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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 02/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that invention II (claim 15) is not mutually exclusive of invention I. This is found to be persuasive. Accordingly, the restriction requirement of invention II (claim 15) is withdrawn, and invention II (claim 15) will be examined with invention I (claims 1-14).
Claims 16-31 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/26.
Specification
The Specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The Specification does not appear to disclose where the one or more computer model that alters the received movement information as needed in a manner to facilitate the one or more followers in duplicating the received movement information may include:
follower health information including one or more of heart rate, blood pressure, weight, body mass index, pulse, blood oxygen saturation, breathing rate and body temperature (claim 4); or
environmental or safety information including information on the presence of obstacles, trip hazards, curbs, ramps and steps (claim 5).
The Specification does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more computer model that alters the received movement information as needed in a manner to facilitate the one or more followers in duplicating the received movement information may implement optimal control methods to optimize follower’s health benefits within a movement session or over a time period (claim 9).
The Specification does not appear to disclose where the computer models that alter the received movement information as needed in a manner to facilitate the one or more followers in duplicating the received movement information employs distributed intelligent agents (claim 11).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11-12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. “of each one or more leaders” recited in claim 1, ln. 4 should likely read “of each of one or more leaders”;
“the component that receives communications that include movement information” recited in claim 1, ln. 9-10 should likely read “the at least one component that receives the communications that include the movement information”;
“information; at least one or more controllers” recited in claim 1, ln. 14-15 should likely read “information; and at least one or more controllers”;
“the computer model” recited in claim 3, ln. 1 should likely read “the one or more computer model” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity;
“optimize follower’s health benefits” recited in claim 9, ln. 4 should likely read “optimize a follower’s health benefits”;
“the computer models that alter” recited in claim 11, ln. 1 should likely read “the one or more computer model[[s]] that alters” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity;
“recdeived" recited in claim 11, ln. 3 should likely read “rec[[d]]eived”;
“of each one or more leaders” recited in claim 12, ln. 4 should likely read “of each of one or more leaders”;
“the component that receives communications that include movement information” recited in claim 12, ln. 9-10 should likely read “the at least one component that receives the communications that include the movement information”;
“the difference” recited in claim 12, ln. 21 should likely read “[[the]]a difference”;
“movement; at least one component” recited in claim 12, ln. 22-23 should likely read “movement; and at least one component”;
“of each one or more leaders” recited in claim 15, ln. 4 should likely read “of each of one or more leaders;
“communications that includes” recited in claim 15, ln. 8 should likely read “communications that include[[s]]”;
“the component that receives communications that include movement objective information” recited in claim 15, ln. 10-11 should likely read “the at least one component that receives the communications that include the higher level movement objective
“the received movement objective information” recited in claim 15, ln. 13-14 should likely read “the received higher level movement objective.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
at least one component recited in claim 1, ln. 5 and claim 12, ln. 5;
at least one component recited in claim 1, ln. 7 and claim 12, ln. 7;
at least one or more computer model recited in claim 1, ln. 12;
at least one or more controllers recited in claim 1, ln. 15, claim 12, ln. 15, and claim 15, ln. 16;
at least one computer model recited in claim 12, ln. 12 and claim 15, ln. 13;
at least one component recited in claim 12, ln. 21;
at least one component recited in claim 12, ln. 23;
at least one component recited in claim 15, ln. 5;
at least one component recited in claim 15, ln. 7; and
at least one component recited in claim 15, ln. 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 15 recite a plurality of “at least one component”, as well as “at least one/one or more computer model” and “at least one or more controllers”. However, the Specification never states what the recited at least one components, at least one or more computer model, and/or at least one or more controllers comprise. Accordingly, the Specification fails to provide support for the full scope of the claim limitations, such as framework to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, independent claims 1, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 are indefinite because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts of the recited plurality of “at least one component”, “at least one/one or more computer model”, and “at least one or more controllers”.
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 1 recites in part “at least one component that detects movement of one or more leaders and transmits the detected movement”. It is indefinite as to whether, and if so how, the recited at least one component differs from the at least one movement detection device configured to measure movement of each one or more leaders previously recited in the claim, and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether, and if so how, the detected movement of one or more leaders (claim 1, ln. 5) differs from the measured movement of the one or more leaders previously recited (claim 1, ln. 3-4).
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasonings.
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 1 further recites in part “at least one component that receives communications that includes movement information from the one or more leaders”. It is indefinite whether, and if so how, the recited at least one component differs from the previously recited at least one component (ln. 5-6) and/or the at least one movement detection device (ln. 3-4), and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 1 further recites in part “movement information”. It is indefinite as to whether the movement information is referring to the movement measured by the at least one movement detection device, the movement detected by the at least one component, both, or different movement information.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 1 further recites in part “at least one or more computer model that alters the received movement information as needed in a manner to facilitate the one or more followers in duplicating the received movement information”. The term “as needed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as needed” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claims 6-7 recite the limitation "the stimulus control" in ln. 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 12 recites in part “at least one component that assesses the difference between the sensed follower movement and leader movement” and “at least one component that analyzes the difference between the sensed follower movement and leader movement”. It is indefinite as to whether, and if so how, the recited at least one components differ, as well as how their functions differ, and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Claims 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 12.
Claim 15 recites in part “at least one component that detects movement of one or more leaders and determines a higher level movement description of the detected movement”. It is indefinite as to whether, and if so how, the recited at least one component differs from the previously recited at least one movement detection device configured to measure respective movement of each one or more leaders, and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Similarly, it is further indefinite as to whether, and if so how, the recited at least one or more components in ln. 7 and 8 of the claim differ, and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Claim 15 further recites in part a “higher level movement description” and a “higher level movement objective”. It is indefinite as to what a “higher level” movement comprises, and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Moreover, the term “higher level” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher level” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). That is, claims 1, 12, and 15 recite in part “A system […] comprising: […] at least one or more followers”.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Acknowledgments
No prior art is currently provided in light of the extensive rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 9,414,784 B1 – This reference teaches the use of a vibratory device worn by the user and configured to generate feedback as to the conformity of executed motion data to reference motions.
U.S. Pub. 2022/0277663 A1 – This reference teaches generating an electrical control signal for controlling actuation of at least one haptic element, optical element, or acoustic element based on the comparison of position, movement, or timing information associated with a performance event to user-specific target position, user-specific target movement information, or user-specific target timing position.
U.S. Pub. 2022/0233916 A1 – This reference teaches providing a tactile stimulus for guiding a user to perform a target movement.
U.S. Pub. 2020/0346072 A1 – This reference teaches a wearable device configured to provide haptic feedback based on detected movements of a subject.
U.S. Pub. 2020/0179753 A1 – This reference teaches providing a stimulus when detected movement of a user is outside of a threshold.
U.S. Pub. 2019/0279525 A1 – This reference teaches training a user to reproduce a reference motion using haptic feedback.
U.S. Pub. 2015/0077234 A1 – This reference teaches the utilization of haptic prompts to synchronize body motion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715