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 Objections
Claim 1 introduces “a fabric” twice. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a pressure applied” and “a pressure is to be applied” are both initially presented, but it is contextually apparent that this pressure is the same pressure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at a position at a position” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “discrete conductive threads… disposed separately from each other” in claims 1-17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20210152241 A (herein Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches A glove (glove 100, Fig. 2) comprising:
a fabric (glove 100 is a knitted fabric made of conductive fibers and non-conductive fibers, p. 3); and
a capacitive sensor which comprises discrete conductive threads woven each being into a fabric of the glove and disposed separately from each other (first and second conductive regions 121, 123, Fig. 2), and which is configured to detect a change in pressure applied to an area of the glove where the conductive threads are woven into the fabric based on a change in capacitance caused by a change in distance between two of the conductive threads adjacent to each other where the change in distance is a change caused by deformation of the two of the conductive threads due to the pressure (signal analyzer 200 analyzes the degree of bending of the palm region by analyzing the magnitude of the capacitance in each of the crossing regions of the second sensing region 120. The signal analyzer 200 calculates the capacitance in each of the crossing regions 124, p. 4; Formula 1 and p. 4 teaches representation of the pressure of the contact 112).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches wherein the conductive threads are woven into a position corresponding to a portion to which a pressure is to be applied in a hand of a user and which is in an area in contact with at least one selected from the group consisting of: a finger of the user, a palm of the user, and a dorsal surface of the hand of the user (sensing region 110 on fingers and sensing region 120 on palm, Fig. 4, p. 3, are woven with conductive fibers).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi.
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches a transmitting section configured to transmit, to an external device, data indicating a change in pressure detected by the capacitive sensor, the transmitting section being
Choi does not explicitly teach the transmitting section being detachable. However, this limitation of simply making an element separable and based on MPEP 2144.04 V C, separable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over prior art unless there are new or unexpected results. See In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) and In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180369637 (herein Hoang) in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 4, Hoang teaches An action determination system (training system for characterizing athletic movements, [0039]) comprising:
the glove (system may include gloves, [0060])
an acceleration sensor worn around an upper limb of a user and configured to detect a movement of the upper limb of the user (sensor module in shirt, [0011]; motion sensors include a 3-axis accelerometer, [0013]; Fig. 32 teaches exemplary placement of sensor on bicep or wrist); and
a controller configured to execute a determination process of determining an action of the upper limb of the user on a basis of a change in pressure detected by the capacitive sensor of the glove and a change in acceleration of the upper limb of the user detected by the acceleration sensor (the body kinematics component defines the orientation and the position of human body segments and joints. The body kinematics component identifies the user's actual movement through bio-information collected from one or more personal sensing device(s), [0125]).
Additionally regarding claim 4, Hoang not teach, “the glove according to claim 1.” However, Choi teaches it is known in the art as explained in rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Hoang teaches an external force measurement section configured to measure an external force applied from a lower limb of the user (sensor module in pants, [0011]; motion sensors include a 3-axis accelerometer, [0013], and [0039] teaches this can be used to measure force of impact; Fig. 32 teaches exemplary placement of sensor on ankle or thigh), the controller being configured to further determine, in the determination process, an action of a whole body of the user on a basis of the action of the upper limb of the user determined and an external force measured by the external force measurement section (the body kinematics component defines the orientation and the position of human body segments and joints. The body kinematics component identifies the user's actual movement through bio-information collected from one or more personal sensing device(s), [0125]).
Regarding claim 8, Hoang teaches An action determination system (training system for characterizing athletic movements, [0039]) comprising:
the glove (system may include gloves, [0060]) ;
an acceleration sensor worn around an upper limb of a user and configured to detect a movement of the upper limb of the user (sensor module in shirt, [0011]; motion sensors include a 3-axis accelerometer, [0013]; Fig. 32 teaches exemplary placement of sensor on bicep or wrist); and
a controller configured to execute a determination process of determining an action of the upper limb of the user on a basis of a change in pressure detected by the capacitive sensor of the glove and a change in acceleration of the upper limb of the user detected by the acceleration sensor (the body kinematics component defines the orientation and the position of human body segments and joints. The body kinematics component identifies the user's actual movement through bio-information collected from one or more personal sensing device(s), [0125]).
Additionally regarding claim 8, Hoang not teach, “the glove according to claim 2.” However, Choi teaches it is known in the art as explained in rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 9 recites equivalent limitations as claim 5 and is rejected in the same way. See rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 12, Hoang teaches An action determination system (training system for characterizing athletic movements, [0039]) comprising:
the glove (system may include gloves, [0060])
an acceleration sensor worn around an upper limb of a user and configured to detect a movement of the upper limb of the user (sensor module in shirt, [0011]; motion sensors include a 3-axis accelerometer, [0013]; Fig. 32 teaches exemplary placement of sensor on bicep or wrist); and
a controller configured to execute a determination process of determining an action of the upper limb of the user on a basis of a change in pressure detected by the capacitive sensor of the glove and a change in acceleration of the upper limb of the user detected by the acceleration sensor (the body kinematics component defines the orientation and the position of human body segments and joints. The body kinematics component identifies the user's actual movement through bio-information collected from one or more personal sensing device(s), [0125]).
Additionally regarding claim 12, Hoang not teach, “the glove according to claim 3.” However, Choi teaches it is known in the art as explained in rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 13 recites equivalent limitations as claim 5 and is rejected in the same way. See rejection of claim 5 above.
For the above claims 4-5, 8-9, and 12-13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the glove of Choi into the training system of Hoang. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of improving motion recognition of hand, palm, and finger movements.
Claim(s) 6-7, 10-11, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang and Choi as applied to claims 5, 9, and 13 above, in further view of US 20210236020 (herein Matijevich).
Regarding claim 6, Hoang teaches wherein the external force measurement section is a force plate configured to measure a load applied from the user (Fig. 19 shows platelike structure of sensor band, with electronic circuitry from [0159] which houses motion sensors including accelerometers and magnetometers).
Additionally regarding claim 6, Hoang and Choi do not teach, “the force plate includes a six-axis force sensor.” However, Matijevich teaches it is known in the art to use 6-axis Xsens inertial measurement units as a wearable sensor ([0220]) to detect information about a biomechanical activity ([0013]).
Further regarding claim 6, Hoang and Choi do not teach, “the controller determines a kind of an action of the lower limb of the user and a strength of the action on a basis of the center of a pressure of a foot of the user and a moment acting on the foot of the user, the center of the pressure and the moment being measured by the six-axis force sensor.” However, Matijevich teaches the deficiencies of Hoang and Choi. Specifically, Matijevich teaches the Pedar pressure sensing insoles can determine force and center of pressure measurements for identifying heel strike and toe off events ([0150]). Note that [0290] further clarifies measurements are constrained by dynamics consistent with the laws of physics in terms of net moments and forces.
Regarding claim 7, Hoang teaches wherein the external force measurement section is footwear including a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure applied from a foot of the user (one or more motion sensors configured to be secured to a foot of a user, p. 20, Claim 18; A sensor node is placed on left and right feet, [0145]). Hoang does not teach, “the pressure sensor is disposed at a position corresponding to a portion to which a pressure is to be applied in a toe and a sole of the foot of the user.” However, Matijevich teaches pressure-measurement sensor may be an insole ([0220]; see pressure in soles in Figs. 2a, 4).
Claims 10 and 14 recite equivalent limitations as claim 6 and are rejected in the same way. See rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 11 and 15 recite equivalent limitations as claim 7 and are rejected in the same way. See rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, Hoang and Choi do not teach, “wherein the footwear is any one of a room boot, a sock, and as shoe.” However, Matijevich teaches sensors integrate easily into socks/shoes ([0198]; see Fig. 2A).
For the above claims 6-7, 10-11, 14-15, and 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the 3-axis accelerometer of Hoang with the movement sensing units of Matijevich because both serve the purpose of acquiring body movement data. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang, Choi, and Matijevich as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of US 20190150796 (herein Fukushi).
Regarding claim 16, Hoang and Choi do not teach, “wherein: the force plate detects a position of a gravity center of the user from the center of the pressure applied to the foot of the user, on a basis of a load measured by the six-axis force sensor; and the force plate detects a direction of movement of the foot of the user on a basis of the moment measured by the six-axis force sensor.” However, Fukushi teaches it is known in the art to use measurement data from force plate IMU foot sensors 20 to determine a user’s gravity center ([0044]). Fukushi, along with the force sensors and moment equation calculations found in Matijevich (see Fig. 1), would thus teach the present invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the acquisition of gravity center and movement data of Fukushi into the full body analysis of Hoang. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of determining a walking state for rehabilitation treatment ([0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states sensing region 120 requires dielectric film 125. Firstly, the present invention does not exclude use of film 125. Also, a dielectric or equivalent gap is the defining nature of capacitive sensing, as a change in capacitance is inversely proportional to distance and this is the same function taught by Choi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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 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
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852