DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claims 1 and 14 are not directed to distinct inventions but rather to a single general inventive concept for identifying whether a user input is received based on motion data and changing the operation mode of a wearable device according to the user input, both of claim 1 and claim 14 describe same steps for changing the operation mode of a wearable device according to the user input, and that the applicable rules allow that a reasonable number of groups may be included in one application, certainly two groups must be considered a reasonable number because if there were only one group, there would be no restriction. This is not found persuasive because although both claims 1 and 14 recite a wearable device, Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is directed towards a wearable device that comprises an actuator, at least one sensor and outputting circuit in addition to a memory and one or more processors that obtain through the at least one sensor, motion data of a user wearing the wearable device, set an operation mode of the wearable device to a first operation mode, identify a timing to provide a notification, and provide the notification, identify whether a designated user input is received and based on such identification, change the operation mode from the first operation mode to a second operation mode, while claim 14 and claim 19 are directed towards a method/non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that cause the wearable device to perform the same steps. However, the wearable device recited in claim 1, is not the same as the wearable device recited in claim 14 or 19. For instance, the wearable device of claim 1, includes an actuator, at least one sensor and an outputting circuit, while the wearable device recited in claim 14 or 19, as being a device performing the cited steps, does not have nor is it required to have an actuator, at least one sensor and an outputting circuit. For instance, the step of obtaining motion data of a user wearing the wearable device, in claim 1, is done through the at least one sensor of the wearable device, while such is step can be done by at least one sensor that is not part of the wearable device but can communicate with such wearable device. Furthermore, as stated in the Requirement for Restriction (dated 12/09/2025), the inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In the instant case, the process as claimed in Invention II (claims 14-20), can be performed by a materially different apparatus, such as a smart watch, a smart phone alone or in communication with smart earphones, or smart goggles, smart glasses or any electronic device that can be connected to and communicate with an exercise machine. As such, The Inventions I and II are distinct. Furthermore, regardless of the number of groups or inventions cited, such reasons given for the Inventions being independent or distinct also require different class/subclass searches and different search terms and queries. As such, there is also a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required (please see Requirement for Restriction dated 12/09/2025 for details). Therefore, Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because the Inventions I and II are independent or distinct for the reasons give above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 (see above for details). Claims 1-13 have been examined as set forth below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following reasons:
The specification in ¶ [00123]-[00124] recites:
“After providing the notification, the processor 220 may obtain motion data of a user during a designated time interval. For example, the designated time interval may be set as an interval 723. In the interval 723, the processor 220 may identify whether a designated user input is received based on the motion data of the user obtained through at least one sensor 230. For example, the processor 220 may wait for an operation which identifies whether the designated user input is received during an interval 712 from the timing 710 of providing the notification. After the interval 712 has elapsed, in the interval 723, the processor 220 may identify whether the designated user input is received based on the motion data of the user obtained through the at least one sensor 230. For example, at a timing 720, the processor 220 may start an operation which identifies whether the designated user input is received based on the motion data of the user obtained through the at least one sensor 230. For example, the interval 712 may be set to a fixed time. For another example, the interval 712 may be set based on the motion data of the user”.
(*FIG. 7A to which the above paragraphs are directed, has been reproduced below for reference)
PNG
media_image1.png
456
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above provided paragraphs are unclear and incomprehensible. According to the first part of the above cited paragraphs, in the interval 723 (which may be set as a designated time interval), the processor may identify whether a designated user input is received. The paragraphs then follow with an example reciting that during an interval 712 (from the timing 710 of providing the notification), the processor may wait for an operation which identifies whether the designated user input is received. The paragraphs then state that after the interval 712 has elapsed, in the interval 723, the processor may identify whether the designated user input is received, and further state that for example, at a timing 720, the processor may start an operation which identifies whether the designated user input is received. However, it is unclear when the processor identifies whether a designated user input is received or not. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “programs,” in line 2 needs to be changed to “programs;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: after the term “mode” in line 5, a comma “,” needs to be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-13 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 4, recites: “provide, based on identifying that the reference time is elapsed, a vibration using the vibration motor…”, while claim 2, upon which claim 4 indirectly depends, recites: “…cause he wearable device to identify a timing at which reference time is elapsed from a timing the operation mode is set to the first operation mode as the timing for providing the notification” and claim 1, upon which claim 2 directly depends and claim 4 indirectly depends, recites: “…provide, based on identifying a timing for providing a notification, the notification”. However, it is unclear, whether providing vibration (using the vibration motor) is part of or in addition to providing the notification. In other words, it is unclear whether the vibration is the notification or not. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. For the purposes of examination, vibration has been considered to be the notification. Claims 5-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 8 recites: “identify a timing to change the operation mode after setting the operation mode to the first operation mode, and identify, based on the identified timing, the timing for providing the notification”, while claim 2, upon which claim 8 indirectly depends, recites: “identify a timing at which reference time is elapsed from a timing the operation mode is set to the first operation mode as the timing for providing the notification”. According to claim 2, the timing for providing the notification is based on a reference time elapsed after the operation mode is set to the first operation mode, while according to claim 8, the timing for providing the notification is based on a timing to change the operation mode (again), after the operation mode is set to the first operation mode. As such, it is unclear what is the timing for providing the notification is based on or how it is identified. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 9-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 11 recites: “wherein the wearable device further comprises a communication circuit”, while claim 7, upon which claim 11 indirectly depends, recites: “wherein the wearable device further comprises a communication circuit”. However, it is unclear whether or not, “a communication circuit” recited in claim 11 is the same as or different from “a communication circuit” recited in claim 7. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 12-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 12, recites: “wherein the wearable device further comprises a communication circuit”, while Claim 11, upon which claim 12 directly depends, recites: “wherein the wearable device further comprises a communication circuit”, and claim 7, upon which claim 11 and 12 indirectly depend, recites: “wherein the wearable device further comprises a communication circuit”. However, it is unclear whether or not, “a communication circuit” recited in claim 12 is the same as or different from “a communication circuit” recited in each of claim 11 and claim 7. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claim 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano (US 2022/0062087 A1) in view of Konishi et al. (US 2011/0205067 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okano teaches a wearable device (1 (10 with 20), Figs. 2-3) comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs (¶ [109]);
an actuator (flexion damper 15 (i.e., a rotary damper) and extension damper 16 (i.e., rotary damper), flexion/extension damper 56, ¶ [45], [90], [92]);
at least one sensor (sensor 17, ¶ [48]-[55], [57], [59]);
an outputting circuit (19a, 19b, 20 (21 with 22), ¶ [62], [65]-[66], [68]); and
one or more processors (control unit 18) operably coupled with the memory (¶ [109]), the actuator (¶ [46]), the at least one sensor (¶ [48]), and the outputting circuit (¶ [62], [65]-[66], [68]), wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (¶ [109]), cause the wearable device to:
obtain, through the at least one sensor (17), motion data of a user wearing the wearable device (¶ [48]-[55], [57], [59], i.e., the sensor 17 detects an angle between the ground and the lower leg, the sensor 17 may be a gyro sensor, that detects an angle of the lower leg, an angle formed by the upper leg and the lower leg around the knee joint, knee angle),
set, based on the motion data, an operation mode of the wearable device to a first operation mode (Figs. 5 and 8, ¶ [49], i.e., first flexion damper mode, first extension damper mode),
after setting the operation mode to the first operation mode, provide a notification (via notification unit 20, ¶ [38], [85], the notification unit 20 notifies the user of switching of the modes of the modes of the flexion damper 15 as the predetermined state of the walking assistance apparatus 10. Therefore, the user is able to know that the mode of the flexion damper 15 will be switched),
after providing the notification, identify whether a designated user input is received based on the motion data obtained through the at least one sensor during a designated time interval ([48]-[49], [54]-[55], [60]-[61], [98]-[102], i.e., the sensor 17 detects a timing in the walking motion of the user, specifically the sensor 17 detects a switching timing in a gait cycle (gait frequency) through detecting an angle between the ground and the lower leg and sends the result to the control unit. The control unit 18 switches the mode of the flexion/extension damper (15/16) based on the signal output from the sensor 17. For instance, the control unit 18, switches the first extension damper mode to the second extension damper mode when the sole of the foot of the leg to which the walking assistance apparatus 10 is attached comes into contact with the ground. That is, the control unit 18 switches the first extension damper mode to the second extension damper mode at an initial stage of the stance phase. The control unit 18 is able to adjust the timing when the second extension damper mode is started in accordance with the degree of extension of the knee joint of a user. The control 18 can adjust the start timing of the second extension damper mode based on a walking state detected by the sensor 17, the control unit 18 may adjust the start timing while a user is walking based on the various angles, the angular velocities, the distance and the like detected by the sensor 17), and
based on identifying that the designated user input being received, change the operation mode from the first operation mode to a second operation mode (Figs. 5 and 8, [48]-[49], [55], [60]-[61], [98]-[102], claims 1-3 and 5, i.e., the sensor 17 detects a timing in the walking motion of the user, specifically the sensor 17 detects a switching timing in a gait cycle (gait frequency) through detecting an angle between the ground and the lower leg and sends the result to the control unit. The control unit 18 switches the mode of the flexion/extension damper (15/16) based on the signal output from the sensor 17. For instance, the control unit 18, switches the first extension damper mode to the second extension damper mode when the sole of the foot of the leg to which the walking assistance apparatus 10 is attached comes into contact with the ground. That is, the control unit 18 switches the first extension damper mode to the second extension damper mode at an initial stage of the stance phase. The control unit 18 is able to adjust the timing when the second extension damper mode is started in accordance with the degree of extension of the knee joint of a user. The control 18 can adjust the start timing of the second extension damper mode based on a walking state detected by the sensor 17, the control unit 18 may adjust the start timing while a user is walking based on the various angles, the angular velocities, the distance and the like detected by the sensor 17).
Okano teaches that the notification unit 20 notifies the user of switching of the modes of the flexion damper 15, therefore the user is able to know that the mode of the flexion damper 15 will be switched, and accordingly the user is able to prepare for the switching of the modes of the flexion damper 15 in advance (see ¶ [85]). However, Okano is silent about providing the notification based on identifying a timing for providing a notification.
Regarding claim 1, Konishi teaches a wearable device (10, Figs. 1A-1B) comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs (¶ [31]);
an actuator (motor 26, ¶ [28]);
at least one sensor (each of 20, 22, 24 for each of right leg and left leg, ¶ [24]-[28]);
an outputting circuit (i.e., corresponding to that of notification module 32, ¶ [31]); and
one or more processors (¶ [31], i.e., CPU) operably coupled with the memory (¶ [31]), the actuator (¶ [27]), the at least one sensor (¶ [27]), and the outputting circuit (¶ [27], [31]), wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable device to:
obtain, through the at least one sensor, motion data of a user wearing the wearable device (via each of 20, 22, 24 for each of right leg and left leg, ¶ [24]-[28]);
set, based on the motion data, an operation mode of the wearable device to a first operation mode (¶ [11], [34]-[35]),
after setting the operation mode to the first operation mode, provide, based on identifying a timing for providing a notification, the notification (Figs. 4-6, ¶ [6], [10]-[13], [36]-[37], [39]-[41], [43], [53], The controller specifies a change timing at which a time-dependent change of the target joint angle in the target pattern meets a predetermined condition. Next, prior to the specified change timing, the controller informs the user that the changing timing is arriving. For instance, as shown in graph “C” in Fig. 4, the notification module 32 outputs a sound from the headphone 40 at a notification timing which preces the specified timing by a period W. modification of the sound pattern are shown in Fig. 5, including on in which pitch grows shorter as the specified change timing being approached. Also, instead of sound, vibration can be used as the notifying stimulation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okano’s invention wherein the notification is provided based on identifying a timing for providing a notification, as taught by Konishi in order to enable the user use the device without anxiety by being informed of various changes occurring in advance at a particular time therefore prevent the user from potential injuries, while also providing the user with a guided movement.
Regarding claim 2, Okano in view of Konishi teaches wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable device to identify a timing at which reference time is elapsed from a timing the operation mode is set to the first operation mode as the timing for providing the notification (Konishi: Figs. 3-6, ¶ [36], [40], [41], “in the notification module 32, timings T2 and T3 are specified as the lapse time elapsed from the start timing T1 on the target pattern”).
Regarding claim 3, Okano in view of Konishi teaches wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable device to, based on identifying that the designated user input is not received, maintain the operation mode in the first operation mode (Okano: Figs. 5 and 8, [48]-[49], [55], [60]-[61], [98]-[102], claims 1-3 and 5, Okano teaches that the sensor 17 detects a timing in the walking motion of the user, specifically the sensor 17 detects a switching timing in a gait cycle (gait frequency) through detecting an angle between the ground and the lower leg and sends the result to the control unit. The control unit 18 switches the mode of the flexion/extension damper (15/16) based on the signal output from the sensor 17. For instance, the control unit 18, switches the first extension damper mode to the second extension damper mode when the sole of the foot of the leg to which the walking assistance apparatus 10 is attached comes into contact with the ground. The control 18 can adjust the start timing of the second extension damper mode based on a walking state detected by the sensor 17. As such, it is implied that as long as the sensor 17 does not detect a switching timing in the gait cycle, then the operation mode is maintained. For instance, when the operation mode is the first flexion/extension mode, the operation mode remains in the first flexion/extension mode, until the sensor 17 detects a change in the gait cycle (i.e. sole of the foot of the leg comes into contact with the ground)).
Regarding claim 4, Okano in view of Konishi teaches wherein the outputting circuit comprises at least one vibration motor (Okano: vibration stimulation module 21, Fig. 4, abstract, ¶ [39], since vibration can be provided as a notification, a vibration motor has to exist to generate such vibration; Konishi: ¶ [13], since vibration can be provided as a notification, a vibration motor has to exist to generate such vibration), and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable device to: provide, based on identifying that the reference time is elapsed, vibration using the vibration motor at a first intensity while a posture of a part of a body of the user is a first posture (Konishi: Fig. 6, ¶ [13]: “the “notifying stimulation” may specifically be sounds having a pattern in which the time-dependent changes in frequency thereof are the same as the waveform of the target pattern. Alternatively, the “notifying stimulation” maybe a vibration in which a pattern of the time-dependent changes in vibration frequency is the same as the waveform of the target pattern, and given to the user”. The letter “C” in Fig. 6 shows a graph 114 of a notification pattern, which shows the changes in frequency of the sound over time, which is homothetic with the waveform of the target pattern. As stated in ¶ [13] of Konishi, instead of sound, vibration can be provided as the notifying stimulation, whereby similar to sound, changes in vibration frequency would be the same as the waveform of the target pattern. As such, since vibration can be provided in the same way as sound, the graph 114 in Fig. 6 can also represent changes in vibration frequency being homothetic with the waveform of the target pattern. Please note that vibration frequency is related to the vibration intensity; the higher the vibration frequency, the higher the vibration intensity. As such, referring to Fig. 6, when the knee join angle is at or near θ1 (first posture of the leg), the vibration frequency, hence vibration intensity, provided, corresponds to a first vibration intensity); and while the posture of the part of the body of the user is a second posture changed from the first posture, provide vibration using the vibration motor at a second intensity greater than the first intensity (continuing from the above, still referring to Fig. 6, when the knee join angle is at or near θ2 (second posture of the leg), the vibration frequency, hence vibration intensity, provided, corresponds to a second vibration intensity, which is higher than the first vibration frequency. Please note that upon modification of Okano with features of Konishi, the various vibration intensities can be provided based on the signals detected by sensor 17 that determine the user’s posture and its corresponding changes).
Regarding claim 5, Okano in view of Konishi teaches wherein the first posture comprises a posture in which an angle of a hip joint of the user which changes according to walking of the user is a first angle (Konishi: although the knee joint (104) angle shown in Figs. 3-6 has been considered for identifying changes in posture, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, based on the disclosure of Konishi, to use the hip joint (102) angle from sensors 22 (L/R) to identify the posture and its corresponding changes. Changes in the angle of the hip joint can be seen from the diagram of the user’s gait cycle in Figs. 3-6, see ¶ [25]-[26]), and wherein the second posture comprises the posture in which the angle of the hip joint of the user which changes according to walking of the user is a second angle (Konishi: although the knee joint (104) angle shown in Figs. 3-6 has been considered for identifying changes in posture, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, based on the disclosure of Konishi, to use the hip joint (102) angle from sensors 22 (L/R) to identify the posture and its corresponding changes. Changes in the angle of the hip joint can be seen from the diagram of the user’s gait cycle in Figs. 3-6, see ¶ [25]-[26]).
Regarding claim 6, Okano in view of Konishi teaches wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable device to: identify, based on the motion data, information on stride length of the user (Konishi: Figs. 4-6, ¶ [32]-[33], [36], [39]-[41], i.e., one cycle or “one step motion period” is considered stride length. ¶ [32] recites: “The “one step motion period” corresponds to a period from a ground leaving timing of the right leg to its next ground leaving timing”, the time of one cycle is shown by letters “Td”), and identify, based on information on the stride length of the user, the reference time (Konishi: Figs. 4-6, ¶ [32]-[33], [36], [40]-[41], please note that as much as applicant has shown identifying the reference time based on information on the stride length, Konishi is also teaching such).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 7, the closest prior arts of record, Okana in view of Konishi (provided above), fail to teach or render obvious the wearable device according to claims 1-6, wherein the wearable device is further caused to identify, based on the information on the stride length of the user and the reference time, a geographic location at which the operation mode is to be changed from the first operation mode to the second operation mode; and transmit, to an external electronic device connected with the wearable device, a signal for providing the identified geographic location to the user. As such, the limitations of claim 7 are considered allowable. Claims 8-13 are also allowable as they depend upon claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0244601 A1 to Maekita (pertinent to claims 1 and 5), and US 2019/0021938 A1 to Lim et al. (pertinent to claims 1 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights