Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on January 20, 2026.
As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, and 17-18 were amended. Claims 1-18 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also MPEP 211.05(I)(B).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application(s) No. 18/229,528 and No. 15/108,598, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For example, none of these prior applications provide any support for:
Claim 1: “a mapping data collector and a mapping data processor in communication with said haptic component … wherein said mapping data collector is configured to i) collect local environment data of an environment proximate the user, including visual data, using one or more local environmental sensing devices, and/or ii) retrieve pre-existing mapping data and wherein said mapping data processor is configured to process at least one of the collected local environmental data and the retrieved pre-existing mapping data to determine i) a safe navigation path for said user from a first point to a second point and ii) at least one of a navigation direction, speed of travel, or safe body position, while circumventing dependence on global navigation satellite systems; wherein the control centre causes the wearable haptic component to deliver body-referenced sensory stimulation patterns corresponding to the proprioceptive suggestion language, thereby physically cueing the user during traversal of the environment… wherein said safe body position comprises a body physical orientation including at least one of: crouching, standing, crawling, jumping, twisting, squatting, bending, stepping up, stepping down and raising arms” which is not supported by the prior application(s) under 112(a).
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are not entitled to the benefit of these prior application(s), and the effective filing date of claims 1-18 is November 17, 2023.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“sensory devices being connected to the garment and configured to actuate to produce one or more sensory stimulations, each of said one or more sensory stimulations being sufficient to induce a perceivable physiological stimulation in the user” in claim 1.
“mapping data collector is configured to: i) collect local environment data of an environment proximate the user, including visual data, using one or more local environmental sensing devices, and/or ii) retrieve pre-existing mapping data and wherein said mapping data processor is configured to process at least one of the collected local environmental data and the retrieved pre-existing mapping data to determine i) a safe navigation path for said user from a first point to a second point and ii) at least one of a navigation direction, speed of travel, or safe body position, while circumventing dependence on global navigation satellite systems” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10 recites “sensor devices” which appears to be a typographical error. Examiner suggests --sensory devices--.
Claim 1, the twelfth line from the end recites “the wearable haptic component” and Examiner suggests --the haptic component-- to use consistent language, as the “haptic component” has not previously been recited as a wearable haptic component.
Claim 18, line 2 recites “a said” which appears to be an error. Examiner suggests --said--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-18 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Claim 1, lines 18-19 recite “each of said sensory events defining a spatiotemporally sequenced synergistic action of said one or more sensory stimulations” which is new matter. There does not appear to be any support in the originally filed disclosure for each sensory event defining a spatiotemporally sequenced action.
Claim 9, line 2 recites “a safe egress path” which is confusing because a “safe egress path” has already been recited in claim 1. If this is intended to refer to the previously recited “safe egress path,” Examiner suggests --the safe egress path--.
Claim 9, line 3 recites “a safe body position” which is confusing because a “safe body position” has already been recited in claim 1. If this is intended to refer to the previously recited “safe body position,” Examiner suggests --the safe body position--.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1, the third to last line recites “local environmental data” and it is unclear if this is meant to be referring to the previously recited “local environment data” (line 29).
Claim 2, the last three lines recite the mapping data collector may be a “communication system including global navigation satellite system…” which is confusing because claim 1 requires the mapping data collector to be “circumventing dependence on global navigation satellite systems” (see lines 36-37 of claim 1). It is unclear how the mapping data collector could include a global navigation satellite system and circumvent dependence on global navigation satellite systems.
Claim 10, lines 4-5 recite “the data collected by said mapping data processor” which is confusing because the data appears to be collected by the mapping data collector, not the mapping data processor.
Claim 17, the last two lines recite “interface protocol conversion between said flight training device and said sensory stimulation flight simulator interface software” which is vague and indefinite. What is an interface protocol, and what is being converted?
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (2016/0317383) in view of Dayal et al. (2015/0196101) and Amariei et al. (2022/0282985).
Regarding claim 1, Stanfield discloses a wearable haptic navigation system (Fig. 13a. Note, this being a “navigation” system is merely a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. Here, the limitations in the preamble are not given weight), said wearable haptic navigation system comprising:
a) a haptic component (the collection of components in Fig. 14, including the control centre 16 and actuators: electrodes 10, vibration actuators 48, Force Simulation Device/Constriction/Compression Stimulation Device actuators 50, Force Stimulation Device actuators 55, Fig. 13a); and
b) wherein said haptic component (16, 10, 48, 50, 55, Figs. 13-14) comprises a garment (garment 14, Fig. 13a) covering at least one of i) a front and back torso and shoulders of the user, ii) abdomen and lower back of the user, iii) arms of the user, iv) legs of the user, and v) combinations thereof (see Figs. 13a-13b, the garment 14 is a long-sleeved shirt and covers at least a front and back torso and shoulders of the user. Abdomen and lower back of the user, and arms of the user. Additionally, the Fig. 13c embodiment “includes the entire body; the entire torso including the arms and waist, the lower body including the hips, upper and lower legs” see para. [0088]);
wherein the garment (14) supports a plurality of sensory devices (electrodes 10, speakers 38, vibration actuators 48, Force Simulation Device/Constriction/Compression Stimulation Device actuators 50, Force Stimulation Device actuators 55, Figs. 13-14) positioned at fixed, body-referenced locations relative to the user (the devices are on body-referenced locations along the chest/torso and thighs as seen in Fig. 13a-13c), including front, rear, left, right, upper and lower body locations (see Figs. 13a-13c), and wherein at least a subset of the sensor[y] devices are positioned on lower-body muscle groups (at least some sensory devices are positioned on the thighs as seen in Fig. 13c);
an input module (initiating device 54 may provide an input module, Fig. 14; see the first two sentences of [0175]) configured to collect sensory-related data (“The initiating device 54 is a computing device that uses software to collect sensory related data” see the third sentence of [0175]);
the plurality of sensory devices (electrodes 10, speakers 38, vibration actuators 48, Force Simulation Device/Constriction/Compression Stimulation Device actuators 50, Force Stimulation Device actuators 55, Figs. 13-14) being connected to the garment (14, Figs. 13-14) and configured to actuate to produce one or more sensory stimulations being sufficient to induce a perceivable physiological stimulation in the user (see the second sentence of [0030]. The actuation of electrodes, speakers, vibration actuators, constriction/compression etc., would be perceivable); and
a control centre (control centre 16, Figs. 13-14) comprising:
a processor configured to determine sensory events, each of said sensory events defining a synergistic action of said one or more sensory stimulations forming a signal pathway to produce one or more sensory outcomes (this is reciting the body’s response to a perceivable stimulus), each of said one or more sensory outcomes inducing a physiological response or sensory perception in the user (see lines 6-11 of [0030]);
a transceiver (control centre 16 contains a transceiver, see the first two sentences of [0128] and the first sentence of [0129]) configured to receive the sensory-related data collected via the input module, and in response, transmit an activating signal to actuate one or more of said plurality of sensory devices to activate the sensory events (see the last five lines of [0030]) wherein the synergistic action of two or more sensory stimulations comprise at least two of electrical muscle stimulation, audio, haptic feedback, force feedback, constriction/compression, airflow, temperature stimulation and combinations thereof (see all of para. [0117]).
Stanfield is silent regarding a mapping data collector and mapping data processor in communication with said haptic component; the input module comprising one or more on-body inertial sensors configured to sense at least one of body orientation, heading, posture, or movement of the user; each of said sensory events defining a spatiotemporally sequenced synergistic action; wherein said mapping data collector is configured to i) collect local environment data of an environment proximate the user, including visual data, using one or more local environmental sensing devices, and/or ii) retrieve pre-existing mapping data and wherein said mapping data processor is configured to process at least one of the collected local environmental data and the retrieved pre-existing mapping data to determine i) a safe navigation path for said user from a first point to a second point and ii) at least one of a navigation direction, speed of travel, or safe body position, while circumventing dependence on global navigation satellite systems; wherein the mapping data processor communicates the determined safe navigation path and at least one of navigation direction, speed of travel, or safe body position to the control centre using proprioceptive suggestion language; wherein the control centre causes the wearable haptic component to deliver body-referenced sensory stimulation patterns corresponding to the proprioceptive suggestion language, thereby physically cueing the user during traversal of the environment; wherein said safe body position comprises a body physical orientation including at least one of: crouching, standing, crawling, jumping, twisting, squatting, bending, stepping up, stepping down and raising arms; wherein the wearable haptic navigation system operates in a continuous feedback loop such that sensed body motion and local environmental data are repeatedly processed to update guidance during movement of the user; and wherein said obscured visibility environments include a pitch black environment.
However, it is noted that the “safe body position” is only recited in the alternative (“at least one of a navigation direction, speed of travel, or safe body position” in lines 35-36 of claim 1) and thus the additional details of the safe body position recited in lines 46-48 are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Dayal teaches a related wearable haptic navigation system (necklace 200, Fig. 2, configured to be worn around the neck and extend over the shoulders and chest, see lines 6-14 of [0074] and lines 7-10 of [0113]). The wearable haptic navigation system includes an input module (inertial measurement unit (IMU) 123, Fig. 1A) comprising one or more on-body inertial sensors (“IMU which may further comprise one or more of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer or the like” see para. [0047]) configured to sense at least one of body orientation, heading, posture, or movement of the user (“The IMU sensor is configured to detect inertial measurement data corresponding to a positioning, velocity, or acceleration of the smart necklace” see lines 32-37 of [0009]). The garment including a mapping data collector (sensor array 120 including pair of stereo cameras 121, camera 122, inertial measurement unit 123, global positioning system 124, and light sensor 125, see Fig. 1A; 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, Fig. 2; see the first two sentences of [0047]) and a mapping data processor (processing array 110, including processor 111 and memory 112, Fig. 1A; processor 211, Fig. 2) in communication with a haptic component (the mapping data processor is in communication with the actuators of the wearable device such as interface array 130 and component array 140, Fig. 1A; see para. [0044] and the second sentence of [0103]).
Dayal’s mapping data collector is configured to i) collect local environment data of an environment proximate the user, including visual data, using one or more local environmental sensing devices (via stereo cameras 121/221, and camera 122/222, Fig. 1A, Fig. 2; see lines 10-13 of [0007]), and/or ii) retrieves pre-existing mapping data (see steps 1204, 1205, Fig. 12; see lines 1-10 of [0147] and lines 1-4 of [0148]), and wherein said mapping data processor (111/211) is configured to: process at least one of the collected local environmental data and the retrieved pre-existing mapping data to determine i) a safe navigation path (the necklace’s processor recognizes objects around the user and alerts them in real-time so they can navigate safely around obstacles or hazards, see lines 1-8 of [0054] and lines 1-4 of [0168]. Additionally, the device is able to create a path that excludes non-traversable regions and avoids obstacles, see all of [0167]. Thus, the navigation provided by the necklace will read on a “safe navigation path.” The safe path is created in steps 1408, 1414, 1416, 1418, 1420, 1422, 1424, Fig. 14 when the user is in the “find” mode which can be used to find/navigate to a desired location) for said user from a first point (such as the smart necklace’s current location, see lines 1-4 of [0162]; determined using a map and positioning data, see lines 1-3 of [0163]) to a second point (the desired location i.e., “take me to the exit” see lines 1-6 of [0155] or “navigate to Macy’s” see lines 1-6 of [0158]) and ii) at least one of a navigation direction, speed of travel, or safe body position (the navigation provided by the necklace includes at least a navigation direction as the user is encouraged to follow the navigation path, see Fig. 14; see para. [0169], the vibrations direct/navigate the user to a safe body position and direction by turning them left/right to keep the user on the safe path), while circumventing dependence on global navigation satellite systems (Dayal is able to recognize stairs, exits, restrooms, etc., which a standalone GPS unit would not have enough information to navigate indoors, see the first two sentences of [0060]. See also para. [0165], at least some potential issues associated with GPS are circumnavigated by utilizing additional information such as visual data from the local camera(s)); wherein the mapping data processor communicates the determined safe navigation path and at least one of the navigation direction, speed of travel, or safe body position to the control centre using proprioceptive suggestion language (vibrations are used to help the user navigate along the safe path, see all of [0168]-[0169]. The vibrations suggest at least one of a safe body position, navigation direction and speed of travel to said user as the vibrations direct/navigate the user to a safe body position and direction by turning them left/right to keep the user on the safe path. For example, “may vibrate and/or play a tone on the right to indicate a right turn” see the third to last sentence of [0169]. The directional vibrations are a proprioceptive suggestion language, as they are sensed by the proprioceptive system and suggest a movement/position of the user’s body). Dayal causes a wearable haptic component (vibratory necklace) to deliver body-referenced sensory stimulation patterns corresponding to the proprioceptive suggestion language, thereby physically cueing the user during traversal of the environment (Dayal provides vibrations to the body, to direct/cue the user along the safe navigation path during traversal of the environment, see all of [0168]-[0169]. Note, in the modified device, the control centre of Stanfield controls the actuation of the haptic component). The wearable haptic navigation system (200, Fig. 2) operates in a continuous feedback loop such that sensed body motion and local environmental data are repeatedly processed to update guidance during movement of the user (“obstacle avoidance through real-time feedback” see the first sentence of [0054]; “new map may be continuously updated as new data is detected…” see [0151]; “all instructions may be initially provided to the user and then updated or corrected as the user proceeds along the route” see the second sentence of [0169]). The navigation may include a path through an obscured visibility environment, including a pitch-black environment (sensor 125/225 may be a light sensor to allow the cameras to adjust based on the detected light so the cameras can detect image data in most lighting situations, even during a cloudy or foggy day, see para. [0070]-[0071]. Furthermore, the device may include a night vision camera 122, see para. [0069]. A night vision camera that detects image data “in the dark” reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of a pitch-black environment) This wearable navigational system is helpful to navigate blind individuals and may also be used in other applications such as by law enforcement officers to provide additional environmental awareness or used in hazardous environments to provide additional safety warnings (see all of para. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable system of Stanfield to include on-body inertial sensors, a mapping data collector and mapping data processor configured to provide navigational assistance and enhanced environmental awareness as taught by Dayal so the haptic garment can provide additional benefits of helping individuals navigate environments even during cloudy or foggy days, or in the dark, to provide additional environmental awareness, and additional safety warnings to avoid obstacles or hazards.
The modified Stanfield/Dayal device is silent regarding each of said sensory events defining a spatiotemporally sequenced synergistic action.
Amariei teaches a related wearable device for assisting the movement of a visually impaired user (wearable device 1, Fig. 1) with perceivable stimulation from sensory devices (haptic feedback actuators 41, Fig. 1), which may provide sensory events defining a spatiotemporally sequenced synergistic action (“spatiotemporal haptic cues … have a temporal component combined with a spatial component, namely a pattern that represents the direction in which the visually impaired user must reorient, e.g., from the bottom to the top or from the top to the bottom, or to the right or to the left and so on … outputs vibrations in a predetermined rapid succession, one linear resonant actuator vibrating after another in the direction in which the visually impaired user must reorient” see para. [0534]). Thus, the haptic feedback is provided in a spatiotemporal sequence to clearly indicate which direction the user should move, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these spatiotemporal sequenced stimulations may be exclusively used, if desired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensory events of Stanfield/Dayal to have each sensory event defining a spatiotemporally sequenced synergistic action as taught by Amariei because this is demonstrated to be a useful stimulation pattern to clearly indicate a navigation direction to a user.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses wherein said mapping data collector is selected from the group consisting of a) LiDAR; b) Radar; c) Sonar; d) Camera; e) environmental sensor; f) high-definition(HD) map; g) Inertial sensor; h) Echosounder; i) visible light; j) Ultra-wideband; k) Ultrasonic; I) Pseudolite; m) Wireless fidelity; n) Bluetooth low energy; o) Visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (vSLAM); p) Infrared; q) Thermal; r) Low Frequency Magnetic Waves; s) communication system including global navigation satellite system (GNSS), assist in mapping, positioning, localization and navigation which help to determine distance speed, positioning and route guidance; and combinations thereof (Dayal’s mapping data collector include at least: cameras 121/221, 122, 222, an inertial sensor 123, 223, and a visible light sensor 125, 225, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses wherein said mapping data collector (sensor array 120, Fig. 1A of Dayal), said mapping data processor (111, 211, Figs. 1A-2 of Dayal) and said haptic component (wearable garment of Stanfield including the control centre and actuators, as modified by Dayal/Amariei) are in communication with each other via a wired, wireless and combinations thereof communication system (Dayal’s mapping components are in communication via wired communication such as via the processor, and able to communicate with a data bus, power line, or other electrical connections see the penultimate sentence of [0107]. But Dayal is also configured to communicate wirelessly via antenna 142, Fig. 1A; see the third sentence of [0051] and see the last sentence of [0107]. Additionally, Stanfield’s wearable haptic component includes both wires and wireless communication see para. [0112] and the first two sentences of [0126]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses wherein said wired, wireless and combinations thereof communication system is a wireless communication system selected from the group consisting of BluetoothTM, Wifi, radio, satellite, mobile, wireless network, infrared, microwave, GPS, ZigBee and combinations thereof (see para. [0112] of Stanfield, and see para. [0051] of Dayal).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses wherein said mapping data collector (sensor array 120 including pair of stereo cameras 121/221, camera 122/222, inertial measurement unit 123/223, global positioning system 124/224, and light sensor 125/225, see Fig. 1A, Fig. 2 of Dayal) and said mapping data processor (111/211, Fig. 1A, Fig. 2 of Dayal) further collects data of a local environment proximate said user creating a map of known wayfinding points (“capture” mode 1310, Fig. 13; Figs. 20-21, see all of para. [0097] “capture mode may allow the smart necklace 200 to store its current position in the memory 112 so that it can guide the user back to the same location at a later time … stores the position information (and possible any obstacles that may arise”, see also para. [0225] and [0232]-[0235]. The user captures known wayfinding points such as a restroom and a seat. See also the second sentence of [0060], the smart device recognizes wayfinding points such as stairs, exits, restrooms, and stores them in memory) and sends said known wayfinding points to the haptic component directing the user to an egress location and/or point (the capture mode allows the wearable haptic component to direct the user to a point such as the restroom in the example referred to in para. [0232]-[0235] of Dayal).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses wherein said wearable haptic navigation system circumvents localization issues associated with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) (the modified device is able to recognize stairs, exits, restrooms, etc., which a standalone GPS unit would not have enough information to navigate indoors, see the first two sentences of [0060] of Dayal. See also para. [0165] of Dayal, at least some potential issues associated with GPS are circumnavigated by utilizing additional information such as visual data from the camera(s)).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses wherein said wearable haptic navigation system provides physical directions (providing the vibrational cues to indicate turns is considered a physical direction, see para. [0169] of Dayal; additionally, Amariei provides physical directions by spatiotemporally sequenced vibration) to said user in a continuous direction output (vibration may be provided to indicate the start of a turn and continue to vibrate until the turn is complete, see lines 5-11 of [0062] of Dayal. Thus, the physical direction of this turn is provided with a continuous direction output).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device (see the claim 1 rejection statement above, incorporated herein) discloses a method of guiding a visibly challenged user (Dayal discloses the device being used to guide a blind or visually impaired user, see the first sentence of [0040], and Amariei is used for a visually challenged user, see title) and/or a user in an environment with obscured visibility including a pitch black environment (Dayal discloses the device cameras can be adjust based on the detected light so the cameras can detect image data in most lighting situations, even during a cloudy or foggy day, see para. [0070]-[0071], and may include night vision cameras 122, see para. [0069]), along a safe egress path and in a safe body position (the “Find” mode in Figs. 13-14, and the “Capture” mode in Figs. 20-21 of Dayal will each guide a visibly challenged user along a safe egress path. For example, “take me to the exit” see lines 1-6 of [0155]. Dayal’s necklace recognizes objects around the user and alerts them in real-time so they can navigate safely around obstacles or hazards, see lines 1-8 of [0054] and lines 1-4 of [0168]. Additionally, the device is able to create a path that excludes non-traversable regions and avoids obstacles, see all of [0167]. Thus, the navigation provided by the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device will read on a “safe egress path”. The safe path is created in steps 1408, 1414, 1416, 1418, 1420, 1422, 1424, Fig. 14 when the user is in the “find” mode which can be used to find/navigate to the desired location. Additionally, a safe path is created in the “capture” mode as described in Figs. 20-21 and para. [0097], [0225] and [0232]-[0235] of Dayal. Furthermore, any body position will be a “safe body position” because the user is travelling the safe path and being alerted of objects around them in real-time so they can navigate safely around obstacles/hazards), said method comprising the visibly challenged user and/or user in an environment with obscured visibility wear of the wearable haptic navigation system of claim 1 (see the claim 1 rejection statement above, incorporated herein. The user wears the wearable haptic navigation system).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method discloses further comprising: a) collecting data of a path travelled by said user (see para. [0225] and Fig. 20 of Dayal), said data collected by said mapping data collector (the wearable garment of the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device is equipped with the mapping data collector); b) creating a travelled path from the data collected by said mapping data processor (see the path(s) 2110, 2112, 2114, 2118. Fig. 21 of Dayal; see also para. [0233] of Dayal); c) storing the travelled path (see para. [0235] of Dayal); d) determining the safe egress path and the safe body position from the stored travelled path (the paths 2110, 2112, 2114, 2118, Fig. 21, are determined to be safe path and safe body position because the device recognizes objects around the user and alerts them in real-time so they can navigate safely around obstacles or hazards, see lines 1-8 of [0054] and lines 1-4 of [0168] of Dayal. Additionally, the device is able to create a path that excludes non-traversable regions and avoids obstacles, see all of [0167] of Dayal. Furthermore, any body position will be a “safe body position” because the user is travelling the safe path and being alerted of objects around them in real-time so they can navigate safely around obstacles/hazards); and e) communicating the safe egress path and the safe body position to the haptic component worn by said user (the wearable haptic garment of the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device), by the proprioceptive suggestive language translated to haptic signals (signals associated with providing the navigational instructions and vibrations) on the haptic component urging the user to the safe egress path and the safe body position (the user is provided with safe navigation instructions using for example, vibrations, see all of [0168]-[0169] of Dayal; see also the spatiotemporally sequenced navigation signals provided by Amariei).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses wherein said haptic signals comprise directional commands (vibration may be provided to indicate the start of a turn and continue to vibrate until the turn is complete, see lines 5-11 of [0062] of Dayal. Additionally, see para. [0534] of Amariei), safe body position commands (the vibration may be used to keep the user on the designated path, which is safe, see the last sentence of [0169] of Dayal. Thus, the navigational commands that cause the user to avoid obstacles and/or stay on the path are safe body position commands), velocity commands (Amariei discloses varying the vibration pattern to be “proportional to the speed that the visually impaired user should have when navigating” see the last sentence of [0807], and note that the spatiotemporal vibration already also indicates a direction) and combinations thereof (directional commands, safe body position commands, and the velocity commands are provided).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method further comprises f) collecting data of at least two users in said environment (multiple smart devices may be utilized and aggregate data to create a cloud accessible map of the environment, see para. [0150] of Dayal).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method discloses communicating the safe egress path and the safe body position to multiple users in the environment (the modified method provides audible directions via speaker 132, Fig. 1A, 232, Fig. 2, such as “turn to your right, proceed 20 yards, turn to your left” see para. [0169]. This provides verbal cues, similar to a car GPS navigation command, see the second sentence of [0170] of Dayal, Multiple users may naturally be in the environment and thus within hearing distance of these instructions).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (2016/0317383) in view of Dayal et al. (2015/0196101) and Amariei et al. (2022/0282985) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bell et al. (2020/0064141) and Zimon et al. (11,079,249).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device discloses that smartphones, tablets, or other mobile devices may wirelessly connect to the smart device for shared resources and processing (see the second and third sentences of [0053] of Dayal), but is silent regarding said mapping data collector is a personal two-way communication device.
Bell teaches a related wearable haptic navigational aid (garment 202, Fig. 2) where the mapping data collector may be a personal two-way communication device (the cameras 206a, 206b, Fig. 2, may send images to the user’s mobile phone 220, Fig. 2, to have the phone perform object detection and/or recognition, see lines 1-11 of [0040]. Since the phone 220 is part of the mapping data collector, the mapping data collector is a personal two-way communication device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mapping data collector of Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei to include a mobile phone as taught by Bell so the wearable garment can utilize the processor and camera(s) already traveling with many users, such as their personal smart phone, instead of requiring the use of a separate processor and camera to detect/recognize objects.
The modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei/Bell device discloses using a mobile phone (personal two-way communication device) as part of the mapping data collector, but does not specifically state the mobile phone is equipped with LiDAR.
Zimon teaches a related haptic navigation device (Fig. 2A) that uses a smart phone as part of a mapping data collector, and the smart phone is equipped with LiDAR (see col. 6, lines 57-60. The smartphone has a camera and LiDAR sensors that are used as input to calculate navigational guidance signals). LiDAR provides an expected result of measuring distances and determining objects within an environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile phone of the mapping data collector of Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei/Bell to be a smartphone equipped with LiDAR as taught by Zimon so the LiDAR can be used to further understand and map the surrounding environment.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (2016/0317383) in view of Dayal et al. (2015/0196101) and Amariei et al. (2022/0282985) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rizzo (WO 2014/066516 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method discloses using the device in law enforcement with the user wearing and using the wearable haptic navigation system (see the second sentence of [0067] of Dayal, and the claim 1 rejection statement above. The wearable haptic navigation system is worn by the user. Additionally, Gabbay states the wearable navigation system is used for military, see col. 2, line 66 through col. 3, line 2) but is silent regarding emergency medical services and firefighting.
Rizzo teaches a related somatosensory feedback garment (Figs. 7-10) that helps a wearer sense objects in their environment via tactile input, which is useful for military, police, firefighters, first responders, etc. (see lines 1-6 of [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method to also be worn and used for emergency medical services and firefighting as taught by Rizzo because these areas would also benefit from helping the wearer sense objects in their environment, when worn.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (2016/0317383) in view of Dayal et al. (2015/0196101) and Amariei et al. (2022/0282985) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daniels (2017/0358235).
Regarding claim 15, the Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method discloses a user wearing and using the wearable haptic navigation system (see the claim 1 rejection statement above. The wearable haptic navigation system is worn by the user), but is silent regarding use in actual flight, and flight simulation.
Daniels teaches a related haptic, auditory, and visual stimulation system (Figs. 1-4) for actual drone flight (see para. [0118]) and to help train pilots as part of flight simulation (see the last sentence of [0120] and all of para. [0121]) by being worn.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wear and use the wearable haptic garment of Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method as part of actual flight and flight simulation as taught by Daniels so the haptic feedback of the method can be used for training purposes.
Regarding claim 16, the Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method discloses a user wearing and using the wearable haptic navigation system (see the claim 1 rejection statement above. The wearable haptic navigation system is worn by the user), but is silent regarding being in combination with a flight simulation system via a sensory stimulation flight simulator interface connecting the flight simulation system to the wearable haptic navigation system.
Daniels teaches a related haptic, auditory, and visual stimulation system (Figs. 1-4) that is worn and used in combination with (and the electrical and/or physical connection between the stimulation system and the flight simulator is a sensory stimulation flight simulator interface) a flight simulation system (see para. [0120]-[0121]) to help train pilots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method to be in combination with a flight simulation system via a sensory stimulation flight simulator interface connecting the flight simulation system to the wearable haptic navigation system as taught by Daniels so the wearable haptic garment can be used to help train pilots.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (2016/0317383) in view of Dayal et al. (2015/0196101) and Amariei et al. (2022/0282985) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daniels (2023/0214022) (hereinafter “Daniels ‘022”) and Müller (WO 2017/009406 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device is silent regarding being in communication with a flight simulator, wherein said flight simulator further comprises a telemetry collection module, a flight training device, and a sensory stimulation flight simulator interface software, said telemetry collection module collects and stores flight simulation telemetry for at least one of: i) analysis and/or injection into virtual reality/augmented reality training simulation modules; ii) processing said flight simulation telemetry in real time; and iii) interface protocol conversion between said flight training device and said sensory stimulation flight simulator interface software.
Daniels ‘022 teaches a related tactile feedback garment (Fig. 16; para. [0156]) that is in communication with a flight simulator (“a multi-sensory, virtual reality, drone interface isolates a pilot from ambient distractions and immerses the pilot in computer-controlled and synchronized auditory, visual and haptic stimulation enabling intuitive remote controlled flight”, see para. [0112] and “sensory cues replicate and/or augment the tactile, visual and audio sensations experienced during the control of an actual drone flight. An enchanted flight simulator is obtained where the student pilot experiences the visual and audio information associated with the control of the drone, with the addition of haptic sensations that create the muscle-memory necessary for a learned action to quickly become an instinctive response” see para. [0126]) having a flight training device (“joystick, buttons and/or other controllers of the remote controller used to perform the event of actually or virtually flying the drone” see para. [0150]). The system includes a sensory stimulation flight simulator interface software (the software and/or instructions that control the actuation of the haptic stimulation, for example “The collected data can be from an actual events made from a real world action, such as for controlling a drone flight or for human/human interaction, or the collected data can be determined from a computer program code, or a combination of real world collected data and computer-generated data, so that data sets of a sequence of sensory activity can be generated during a remote-control activity, entertainment experience, and/or a learning session.” See para. [0193]). This helps create an accelerated learning mode (see the last sentence of [0126] and para. [0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable device of Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei to be in communication with a flight simulator with a flight training device as taught by Daniels ‘022 so the haptic sensations of the garment can be used to help create an accelerated learning mode for training pilots.
The modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei/Daniels ‘022 device is still silent regarding the flight simulator further comprises a telemetry collection module that collects and stores flight simulation telemetry for at least one of: i) analysis and/or injection into virtual reality/augmented reality training simulation modules; ii) processing said flight simulation telemetry in real time; and iii) interface protocol conversion between said flight training device and said sensory stimulation flight simulator interface software.
Müller teaches a related haptic remote control system (Fig. 6) for real or virtual flight training (see Abstract and the aircraft object 5 in Fig. 6) comprising a telemetry collection module (telemetry unit 51 with telemetry sensor 510, Fig. 6) that collects and stores flight simulation telemetry (“current operating data such as altitude, airspeed, rotor speed … can capture and spark via a telemetry transmitter 511 to the remote control 1 of the operator B” see page 12, the second paragraph of the English translation) for at least one of: i) analysis and/or injection into virtual reality/augmented reality training simulation modules (“such telemetry data is communicated to an operator B visually or by voice” see page 12, the second paragraph of the English translation); and ii) processing said flight simulation telemetry in real time (the telemetry data is processed in real time in order for the operator to visually see or hear the “current operating data”, see page 12, the second paragraph of the English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight simulator of Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei/Daniels ‘022 to include a telemetry collection module that collects and stores flight simulation telemetry as taught by Müller so the pilot or trainee can operate the drone or simulation based upon the sensed current operating data.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (2016/0317383) in view of Dayal et al. (2015/0196101) and Amariei et al. (2022/0282985) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gabbay (10,636,261).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei method discloses further comprising: a) creating a traversed path from the visual data of the path traversed collected by said mapping data processor (see the path(s) 2110, 2112, 2114, 2118. Fig. 21 of Dayal; see also para. [0233] of Dayal); b) storing the traversed path (see para. [0235] of Dayal); c) determining the safe egress path and the safe body position from the stored traversed path (the paths 2110, 2112, 2114, 2118, Fig. 21, are determined to be safe path and/or safe body position because the device recognizes objects around the user and alerts them in real-time so they can navigate safely around obstacles or hazards, see lines 1-8 of [0054] and lines 1-4 of [0168] of Dayal. Additionally, the device is able to create a path that excludes non-traversable regions and avoids obstacles, see all of [0167] of Dayal. Furthermore, any body position will be a “safe body position” because the user is travelling the safe path and being alerted of objects around them in real-time so they can navigate safely around obstacles/hazards); and d) communicating the safe egress path and the safe body position to the haptic component worn by said user (the wearable haptic garment of the modified Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei device), by the proprioceptive suggestive language translated to haptic signals (signals associated with providing the navigational instructions and vibrations) on the haptic component urging the user to the safe egress path and the safe body position (the user is provided with safe navigation instructions using for example, vibrations, see all of [0168]-[0169] of Dayal).
The modified method is silent regarding wherein said safe body position comprises a body physical orientation including at least one of crouching, standing, crawling, jumping, twisting, squatting, bending, stepping up, stepping down and raising arms.
Gabbay teaches a related garment (garment 1702, Fig. 17) to provide tactile instructions for navigation (via tactile device 1710, Fig. 17; see the Abstract and col. 20, lines 10-23). Gabbay provides proprioceptive suggestion language (via micro-vibrators such as 202, 206, 210, 214, 218, 222, 226, Fig. 2B) suggesting a safe body position including at least crouching, crawling (“set of distinguishable tactile instructions are directional instructions selected from, move forwards, move backwards, move right, move left, stop moving and start moving, crouch, prone, stop, SOS and combinations thereof” see col. 7, lines 17-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the haptic component of Stanfield/Dayal/Amariei to additionally provide proprioceptive suggestion language that suggests a safe body position including crouching, crawling as taught by Gabbay so the user can receive more detailed instructions and thereby experience a safer passage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Dayal is fundamentally limited to a neck-worn smart necklace and does not teach the claimed garment-scale system, with mapping data collectors and processors that are distributed across a wearable garment (see the second paragraph of page 15 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The primary reference Stanfield already discloses a garment (garment 14, Fig. 13a) covering at least one of i) a front and back torso and shoulders of the user, ii) abdomen and lower back of the user, iii) arms of the user, iv) legs of the user, and v) combinations thereof (see Figs. 13a-13b, the garment 14 is a long-sleeved shirt and covers at least a front and back torso and shoulders of the user. Abdomen and lower back of the user, and arms of the user. Additionally, the Fig. 13c embodiment “includes the entire body; the entire torso including the arms and waist, the lower body including the hips, upper and lower legs” see para. [0088]). When Dayal is combined with Stanfield, the mapping data collector (i.e., cameras and sensors) and mapping data processor of Dayal are merely incorporated into Stanfield’s garment. Stanfield’s garment has not been replaced by Dayal’s necklace.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “mapping data collectors and processors that are distributed across a wearable garment, including front, rear, upper-body, mid-body, and lower-body regions”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument that Dayal is focused on sensing and interpreting body movement above the shoulders, with data collection tied to head and neck motion, while the present invention explicitly collects on-body inertial and positional data from the entire torso and lower body, including lower-body muscle groups, to determine posture, gait, orientation and movement (see the penultimate paragraph of page 15 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., collecting “on-body inertial and positional data from the entire torso and lower body, including lower-body muscle groups, to determine posture, gait, orientation and movement”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument that Dayal does not teach or suggest (1) generating proprioceptive suggestion language that physically cues or assists posture and gait using modalities such as electrical muscle stimulation, force feedback, construction, or compression; (2) delivering such outputs as spatiotemporally sequenced, multi-modal sensory patterns tied to a computed navigation vector; (3) operating within a continuous feedback loop in which sensed body motion and environmental data are repeatedly processed to update guidance during movement; or (4) enforcing perceptual-salience thresholds that objectively bound stimulation intensity and timing (see the last paragraph of page 15 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 16), this argument is not persuasive. These limitations are not recited in the claims. It is reiterated that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that Gabbay does not address the deficiencies of Stanfield/Dayal, and that even if combined, the resulting system would still lack the claimed mapping-driven generation of proprioceptive signals and the delivery of closed-loop, multi-modal, threshold-bounded actuation patterns that physically cue and assist movement and posture in GPS-denied or obscured-visibility environments, mapping data collection and processing to compute safe paths and body positions, proprioceptive suggestion language for navigation and posture, garment-based multi-modal actuation across torso and lower-body regions, and stored user-specific sensation thresholds that bound intensity and timing (see the second and third paragraphs of page 16 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. First, it is noted that Gabbay is no longer relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 and thus the argument is moot with respect to claim 1. Second, many of the argued features are not recited in the claims. It is reiterated that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that the mobile phone of Bell is an off-board or adjunct processor, rather than being the mapping data collector itself (see the last paragraph of page 17 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The location of the mapping data collector is not recited in the claims.
Regarding the argument that Zimon does not teach the personal device as the mapping data collector that participates in a GPS-independent, closed-loop exchange with a wearable garment to generate and deliver spatiotemporally sequenced, multi-modal proprioceptive actuation patterns that physically cue posture and movement … (see the second paragraph of page 18 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Zimon was not relied upon for all of these features, as Stanfield/Dayal already disclose a majority of the referenced features. Zimon was merely relied upon to teach that a user’s smart phone may have a camera and LiDAR sensors that are used as input to calculate navigational guidance signals, and thus operate as part of a mapping data collector.
Regarding the argument that Rizzo’s does not disclose (i) a garment-scale actuator array spanning the torso and lower body that executes spatiotemporally sequenced, multi-modal patterns … (ii) stored perceptual-salience thresholds that bound stimulation intensity and timing; or (iii) a feedback-driven control loop that continuously adapts guidance based on on-body pose and local-environment sensing when GPS is unavailable (see the last two paragraphs of page 19 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Rizzo was not relied upon for these features. Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “stored perceptual-salience thresholds that bound stimulation intensity and timing” and “feedback-driven control loop that continuously adapts guidance based on on-body pose and local-environment sensing when GPS is unavailable”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument that neither Rizzo nor the combination of Stanfield, Dayal, and Gabbay teaches or suggests the required three-way communication among (a) the mapping data collector, (b) the mapping data processor, and (c) the wearable garment that performs proprioceptive actuation with feedback (see the second paragraph of page 20 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Dayal clearly discloses this three-way communication. Dayal’s necklace has a mapping data collector (sensor array 120 including pair of stereo cameras 121, camera 122, inertial measurement unit 123, global positioning system 124, and light sensor 125, see Fig. 1A; 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, Fig. 2; see the first two sentences of [0047]) and a mapping data processor (processing array 110, including processor 111 and memory 112, Fig. 1A; processor 211, Fig. 2) in communication with a garment that provides proprioceptive actuation with feedback (the mapping data processor is in communication with the actuators of the wearable device such as interface array 130 and component array 140, Fig. 1A; see para. [0044] and the second sentence of [0103], to provide stimulation feedback to help navigate the user).
Regarding the argument that claim 14 further requires body-anchored spatial addressing across torso and lower-body zones in a consistent 360˚ reference frame, with outputs that physically cue or assist posture and movement under perceptual-salience thresholds and are adaptively updated from pose and environmental feedback … and Rizzo does not explain how to re-engineer the cited systems to operate in the claimed GPS-independent closed loop using on-body pose and local-environment data, and drive garment-scale proprioceptive patterns … (see the penultimate paragraph of page 20 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Claim 14 does not recite any of these features. Instead, claim 14 merely has someone wear the device of claim 1, and broadly “use” it in law enforcement, emergency medical services, military and firefighting.
Regarding the argument that Daniels does not disclose (i) a mapping data collector and mapping data processor that compute a navigation vector or safe egress path independent of GPS, a garment-scale actuator array spanning the torso and lower body, proprioceptive outputs such as electrical muscle stimulation … or a closed-loop feedback architecture that continuously adapts actuation based on on-body pose and local-environment sensing (see the second paragraph of page 22 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Daniels was not relied upon to teach any of these features. Furthermore, it is noted that many of these features are not recited in the claims, at least in the manner referred to by Applicant. It is reiterated that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that Daniels does not teach the claimed three-way communication among a mapping data collector, a mapping data processor, and a wearable garment that executes mapping-derived guidance commands (see the penultimate paragraph of page 22 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Dayal already discloses three-way communication among a mapping data collector, a mapping data processor, and a wearable garment.
Regarding the argument that Daniels’ tactile cues are limited to vibration delivered to fingers or hands and do not urge or assist posture or gait across torso and lower-body zones, nor involve multi-modal scheduling bounded by stores salience thresholds as recited in the claims (see the last paragraph of page 22 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. These features are not recited in the claims.
Regarding the argument that Daniels ‘022 does not disclose (i) a mapping data collector and mapping data processor that fuse on-body pose with local-environment data to compute a user-centered navigation vector in GPS-denied conditions; (ii) translating such a navigation vector into proprioceptive, multi-modal garment actuation for safe egress or safe body positioning; or (iii) selection and execution of such actuation under stored perceptual-salience thresholds in a closed feedback loop (see the first paragraph of page 24 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Many of these features are not recited in the claims. To any extent that the features are recited (such as the mapping data collector and mapping data processor), they are disclosed by Dayal.
Regarding the argument that Muller does not teach a garment that receives mapping-derived navigation directives to produce proprioceptive guidance for a wearer, nor the collector, processor, garment triad (see the penultimate paragraph of page 24 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Muller was not relied upon for these features.
Regarding the argument that even when combined, Stanfield, Daniels ‘022, and Muller fail to teach the claimed system (see the last paragraph of page 24, through the first paragraph of page 25 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The current rejection(s) additionally include Dayal, and disclose the actual claim limitations as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gabriel et al. (2023/0236017) discloses a related wearable garment to transmit stimuli to help navigate a user, such as a firefighter, through an obscured environment. Sisbot et al. (9,517,175) discloses a related wearable garment that provides tactile stimulation to navigate a user who is visually impaired or in a smoky building, etc. Schwarz et al. (2018/0036531) discloses a related device to transmit stimulation to a user to help navigate them through an environment.
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 CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights