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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 24th February 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-18 are pending, with Claims 12-15 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the amended claim limitations pertaining to Claim 1, the arguments of which 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 with respect to the arguments regarding those limitations.
Applicants arguments regarding Claim 7 that De Rossi fails to disclose ‘an image including the user and feedback information including a figure and text overlayed at least partially on the user’s body parts needing feedback to guide the user to perform motions included in the target motion data set, and wherein, the target motion data set includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set and assists the user to perform the same motions’. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as De Rossi discloses displaying an image including the user and feedback information including a figure and text overlayed at least partially on the user’s body parts needing feedback to guide the user to perform the same motions via a display device with a GUI (De Rossi: Para. [0039], [0287], [0301], [0336])
The prior art rejections have been updated below to account for amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are as follows:
Applicant argues that the amended features of claims do not correspond to organizing human activity and cannot be carried out in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. The amended limitations involve receiving/obtaining data (observation), sharing data with other user via output (observation), and assisting other users to perform motions (organizing human activity), all of which encompass abstract ideas grouped as a mental process or organizing human activity.
Applicant further alleges technical improvements via ‘improves the performance of wearable devices by tailoring motion based on user information and other user motion data, and/or enables personalized feedback affecting user movement in real time. Accordingly, the claims are integrated into a practical application at least because they provide specific improvements over prior systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the prior art cited in the rejection below teaches personalized feedback affecting user movement in real time.
Examiner recommends amending to define the specific structural qualities of the device into the claims in a definite manner with the intent to encompass the inventive concept of the invention within the claims. Currently, the claims only recite abstract ideas performed on generically recited additional elements that do not provide significantly more.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9 ‘wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to control to:’ should read ‘wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:’
Claim 1, ‘a sequential motion trajectory related the motion data’ should likely read ‘a sequential motion trajectory related to the motion data’.
Claim 4, line 1 ‘wherein the at least one processor individually and/or collectively is configured to control to:’ should read ‘wherein the at least one processor individually and/or collectively is configured to:’
Claim 4, ‘wherein the first motion is a related to a motion’ should likely read ‘wherein the first motion is related to a motion’.
Claim 17, ‘based at least on the targe motion…’ should likely read ‘based on at least the target motion…’.
Claim 18, ‘based at least on…’ should likely read ‘based on at least…’.
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 1-11 and 16-18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 17-18 recites the broad recitation ‘at least one processor’ (which only requires one processor), and the claim also recites ‘collectively’ which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11, ‘at least one processor, individually and/or collectively…’, it’s unclear how at least one processor could individually and collectively be configured to perform the functions required, the use of and/or in this limitation makes the terms individually and collectively indefinite. Examiner interprets the indefinite limitation to intend ‘at least one processor, individually or collectively…’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim 1 recites ‘a user’, then later recites ‘a user’s motion’, it is unclear if this is referring to ‘a user’ as previously recited, rendering claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 2, ‘a user input’, it is unclear if this is referring to ‘a user’ as previously recited in claim 1, rendering claim 2 indefinite.
Claim 7 recites ‘a user’, then later recites ‘a user’s motion’, it is unclear if this is referring to ‘a user’ as previously recited, rendering claim 7 indefinite.
Claims 1, 7 & 11, ‘same motions’ is unclear, same relative to what? The limitation renders the scope of claims 1, 7 & 11 indefinite. Examiner interprets ‘same motions’ to be same relative to the user’s motion, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim 4, line 2 and Claim 11, line 3 ‘the same motion’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 4, ‘wherein the first motion is a related to a motion…’, this limitation is unclear, related how? To what degree? The limitation renders the scope of claim 4 indefinite.
Claim 4, ‘a motion including the same motion with a second motion’, it is unclear whether the first motion and second motion are identical, a larger motion contains both the first and second motions, the motion includes a copy of the same motion and another motion, the ambiguity of this limitation renders claim 4 indefinite. Examiner interprets claim 4 to intend ‘acquire contents including a first motion, a second motion included in the motion data set, wherein the first motion and second motion are the same (or substantially the same) motion; and transmit the motion data set and the contents to the server through at least the communications module’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claims 5 recites ‘a motion included in the contents’, it is unclear whether this is referring to ‘a motion’ previously recited within claim 4 or a different motion included in the contents, rendering Claim 5 indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to be any motion included in the contents.
Claim 6, ‘acquire contents’, it is unclear whether this is part of the ‘contents’ previously recited in claim 4 or not, rendering claim 6 indefinite.
Claim 10, ‘the processor’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claims 2-6, 8-11 and16-18 are further rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-11 and 16-18 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-11 and 16-18 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving data, manipulating data, making determinations based on the data, and outputting data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-11 and 16-18 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically,
Claim 1: An electronic device, comprising: memory storing body information regarding a user and reference body information; a communication module comprising communication circuitry; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication module, wherein the communication module is configured to communicate with a server and an external electronic device including a sensor configured to measure a user's motion, wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to control to: receive sensing data related to the user's motion (Observation) measured by the sensor from the external electronic device through at least the communication module, obtain motion data related to the user's body based on the sensing data and the body information of the user (Observation), obtain reference motion data by converting the motion data into the reference motion data based on a difference between the body information of the user and the reference body information (Observation), obtain a motion data set including the reference motion data including a sequential motion trajectory related the motion data and transmit the motion data set (Judgement) to the server through at least the communication module for sharing with other users (Observation), and wherein the motion data set is a basis for generating personalized target motion data for the other users that includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set and assists the other users to perform the same motions (Observation).
Claim 7: An electronic device, comprising: a communication module comprising communication circuitry; a memory configured to store user information; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication module and the memory, wherein the communication module is configured to communicate with a server and an external electronic device including a sensor and an actuator, wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: receive a motion data set including reference motion data related to motions of other users having a reference body (Observation) from the server through at least the communication module, receive user information (Observation) stored in the memory, generate a target motion data set personalized to a user in a manner of converting the motion data set based on the user information (Observation), acquire sensing data related to a user's motion (Observation) from the external electronic device through at least the communication module, generate feedback at least by comparing motion data including a sequential motion trajectory of a body based on the sensing data with the target motion data set (Judgement), transmit a signal for controlling the external electronic device based on the feedback to the external electronic device through at least the communication module, display, on a display, an image including the user and feedback information including a figure and text overlayed at least partially on the user's body parts needing feedback to guide the user to perform motions included in the target motion data set (Observation), and wherein, the target motion data set includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set and assists the user to perform the same motions (Observation).
(additional elements are bolded, abstract ideas such as observations, judgements, or evaluations which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG are underlined)
Further, dependent Claims 2-6, 8-11 and 16-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 & 7 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-6, 8-11 and 16-18) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 & 7), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: an electronic device, communication module, processor, processing circuitry, display, server, memory, external electronic device, sensor, actuator are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 & 7 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 & 7 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 & 7 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 & 7 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-11 and 16-18 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an electronic device, communication module, processor, server, memory, external electronic device, processing circuitry, display as recited in independent Claims 1 & 7 and their respective dependent Claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, an electronic device (Para. [38]), communication module (Para. [54]), processor (Para. [39]), server (Para. [11]), memory (Para. [41]), external electronic device (Para. [65]), processing circuitry ([39-40]), display [45], sensor (Para. 57]), actuator (Para. [12])
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term an electronic device is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor; server. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-11 and 16-18 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses of Claims 1-11 and 16-18 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-11 and 16-18 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 & 7 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-11 and 16-18 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-11 and 16-18 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-11 and 16-18 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 7-11 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170202724 A1 to De Rossi et al. (hereinafter, De Rossi).
Regarding Claim 7, De Rossi discloses an electronic device (De Rossi: Abstract), comprising:
a communication module comprising communication circuitry (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘a second communication device’; Para. [0294] ‘the assistive flexible suit 100 sensor(s) 120 and communication device (e.g., wireless device, wireless sensors, wi-fi device, cellular device, etc.) transmit the gait information (e.g., gait events, etc.) to the first control loop 2301 as raw data or processed data (e.g., averaged, integrated, etc.).’);
a memory configured to store user information (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes… a physical computer-readable storage device bearing an instruction set…’); and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication module and the memory (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes… a physical computer-readable storage device bearing an instruction set… a second control loop… one or more processors to receive, via the second communication device…’),
wherein the communication module is configured to communicate with a server (De Rossi: Para. [0324] ‘sensor data is output from one or more sensors 120 of the assistive flexible suit 100 to a remote computer, controller or server’) and an external electronic device including a sensor and an actuator (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘an assistive flexible suit comprising at least one actuator… and at least one sensor configured to provide information relating to the movement of the at least one joint…’),
wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
receive a motion data set including reference motion data related to motions of other users having a reference body from the server through at least the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0025] ‘determining, using the assistive flexible suit controller, a variance in the gait pattern from a reference gait pattern using the first information and the second information and determining a second force profile necessary to impart a second torque profile across the first joint during the gait cycle to decrease the variance in the gait pattern from the reference gait pattern.’ ; Para. [0134] ‘the CPU 318 may infer a gait pattern based on other feedback, such as a predetermined default pattern for wearers of a specific type (e.g., all 70th percentile males), manual inputs from the wearer, manual inputs from a clinician, or a combination thereof.’; Para. [0321] ‘enables a wearer of the assistive flexible suit 100 to produce a reference gait pattern that is not unduly influenced by irregularities in the environment navigated.’; Para. [0287]; Para. [0288] ‘The controller 2315… output from the first control loop 2301 communication device 2316 to a communication device 2330 of the second control loop 2302’ ; Para. [0324] ‘a remote computer, controller or server (e.g., controller 2315 in FIG. 23)’),
receive user information stored in the memory (De Rossi: Para. [0274] ‘The offboard control system 200, the assistive flexible suit 100, and/or any subcomponent thereof (e.g., an actuator, sensor, etc.) can include one or more storage devices that can store data measured and collected, including all of the data that is collected by the sensors throughout the assistive flexible suit 100. The ability to save and later present data regarding movement of an individual allows the medical provider-in-the-loop and/or the individual to view data accrued between treatments.’),
generate a target motion data set personalized to a user in a manner of converting the motion data set based on the user information (De Rossi: Para. [0321] ‘The method further comprises an act S3710 of monitoring an output of the at least one sensor as the wearer moves in a first controlled movement environment (act S3710), which may comprise, by way of example, a treadmill, a floor, or other surface which enables a wearer of the assistive flexible suit 100 to produce a reference gait pattern that is not unduly influenced by irregularities in the environment navigated… ’; Para. [0025] ‘determining, using the assistive flexible suit controller, a variance in the gait pattern from a reference gait pattern using the first information and the second information and determining a second force profile necessary to impart a second torque profile across the first joint during the gait cycle to decrease the variance in the gait pattern from the reference gait pattern.’),
acquire sensing data related to a user's motion from the external electronic device through at least the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘the at least one controller receiving outputs from the at least one sensor… cause the one or more processors to receive, via the second communication device, an output of the at least one sensor or an output of another one or more sensors configured to provide information relating to movement of the at least one joint and display on the display device the information relating to movement of the at least one joint in relation to at least one gait event. ’),
generate feedback at least by comparing motion data including a sequential motion trajectory of a body based on the sensing data with the target motion data set, transmit a signal for controlling the external electronic device based on the feedback to the external electronic device through at least the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0025] ‘determining, using the assistive flexible suit controller, a variance in the gait pattern from a reference gait pattern using the first information and the second information and determining a second force profile necessary to impart a second torque profile across the first joint during the gait cycle to decrease the variance in the gait pattern from the reference gait pattern.’)
display, on a display, an image including the user and feedback information including a figure and text overlayed at least partially on the user’s body parts needing feedback to guide the user to perform motions included in the target motion data set (De Rossi: Para. [0039], [0287], [0301], [0336]), and
wherein, the target motion data set includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set and assists the user to perform the same motions (De Rossi: Para. [0039], [0336]).
Regarding Claim 8, De Rossi discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 7, De Rossi further discloses wherein the electronic device is configured to store the user information including at least one of the user's body information, health information, or exercise information (De Rossi: Para. [0117] ‘human-suit interaction forces reliant on user kinematics or motion (e.g., joint angles, measured and/or inferred) to produce a force-pattern that can be used to segment the wearer's gait.’),
wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively is configured to:
acquire the motion data set including at least one of: a motion speed, a trajectory range of a motion, a load level, or the number of motions (De Rossi: Para. [0103] ‘sensor readings are used by the assistive flexible suit control system or controller to determine a walking speed of the wearer.’); and
generate the target motion data set at least by correcting at least one of: a motion speed, a motion trajectory, a load level, or a number of motions; and wherein the target motion data set is corrected based on at least one of: the user's body information, health information, or exercise information (De Rossi: Para. [0117] ‘FIG. 2A, the suit tension (F) 235 is measured by one or more sensors 120 (e.g., hyperelastic strain sensors, load cells, etc.) and is used to trigger actuation of one or more actuators 105 (not shown) once a threshold force (F.sub.thresh) is exceeded (F>F.sub.thresh). FIG. 2A shows that, responsive to the trigger, the actuator actuates (in this instance, represented by a position change measured in cm) to deliver the forces represented… determining the correct times to actuate the system based on the human-suit interaction forces’; Para. [0285]).
Regarding Claim 9, De Rossi discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 7, De Rossi further discloses further comprising: a camera (De Rossi: Para. [0347] ‘The sensor(s) may comprise, for example, sensors external to the assistive flexible suit 100. By way of example, an external camera’); and
the display (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes a second control loop comprising a clinician interface, the clinician interface comprising a display device’),
wherein the camera is configured to take the image including a user (De Rossi: Para. [0347] ‘an external camera (e.g., a camera integrated with a wearer's home computer or a wearer's cellular phone, a camera in a telemedicine suite, etc.) may be used to provide visual cues of the wearer's gait to the medical provider (e.g., as the wearer walks toward the camera, away from the camera, and/or at another angle relative to the camera within the camera's field of view, etc.)’), and
the at least one processor individually and/or collectively is configured to display the feedback and the image on the display (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes a second control loop comprising a clinician interface, the clinician interface comprising a display device’; Para. [0347] ‘an external camera (e.g., a camera integrated with a wearer's home computer or a wearer's cellular phone, a camera in a telemedicine suite, etc.) may be used to provide visual cues of the wearer's gait to the medical provider (e.g., as the wearer walks toward the camera, away from the camera, and/or at another angle relative to the camera within the camera's field of view, etc.)’; Para. [0270] ‘The offboard control system 200 may include, in one embodiment, an interface to display real-time gait parameters as measured by the sensors on the assistive flexible suit 100, as well as for controlling the profile and timing of assistance delivered by the assistive flexible suit in real time. The interface allows the offboard control system 200 to be used as a tool in physical therapy, to allow a medical provider to adjust the assistive flexible suit 100 in accordance with the specific needs to improve movement of an individual.’ ).
Regarding Claim 10, De Rossi discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 7, De Rossi further discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit a signal for controlling the external electronic device to vibrate based on the feedback to the external electronic device through at least the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0029] ‘In addition to the movement-assistive modules, other modular functional units may be provided, including but not limited to, functional electric stimulation units, haptic feedback units, and vibro/electro tactile feedback units. In some aspects, a controller generating actuation profiles may also advantageously activate, in conjunction with actuation (e.g., prior to actuation, concurrent with actuation, etc.), one or more other functional units, such as vibrotactile feedback, eletrotactile feedback, or functional electrical stimulation.’).
Regarding Claim 11, De Rossi discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 7, De Rossi further discloses further comprising the display (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes a second control loop comprising a clinician interface, the clinician interface comprising a display device’),
wherein the at least one processor individually and/or collectively is configured to:
acquire contents including a first motion, wherein the first motion is a same motion with a second motion included in the motion data set from the server through at least the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0117] ‘validation of the sensor 120 fidelity via a comparison of movements of a person wearing an assistive flexible suit 100 measured, in real-time, by sensors 120 (dashed lines) and an external Vicon optical motion capture system (solid lines) for each of hip, knee and ankle joint angle sensors (e.g., hyper-elastic strain sensors disposed to monitor hip, knee and ankle sagittal plane joint angles).’; Para. [0347] ‘an external camera (e.g., a camera integrated with a wearer's home computer or a wearer's cellular phone, a camera in a telemedicine suite, etc.) may be used to provide visual cues of the wearer's gait to the medical provider (e.g., as the wearer walks toward the camera, away from the camera, and/or at another angle relative to the camera within the camera's field of view, etc.)), and
synchronize the feedback and the contents and output the feedback and the contents on the display (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes a second control loop comprising a clinician interface, the clinician interface comprising a display device’; Para. [0270] ‘The offboard control system 200 may include, in one embodiment, an interface to display real-time gait parameters as measured by the sensors on the assistive flexible suit 100, as well as for controlling the profile and timing of assistance delivered by the assistive flexible suit in real time. The interface allows the offboard control system 200 to be used as a tool in physical therapy, to allow a medical provider to adjust the assistive flexible suit 100 in accordance with the specific needs to improve movement of an individual.’; ).
Regarding Claim 16, De Rossi discloses the electronic device of claim 7, De Rossi further discloses wherein the figure indicates a type of motion and a degree of agreement with the target motion data set (De Rossi: Para. [0288]).
Regarding Claim 17, De Rossi discloses the electronic device of claim 7, De Rossi further discloses wherein the at least one processor, individually or collectively, is configured to: control, based at least on the targe motion data set, an actuator configured to control a mechanical force applied by a device mounted in a part of the user's body (De Rossi: Para. [0039], [0336]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170202724 A1 to De Rossi et al. (hereinafter, De Rossi) in view of US 20200074880 A1 to Ito.
Regarding Claim 1, De Rossi discloses an electronic device (De Rossi: Abstract), comprising:
memory storing body information regarding a user and reference body information (De Rossi: Para. [0135], [0284], [0295]);
a communication module comprising communication circuitry (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘… a second communication device’; Para. [0294] ‘the assistive flexible suit 100 sensor(s) 120 and communication device (e.g., wireless device, wireless sensors, wi-fi device, cellular device, etc.) transmit the gait information (e.g., gait events, etc.) to the first control loop 2301 as raw data or processed data (e.g., averaged, integrated, etc.).’); and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes… one or more processors… a second communication device… upon execution by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to receive, via the second communication device…’),
wherein the communication module is configured to communicate with a server (De Rossi: Para. [0324] ‘sensor data is output from one or more sensors 120 of the assistive flexible suit 100 to a remote computer, controller or server’) and
an external electronic device including a sensor configured to measure a user's motion (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘an assistive flexible suit comprising at least one actuator… and at least one sensor configured to provide information relating to the movement of the at least one joint…’),
wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to control to:
receive sensing data related to the user's motion measured by the sensor from the external electronic device through at least the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘the at least one controller receiving outputs from the at least one sensor… cause the one or more processors to receive, via the second communication device, an output of the at least one sensor or an output of another one or more sensors configured to provide information relating to movement of the at least one joint and display on the display device the information relating to movement of the at least one joint in relation to at least one gait event. ’),
obtain motion data related to the user’s body based on the sensing data and the body information of the user (Para. [0039] ‘the at least one controller receiving outputs from the at least one sensor… cause the one or more processors to receive, via the second communication device, an output of the at least one sensor or an output of another one or more sensors configured to provide information relating to movement of the at least one joint and display on the display device the information relating to movement of the at least one joint in relation to at least one gait event. ’),
obtain reference motion data by converting the motion data into the reference motion data based on a difference between the body information of the user and the reference body information (De Rossi: Para. [0025] ‘The method also includes the acts of determining, using the assistive flexible suit controller, a variance in the gait pattern from a reference gait pattern using the first information and the second information’; Para. [0336] ‘A variance in the gait pattern is then determined relative to a reference gait pattern using the first and second information. This determination may be performed by the medical provider (e.g., viewing an output of the GUI 2310) or by one or more controllers (e.g., via the first control loop 2301 controller 2315, assistive flexible suit 100 controller, or another controller). Responsive to such determination, the method further includes the act of determining a second actuation profile across the first joint during the gait cycle to decrease the variance in, or increase the symmetry in, the gait pattern from the reference gait pattern, such act of determination also being performed by the medical provider or by one or more controllers.’),
obtain a motion data set including the reference motion data including a sequential motion trajectory related the motion data (De Rossi: Para. [0025] ‘determining, using the assistive flexible suit controller, a variance in the gait pattern from a reference gait pattern using the first information and the second information and determining a second force profile necessary to impart a second torque profile across the first joint during the gait cycle to decrease the variance in the gait pattern from the reference gait pattern.’; Para. [0134] ‘the CPU 318 may infer a gait pattern based on other feedback, such as a predetermined default pattern for wearers of a specific type (e.g., all 70th percentile males)’), and
transmit the motion data set to the server through at least the communication module for sharing with other users (De Rossi: Para. [0324] ‘sensor data is output from one or more sensors 120 of the assistive flexible suit 100 to a remote computer, controller or server’; Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes a second control loop comprising a clinician interface, the clinician interface comprising a display device, one or more processors, a user interface, a second communication device and a physical computer-readable storage device bearing an instruction set configured, upon execution by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to receive, via the second communication device, an output of the at least one sensor or an output of another one or more sensors configured to provide information relating to movement of the at least one joint and display on the display device the information relating to movement of the at least one joint in relation to at least one gait event.’), and
wherein the motion data set is a basis for generating personalized target motion data that includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set (De Rossi: Para. [0043]; [0134] ‘the CPU 318 may infer a gait pattern based on other feedback, such as a predetermined default pattern for wearers of a specific type (e.g., all 70th percentile males), manual inputs from the wearer, manual inputs from a clinician, or a combination thereof.’, [0285]).
De Rossi is silent on generation of motion data for other users that includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set and assisting the other users to perform the same motions.
However, Ito teaches generation of motion data for other users that includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set and assisting the other users to perform the same motions (Ito: Para. [0095-0096], [0099]; Fig. 9).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of De Rossi to include generation of motion data for other users that includes same motions with motions included in the motion data set and assisting the other users to perform the same motions as taught by Ito to provide other users with respective stimuli on the basis of motion data of a single experienced person and to perceive differences between averaged movements and their own movements with regard to a group motion (Ito: Para. [0099]).
Regarding Claim 2, De Rossi in view of Ito discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 1, De Rossi further discloses wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: receive a user input for additional information related to a level of difficulty of the motion of the user, and add the additional information to the motion data set (De Rossi: Para. [0326] ‘the wearer is enabled to input manual, direct adjustments to the second control loop 2302 through a suitable user interface (e.g., cell phone application, suit-based controls, etc.). Particularly following progression of a wearer's therapy or rehabilitation, such patient may be empowered by the medical provider and/or control system to input small changes at-will, or from time-to-time (e.g., on a schedule)… the wearer is optionally empowered to make a small adjustment to see what “feels” better or more natural at a given time, in a given environment.’).
Regarding Claim 3, De Rossi in view of Ito discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 1, De Rossi further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the reference motion data using at least an average value of the sensing data obtained by sensing a plurality of repeated motion of the user (De Rossi: Para. [0294] ‘the assistive flexible suit 100 sensor(s) 120 and communication device (e.g., wireless device, wireless sensors, wi-fi device, cellular device, etc.) transmit the gait information (e.g., gait events, etc.) to the first control loop 2301 as raw data or processed data (e.g., averaged, integrated, etc.).’; Para. [0321] ‘enables a wearer of the assistive flexible suit 100 to produce a reference gait pattern that is not unduly influenced by irregularities in the environment navigated.’).
Regarding Claim 4, De Rossi in view of Ito discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 1, De Rossi further discloses wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively is configured to control to:
acquire contents including a first motion, wherein the first motion is a related to a motion including the same motion with a second motion included in the motion data set (De Rossi: Para. [0039] ‘The hybrid control system includes a second control loop comprising a clinician interface, the clinician interface comprising a display device’; Para. [0347] ‘an external camera (e.g., a camera integrated with a wearer's home computer or a wearer's cellular phone, a camera in a telemedicine suite, etc.) may be used to provide visual cues of the wearer's gait to the medical provider (e.g., as the wearer walks toward the camera, away from the camera, and/or at another angle relative to the camera within the camera's field of view, etc.)’; Para. [0270] ‘The offboard control system 200 may include, in one embodiment, an interface to display real-time gait parameters as measured by the sensors on the assistive flexible suit 100, as well as for controlling the profile and timing of assistance delivered by the assistive flexible suit in real time. The interface allows the offboard control system 200 to be used as a tool in physical therapy, to allow a medical provider to adjust the assistive flexible suit 100 in accordance with the specific needs to improve movement of an individual.’ ), and
transmit the motion data set and the contents to the server through at least the communication module (De Rossi: Para. [0324] ‘sensor data is output from one or more sensors 120 of the assistive flexible suit 100 to a remote computer, controller or server’).
Regarding Claim 5, De Rossi in view of Ito discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 4, De Rossi further discloses wherein the motion data set comprises information related to a motion included in the contents (De Rossi: Para. [0347] ‘The sensor(s) may comprise, for example, sensors external to the assistive flexible suit 100. By way of example, an external camera (e.g., a camera integrated with a wearer's home computer or a wearer's cellular phone, a camera in a telemedicine suite, etc.) may be used to provide visual cues of the wearer's gait to the medical provider (e.g., as the wearer walks toward the camera, away from the camera, and/or at another angle relative to the camera within the camera's field of view, etc.)’; Para. [0117] ‘validation of the sensor 120 fidelity via a comparison of movements of a person wearing an assistive flexible suit 100 measured, in real-time, by sensors 120 (dashed lines) and an external Vicon optical motion capture system (solid lines) for each of hip, knee and ankle joint angle sensors (e.g., hyper-elastic strain sensors disposed to monitor hip, knee and ankle sagittal plane joint angles).’).
Regarding Claim 6, De Rossi in view of Ito discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 4, De Rossi further discloses further comprising a camera (De Rossi: Para. [0347] ‘an external camera’),
wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to acquire contents including an image taken through the camera (De Rossi: Para. [0347] ‘The sensor(s) may comprise, for example, sensors external to the assistive flexible suit 100. By way of example, an external camera (e.g., a camera integrated with a wearer's home computer or a wearer's cellular phone, a camera in a telemedicine suite, etc.) may be used to provide visual cues of the wearer's gait to the medical provider (e.g., as the wearer walks toward the camera, away from the camera, and/or at another angle relative to the camera within the camera's field of view, etc.)’).
Regarding Claim 18, De Rossi in view of Ito discloses the electronic device of claim 1, De Rossi further discloses wherein the at least one processor, individually or collectively, is configured to: control, based at least on the motion data set, an actuator configured to control a mechanical force applied by a device mounted in a part of the user's body (De Rossi: Para. [0039], [0336)].
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 SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm EST..
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights