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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshiro et al. (JP 2017120237).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshiro et al. (hereinafter Yoshiro) teaches footwear comprising a capacitive sensor, wherein: conductive threads are woven into a fabric of the footwear (Yoshiro teaches that the braided piezoelectric element may be used in shoes [0092]); and the conductive threads serve as the capacitive sensor configured to detect a change in capacitance between the conductive threads adjacent to each other where the change in capacitance is caused by the conductive threads adjacent to each other approaching each other due to deformation caused by pressure to the footwear (expansion and contraction of the fabric [0073]), thereby detecting a change in pressure applied to an area into which the conductive threads are woven [0073].
Regarding claim 2, Yoshiro teaches the footwear according to claim 1, wherein the conductive threads are woven into a position corresponding to a portion to which a pressure is to be applied in a foot of a user and which is in an area in contact with at least one selected from the group consisting of: a toe of the user; a sole of the user; a heel of the user; and a dorsal surface of the foot of the user (Yoshiro teaches that device is used in shoe soles, which would clearly be in an area in contact with at least a sole of the user or a heal of the user).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshiro teaches the footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a transmitting section 14 configured to transmit, to an external device, data indicating a change in pressure detected by the capacitive sensor, the transmitting section being detachably attached to the footwear [0087].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2018/0369637) in view of Yoshiro (JP 2017120237).
Regarding claim 4, Hoang et al. (hereinafter Hoang) teaches an action determination system comprising: the footwear (Hoang teaches sensor modules may be attached to feet [0185]); an acceleration sensor worn around an upper limb of a user and configured to detect a movement of the upper limb of the user [0180]; and a controller configured to execute a determination process of determining an action of a whole body of the user on a basis of a combination of the sensor of the footwear and a change in acceleration of the upper limb of the user detected by the acceleration sensor [0039].
Hoang also teaches the importance of measuring the force of impact, such as from running and jumping, in order to relate the force of impact to the likelihood of injuries [0114]. Hoang remains silent as to wherein the footwear is the footwear according to claim 1.
Yoshiro teaches the footwear according to claim 1, above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the action determination system of Hoang to include the footwear sensor of Yoshiro in order to accurately measure the force of impact on the user, reducing the likelihood of injuries.
Regarding claim 5, Hoang as modified by Yoshiro above, teaches an action determination system comprising: the footwear according to claim 2; an acceleration sensor worn around an upper limb of the user and configured to detect a movement of the upper limb of the user (Hoang [0180]); and a controller configured to execute a determination process of totally determining an action of a whole body of the user on a basis of a combination of a change in pressure to a lower limb (Hoang [0039]) detected by the capacitive sensor of the footwear (Yoshiro [0073]) and a change in acceleration of the upper limb of the user detected by the acceleration sensor (Hoang [0125]).
Regarding claim 6, Hoang as modified by Yoshiro above, teaches an action determination system comprising: the footwear according to claim 3; an acceleration sensor worn around an upper limb of a user and configured to detect a movement of the upper limb of the user (Hoang [0180]); and a controller configured to execute a determination process of totally determining an action of a whole body of the user on a basis of a combination of a change in pressure to a lower limb detected by the capacitive sensor of the footwear (Yoshiro [0073]) and a change in acceleration of the upper limb of the user detected by the acceleration sensor (Hoang [0125]).
Regarding claim 7, Hoang as modified by Yoshiro above teaches an action determination system according to claim 4, wherein in the determination process, said totally determining an action includes determination of a kind of the action, determination of accuracy of the action, and determination of a strength of the action (Hoang [0125]).
Regarding claim 8, Hoang as modified by Yoshiro above teaches the action determination system according to claim 5, wherein in the determination process, said totally determining an action includes determination of a kind of the action, determination of accuracy of the action, and determination of a strength of the action (Hoang [0125]).
Regarding claim 9, Hoang as modified by Yoshiro above teaches the action determination system according to claim 6, wherein in the determination process, said totally determining an action includes determination of a kind of the action, determination of accuracy of the action, and determination of a strength of the action (Hoang [0125]).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights