DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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) 1-10, 18-23, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig et al (US 2019/0175076) in view of Raipure et al (with reliance on The Effects of Nintendo Wii Fit on Postural Balance Control Training in the Geriatric Population: A Review - PMC).
Re claim 1, Lustig discloses a system comprising: an information processing apparatus (fig. 6, 602); a control device (fig. 6, 600); one or more sensors configured to generate sensor data indicating a weight distribution of a user (fig. 1, 110 and fig. 3, 300); circuitry configured determine, using the sensor data generated by the one or more sensors, a change of the weight distribution of the user (fig. 6, 600 and fig. 3); and one or more feedback devices configured to provide feedback related to the posture of the user (fig. 5).
However, Lustig does not explicitly disclose enabling interaction of a user with an information processing apparatus through operation of a control device. Raipure teaches and describes operation of various control devices, such as the Nintendo Wii Fit and Wii Balance Board, which enable users to interact with a Nintendo Wii utilizing a board that detects movements in the pressure center and analyzes the weight and force imparted to it (see section Review, Nintendo Wii Fit). Similarly, the Wii Balance board has four pressure sensors showing the position of the feet, distribution of weight, and shift of the center of mass. By using the Balance Board to play games, users are able to increase their physical activity level while enjoying a game played on the Nintendo Wii.
It would have been obvious to combine the sensors of Lustig and utilize the sensor data to control aspects of a game as taught by Raipure and Wii Fit in order to provide a portable and affordable posturography system to track advancements or deterioration in one's postural stability and providing an alternative to indoor exercise and offer older adults a safer practice than outdoor exercise.
Re claim 2, Lustig discloses providing at least one of a visual, textual, aural, and/or haptic feedback to the user (par. [0007]).
Re claim 3, Lustig discloses an intensity of the feedback is increased when a change in weight distribution of the user is below a threshold value a predetermined time after the feedback has been provided to the user ([0045], the vibration motor can be configured to vibrate intermittently for 3 seconds to relay one message, or continuously for 3 seconds to relay another message, haptic notifications for left or right-handed posture changes, with a long vibration used to prompt the user to stand up after a determination of a length sit session is determined, therefore an increased intensity feedback when the user has not changed their weight distribution for a while due to sitting for a period of time).
Re claim 4, Lustig discloses providing feedback when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the condition including that the change in weight distribution of the user exceeds a threshold value ([0045], sensors detect whether the user is tilting excessively to one side, therefore their change in weight distribution is exceeding a threshold value on that side).
Re claim 5, Lustig discloses the predetermined condition is a condition that a change in the weight distribution of the user has not exceeded a threshold value for a predetermined period of time ([0045], based on whether the user is putting excessive pressure on the left or right side, a notification is sent, therefore on a left-handed notification, the weight distribution of the user on the right side will be beneath a threshold value).
Re claim 6, Lustig discloses providing feedback when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition including that the weight distribution of the user, as changed, corresponds to a predetermined weight distribution ([0045], vibrations may be caused when the user correctly corrects their posture, therefore their weight distribution corresponds to a predetermined, i.e. correct, weight distribution).
Re claim 7, Lustig discloses a prompt for the user to change their weight distribution ([0045]).
Re claim 8, Lustig discloses textual instruction instructing the user how to change their weight distribution ([0049], the system sends text messages to a mobile device).
Re claim 9, Lustig discloses the prompt instructs the user to restore their weight distribution to a predetermined correct weight distribution ([0046]).
Re claim 10, Lustig discloses providing feedback when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition including that the weight distribution of the user corresponds to a predetermined posture ([0045] and [0046]).
Re claim 18, Lustig discloses an entertainment system (figs. 7A-7F, wherein a smartphone is considered an entertainment system).
Re claim 19, Lustig discloses monitoring the weight distribution of the user as the user consumes media content (figs. 7A-7F, the system is monitoring the user’s weight distribution on the chair while the user consumes the media content being presented on their smartphone screen).
Re claim 20, see the rejection to claim 1. Lustig discloses a seat (fig. 1A).
Re claim 21, Lustig discloses a seat pad, leg, wheel (figs. 1A-1B).
Re claims 22-23, see the above rejections, mutatis mutandis.
Re claim 25, Lustig discloses data indicating a position of the control device (fig. 3, 300 and 310).
Re claims 26-27, while the chair of Lustig could broadly be construed as handheld, for the sake of completeness, Raipure again teaches that Wii Fit can be interacted with a variety of control methods, including portable/wearable handheld controllers (“A gaming console, a balance board, and a wireless handheld pointing device with built-in sensors are all included with Wii Fit,” with a handheld pointing device being considered wearable), with the Balance Board itself being considered portable, as stated by Raipure: “The Nintendo Wii Fit Balance Board can be considered a portable and affordable posturography system to track advancements or deterioration in one's postural stability.”
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig in view of Raipure as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Rosenblood (US 2019/0246955).
Re claim 13, Rosenblood teaches input from an auxiliary or entertainment device ([0061], users input their information through an auxiliary device).
Re claim 14, Rosenblood teaches generating a user feedback to instruct the user to user the device with a predetermined posture and calibrate the sensors in accordance with the weight distribution of the user when the user occupies the predetermined posture ([0064]).
Re claim 15, Lustig discloses the one or more sensors are configured to sense a weight distribution in at least two dimensions ([0044]); the one or more sensors comprise a two-dimensional array of sensors (figs. 1A and 1B illustrating an array of sensors 110 and 120); the one or more sensors are located underneath a surface of the device on which the user is positioned in use (figs. 1A-B and [0059] to [0060]); the one or more sensors comprise one or more sensors which are movable with respect to the input device ([0060], the sensors may be placed in a plurality of positions, therefore are movable); the one or more sensors comprise one or more force/pressure sensors ([0061], sensor matrix 120); and the sensors comprise pressure sensors ([0061], the sensors are any type of sensor capable of sensing pressure).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig in view of Raipure as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Crawford et al (US 2014/0309035).
Re claim 17, Lustig does not disclose actuators that change the position or orientation of the device in response to the feedback provided to the user. Crawford teaches a system wherein actuators control the positioning of a seat based on feedback received (fig. 1 and [0008]). It would have been obvious to implement the actuators of Crawford with the ergonomics system of Lustig in order to provide a way to automatically adjust the user’s seat via actuators without requiring the user to manually adjust their seat, further improving the efficacy of the ergonomics system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights