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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the intensity" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the one or more sensors comprise one or more force sensors” in e., and “the one or more sensors comprise one or more pressure sensors in f. It is unclear whether the force sensors are meant to be the same sensors as the pressure sensors or different sets of sensors. It is therefore also unclear whether the pressure sensors are meant to be a type of force sensor, or both types of sensors must be present.
The Examiner will assume that there is only a single set of sensors implemented as pressure sensors (which the Examiner considers a type of force) until further clarification and correction can be provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Lustig et al (US 2019/0175076).
Re claim 1, Lustig discloses a system comprising: one or more sensors configured to sense a weight distribution of a user (fig. 1, 110); circuitry configured to analyze a change of weight distribution of the user (fig. 6, 600); and one or more feedback devices configured to provide feedback related to the posture of the user when the change in weight distribution of the user satisfies a predetermined condition (fig. 5).
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 the 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 the predetermined condition is a condition 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 the predetermined condition is a condition 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 the feedback is to prompt 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 is to restore their weight distribution to a predetermined correct weight distribution ([0046]).
Re claim 10, Lustig discloses the predetermined condition is a condition that the weight distribution of the user corresponds to a predetermined posture ([0045] and [0046]).
Re claim 16, Lustig discloses a plurality of haptic feedback devices ([0045] discloses a left and right motor).
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.
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) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig in view of Rosenblood (US 2019/0246955).
Re claim 11, while Lustig discloses wearable devices ([0049]), Lustig does not explicitly disclose determining the posture of the user from data from the wearable device. Rosenblood teaches a posture improvement system utilizing a wearable device which is used to determine the posture of the user in order to provide recommendations for improving said posture (see [0043] to [0046]).
It would have been obvious to supplement the weight distribution sensors of Lustig with the wearable sensors of Rosenblood in order to increase the accuracy and usefulness of the posture system, enabling better recommendations for the user to improve their posture.
Re claim 12, Lustig does not disclose detecting a change of user positioned on the device and calibrating the sensors in accordance. Rosenblood teaches a posture improvement system wherein users are able to set up and calibrate the system by providing basic information ([0061], [0076], and [0086], the user calibrates the posture system with height and weight information and the system supports user profiles). Therefore, whenever the user of the system changes, the new user would be able to provide their information to inform the system of a change of user.
It would have been obvious to implement the profiles of Rosenblood in order to enable the system to work on a variety of people, increasing the flexibility and usefulness of the system.
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 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.
Conclusion
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