DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s amendment filed 9/22/2025, claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over De Sapio et al. (US 10,532,000) in view of Jacobson et al. (US 2016/0175646).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 19-20, De Sapio discloses a system which tracks a joint with sensors, comprising rotational movement between the joint and a housing socket. See See col. 10: 16-20. De Sapio discloses wherein the system can control motion resistance through various ranges in col.9: 18-28. Cavanagh does not disclose magnetic sensory scheme with magnetic elements including magnetometers and magnets (claims 12-13). However, this manner of motion sensing is well-established, as is disclosed by Jacobson in paragraph 0093. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider this with the Cavanagh system, in order to effectively sense positions of the components.
Claims 1-4 and 10-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavanagh (US 2015/0045700) in view of Jacobson et al. (US 2016/0175646) and Conner (US 2016/0338644).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12-13, Cavanagh discloses a joint mechanism for sensing movement of a human joint. See paragraphs 0012. See figure 1D and note the two pieces of the mechanisms labeled 110 and 120, which are separated by the middle piece 130. The system senses the movement of the mechanisms with respect to each other regarding positions and angles, as described in paragraph 0018, but there is no teaching of displaying these positions as an avatar (avatar as per claim 10). However, this concept is well-established with regard to motion systems, as is disclosed by the system of Conner in paragraph 0201. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Cavanagh system, in order to provide motion feedback. Cavanagh does not disclose magnetic sensory scheme with magnetic elements including magnetometers and magnets (claims 12-13). However, this manner of motion sensing is well-established, as is disclosed by Jacobson in paragraph 0093. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider this with the Cavanagh system, in order to effectively sense positions of the components.
Regarding claim 2, Cavanagh discloses wherein the movement sensors generate signals in response to being near the movable components. See paragraph 0016.
Regarding claim 3, Cavanagh discloses wherein the system comprises multiple pieces with sensed relative motion between them. See paragraph 0016. The display of the motion would be obvious as described above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Cavanagh does not disclose wherein the system performs a sweep to correlate movements and signals and motion, but this calibration concept is established, as is disclosed by the system of Conner in paragraph 0180. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Cavanagh system, in order to provide accurate motion sensing.
Regarding claim 11, Cavanagh discloses sensing tilt angle in paragraph 0018.
Regarding claim 14, the use of signal averages would be obvious in view of Connor as disclosed above with regard to claim 9.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavanagh (US 2015/0045700) in view of Jacobson et al. (US 2016/0175646) and Conner US 2016/0338644) and Cote et al. (US 2013/0321674).
Regarding claim 5, Cavanagh does not disclose sensing at a domain boundary. However, such signal processing schemes are well-established in electronics. Consider for example by the the system of Cotes in paragraph 0291. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider these sensory schemes with Cavanagh, in order to reasonably provide the various data signals.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavanagh (US 2015/0045700) in view of Conner (US 2016/0338644) and Jacobson et al. (US 2016/0175646) and Yamanaka et al. (US 2015/0301075).
Regarding claim 6, Cavanagh does not disclose suppressing saturated signals. However, such signal processing schemes are well-established in electronics. Consider for example the system of Yamanaka in paragraph 0155. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider these sensory schemes with the Cavanagh system, in order to reduce error in the data signals.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavanagh (US 2015/0045700) in view of and Conner (US 2016/0338644) and Jacobson et al. (US 2016/0175646) and Kallman et al. (US 2014/0287389).
Regarding claims 7-9, Conner discloses weighted averages of the sensed data for error reduction in paragraph 0477, but does disclose motion vectors. However, these processing concepts are well-established with regard to motion systems, as the motion system of Kallman discloses vectors in paragraph 0216. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider using averages and vectors for analysis with the Cavanagh system, in order to provide convenient and error reduced motion data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 21 are considered allowable, as the prior art does not teach the claimed details.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Peter Vasat, can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715