations.
Regarding claim 31, the limitation “a right shoe, a left shoe, or both shoes” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the limitation of “a shoe” in claim 25 is being referenced or not.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the lateral facet" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, the limitation “a wearer shoe” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the limitation of “a shoe of a wearer” in claim 25 is being referenced or not.
Regarding claim 36, the limitation “ground/floor” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear if the “/” is meant to mean “and”, “or”, or “and/or”, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 39, the limitation “if” in lines 3 and 4 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the following limitations are required for the claimed invention. The Examiner suggests using claim language such as --when-- in order to avoid indefiniteness. Moreover, the limitation "the surface" is recited in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “ground/floor” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear if the “/” is meant to mean “and”, “or”, or “and/or”, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 41, the limitation “if” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the following limitations are required for the claimed invention. The Examiner suggests using claim language such as --when-- in order to avoid indefiniteness.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the predetermined period of time" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “ground/floor” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear if the “/” is meant to mean “and”, “or”, or “and/or”, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 109620650 A, see attached translation, hereinafter Zhang ‘650).
Regarding claim 39, as best understood, Zhang ‘650 discloses a method of preventing or indicating a fall of a wearer of a shoe balancing device (leg rehabilitation equipment, including a foot pedal on a patient’s foot, is used to prevent the patient from falling) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0002], [0011], [0037]), the method comprising: determining if the shoe balancing device is at an angle beyond a predetermined threshold (when wearing the device, the tension sensor 11 detects if the patient’s leg is excessively bent so as to be about to fall) (Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0038]); activating a stabilizing rod, if said threshold is surpassed, to move from a non-deployed default state to a deployed state (when the leg is excessively bent, the stepper motor 24 unfolds the support rods 16 and arc-shaped bottom rod 23 from their folded state) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0038, [0051]), wherein a free end of the stabilizing rod is moved to a position that interfaces with the surface underneath the wearer (the ends of the support rods 16 and their arc-shaped bottom rods 23 would contact the ground to provide additional support for the patient to stand) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0037], [0051]).
Regarding claim 40, as best understood, Zhang ‘650 discloses wherein the stabilizing rod is linearly moved by the rod toward the ground/floor to stabilize the wearer (when the stepper motor 25 rotates a half turn, the connecting rods 26 slide down the slide cylinders 27 so as to linearly unfold the side support rods 16 towards the ground/floor) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0043], [0051]).
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 25-26, 28-29, 31-33, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘650 in view of Zhang et al. (CN 105249589 A, see attached translation, hereinafter Zhang ‘589).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Zhang ‘650 discloses a shoe balancing device (leg rehabilitation equipment including a foot pedal on a patient’s foot) (translation paras. [0002], [0011]) comprising: a housing configured to be attached to a shoe of a wearer (thigh support plate 1, lower leg support plate 5, and pedal 9 are configured to attached to a patient’s foot, and so could also attach to a shoe) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0033-0035]); a power source to power the device (battery 19) (Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0039]); a sensor configured to determine an imbalance state of the device (tension sensor 11 detects when a patient’s leg is excessively bent and about to fall) (Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0038]); a hardware board configured to act as the operation control center of the device (controller 18 to control the locking motor and unfolding device) (Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0038]); a motor configured to be activated by the hardware board if the sensor determines an imbalance state beyond a predetermined threshold (controller 18 to control the locking motor and the stepper motor 24 of the unfolding device when it is determined the patient’s leg is bent excessively) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0038], [0043]); and a stabilization rod operably connected to the motor so as to be moveable from a default undeployed state to a deployed state (stepper motor 24 unfolds the support rods 16 and arc-shaped bottom rod 23 from their folded state) (Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0051]), the deployed state being a position in contact with a surface underneath the wearer's location (the support rods 16 and arc-shaped bottom rod 23 would be able to contact the ground to provide additional support for the patient to stand) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0037], [0051]), wherein when a wearer of the shoe begins to fall the device is actuated (controller 18 controls the stepper motor 24 of the unfolding device when it is determined the patient’s leg is bent excessively, and thereby beginning to fall) (Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0038], [0043]).
Zhang ‘650 does not disclose the sensor is an accelerometer and/or gyroscope sensor.
However, Zhang ‘589 teaches a health shoe for falling prevention (Zhang ‘589; see translation para. [0002]) the sensor is an accelerometer and/or gyroscope sensor (acceleration sensor 31 and tilt sensor 32) (Zhang ‘589; see translation para. [0050]).
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 Zhang ‘650 sensor to include an accelerometer and/or gyroscope sensor, as taught by Zhang ‘589, for the purpose of providing an additional means of accurately determining whether a person is about to fall (Zhang ‘589; see translation para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches comprising straps to attach the housing to the shoe (hoop 10 made of cloth to fix the peal 9 to the user’s foot) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the motor is configured to move the stabilization rod downwardly toward the surface to thereby apply a resistance force thereto (when unfolded, the support rods 16 and arc-shaped bottom rod 23 are moved down toward the ground to provide additional support for the patient to stand, thereby applying a resistance force against the ground) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0037], [0051]).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the motor is configured to linearly move the stabilization rod (when the stepper motor 25 rotates a half turn, the connecting rods 26 slide down the slide cylinders 27 so as to linearly unfold the side support rods 16 towards the ground/floor) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0043], [0051]).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the device is configured to be positioned on a right shoe or a left shoe (device is worn on one of the left or right feet, and so could also attach to a left or right shoe) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the device is configured to be positioned on the lateral facet of a wearer shoe (device is worn on a lateral side of the patient’s foot, and so could also attach to a lateral side of a shoe) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the device is configured to stabilize the wearer and prevent falling thereof (device is to enable the patient to stand steadily and prevent a fall) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0021], [0037]).
Regarding claim 35, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the stabilization rod is configured to revert to the undeployed state when the wearer is vertically stabilized (rotating the stepper motor 24 a half turn can change the length of the connecting rods 26 away from the stepper motor 24 between a maximum to a minimum, thereby changing the position of the side support rods 16; the minimum length would be used when the user is not in danger of falling) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation paras. [0038], [0043]).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the threshold is at least 10 degrees movement of the wearer toward the ground/floor (human body tilt angle is about 90 degrees when standing, and the tilt angle threshold for a fall is beyond 65 degrees, therefore the fall threshold is 25 degrees or more of tilt toward the ground or floor) (Zhang ‘589; translation para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the stabilization rod is operably connected to the motor via a stabilization rod connector (side support rods 16 couple to the stepper motor 24 via connecting rods 26) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 38, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the stabilization rod outwardly protrudes from a side wall or a rear wall of the housing when the device is actuated (side support rods 16 protrude from a side or rear wall of 5 lower leg support plate 5 when unfolded) (Zhang ‘650; Figs. 1-6; translation para. [0037]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘650 in view of Zhang ‘589 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Richardson et al. (US 2014/0375461 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach further comprising a GPS module to provide location information of the wearer.
However, Richardson teaches a system and method for autonomous monitoring of movement and orientation of the body for fall events (Richardson; abstract) including comprising a GPS module to provide location information of the wearer (RU 150 can use a GPS to determine current location data for a user as part of fall event data) (Richardson; para. [0045]).
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 Zhang ‘650 system to include GPS module to provide location information of the wearer, as taught by Richardson, for the purpose of enabling the dispatch of emergency personnel to the user’s location (Richardson; para. [0045]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘650 in view of Zhang ‘589 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Mahoney et al. (US 2019/0160652 A1).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach further comprising a solenoid pin configured to reversibly lock the stabilization rod in place after deployment thereof.
However, Zhang ‘650 does teach the device is locked when a patient is about to fall (Zhang ‘650; translation paras. [0034], [0038]). Moreover, Mahoney teaches a physically assistive exosuit (Mahoney; abstract) including a solenoid pin configured to reversibly lock the motor (push-pull solenoid 2210 attached to engagement member 2212, which has pins, and is used to engage and disengage a lock wheel 2220 for locking and unlocking the drive motor 2040) (Mahoney; Fig. 22; para. [0174]).
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 Zhang ‘650 unfolding device 17 to include a solenoid pin configured to reversibly lock the stepper motor 24, for the purpose of enabling the motor to maintain a fixed position without expending energy (Mahoney; para. [0174]).
With this modification, the modified Zhang ‘650 would thus teach a solenoid pin configured to reversibly lock the stabilization rod in place after deployment thereof (Zhang ‘650 stepper motor 24 modified to have a Mahoney push-pull solenoid 2210 with engagement member 2212; the Mahoney push-pull solenoid 2210 would be able to lock and unlock the Zhang ‘650 stepper motor 24, and thereby lock and unlock the Zhang ‘650 side support rods 16 in their unfolded and folded positions) (Zhang ‘650, Figs. 1-6, translation paras. [0034], [0038], [0043]; Mahoney, Fig. 22, para. [0174]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘650 in view of Zhang ‘589 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Carlton-Foss (US 2017/0352240 A1).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach further comprising an alarm mechanism comprising a vibration and/or an audible warning to allow for an advance warning to the wearer about a potential fall.
However, Carlton-Foss teaches a system and method of fall detection and prediction (Carlton-Foss; abstract) including an alarm mechanism comprising an audible warning to allow for an advance warning to the wearer about a potential fall (when emergent fall behavior is detected, alarm and voice components of suitable loudness are used to catch the user’s attention to avoid a fall) (Carlton-Foss; paras. [0106-0107]).
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 Zhang ‘650 system to include an alarm mechanism comprising an audible warning to allow for an advance warning to the wearer about a potential fall, as taught by Carlton-Foss, for the purpose of providing a means to allow a user to attempt to recover and/or change behavior to avoid a potential fall (Carlton-Foss; paras. [0106-0107]).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘650 as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Gottlieb (US 2009/0322548 A1).
Regarding claim 41, as best understood, Zhang ‘650 discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein if the threshold is surpassed by a predetermined period of time, a signal is sent to a telephone of another person and/or to a monitoring service.
However, Gottlieb teaches a method and system for detecting and reporting that someone has fallen (Gottlieb; para. [0001]) wherein if the threshold is surpassed by a predetermined period of time, a signal is sent to a telephone of another person and/or to a monitoring service (if the resident height detection device 120 detects that it has remained withing a threshold distance of the floor for more than a given period of time, it sends an alarm condition signal to a receiver/dialer 150 elsewhere, e.g. a home or apartment, and then to a caretaker or emergency operator; receiver/dialer 150 can use telephone communications) (Gottlieb; para. [0014]; para. [0019]).
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 Zhang ‘650 method to include a step of wherein if the threshold is surpassed by a predetermined period of time, a signal is sent to a telephone of another person and/or to a monitoring service, as taught by Gottlieb, for the purpose of enabling the user to attempt to contact help, thereby making surviving an emergency more likely as well as boosting the odds of a senior being able to continue to live independently (Gottlieb; para. [0003]; para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 42, as best understood, the modified Zhang ‘650 teaches wherein the predetermined period of time is 10 seconds or above (given period of time can be 15 seconds) (Gottlieb; para. [0014]).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘650 as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Richardson.
Regarding claim 43, Zhang ‘650 discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose comprising providing a location of the device.
However, Richardson teaches a system and method for autonomous monitoring of movement and orientation of the body for fall events (Richardson; abstract) including providing a location of the device (RU 150 can use a GPS to determine current location data for a user as part of fall event data) (Richardson; para. [0045]).
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 Zhang ‘650 method to include providing a location of the device, as taught by Richardson, for the purpose of enabling the dispatch of emergency personnel to the user’s location (Richardson; para. [0045]).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘650 as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Zhang ‘589.
Regarding claim 44, as best understood, Zhang ‘650 discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the threshold is at least 10 degrees movement of the wearer toward the ground/floor.
However, Zhang ‘589 teaches a health shoe for falling prevention (Zhang ‘589; see translation para. [0002]) wherein the threshold is at least 10 degrees movement of the wearer toward the ground/floor (human body tilt angle is about 90 degrees when standing, and the tilt angle threshold for a fall is beyond 65 degrees, therefore the fall threshold is 25 degrees or more of tilt toward the ground or floor) (Zhang ‘589; translation para. [0052]).
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 Zhang ‘650 threshold to be at least 10 degrees movement of the wearer toward the ground/floor, as taught by Zhang ‘589, for the purpose of providing a means of accurately predicting when a person will fall and thereby improve the reliability of fall prediction (Zhang ‘589; see translation para. [0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0093144 A1 by Manor is considered to be relevant as it discloses a shoe with a motorized mechanism to help a user regain balance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785