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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to the amendments filed 06/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 10-15 have previously been withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 16-20 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “particular” in each of lines 22 and 23, needs to be removed. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the first posture to a second posture” in lines 4-5, needs to be changed to “the first preset posture to a second preset posture”, and the phrase “the second posture to the first posture” in line 9, needs to be changed to “the second preset posture to the first preset posture”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “different from” in line 9, needs to be changed to “smaller than”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “particular” in each of lines 16 and 17, needs to be removed. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the first posture to a second posture” in lines 2-3, needs to be changed to “the first preset posture to a second preset posture”, and the phrase “the second posture to the first posture” in line 7, needs to be changed to “the second preset posture to the first preset posture”. Appropriate corrections are 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 3-6, 9 and 18-19 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 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 3 recites: “control the actuator to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion to be performed according to the first strength to the second strength based on the identified data and the heart rate”. However, it is unclear what is meant by “according to the first strength to the second strength”. In other words, it is unclear how the actuator is controlled to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion to be performed according to the first strength to the second strength based on the identified data and the heart rate, since according to claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, the actuator is controlled to apply a torque having the strength of the rotational motion of the joint to be performed according to the second strength based on the identified data. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Applicant is suggested to amend claim 3 to recite: “wherein controlling the actuator to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion to be performed according to the second strength is further based on the identified heart rate satisfying a preset condition” (as supported by the specification), to overcome this rejection.
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 reasons. Claim 4 recites: “control the actuator to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion to be performed according to a third strength that is different from the second strength to maintain a posture of the joint as a first preset posture, wherein the third strength is a predetermined strength determined so that the user can more easily perform restoring to a standby posture”. However, it is unclear whether “a first preset posture” recited in claim 4, is the same as or different from the “non-standby posture” recited in claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, since according to claim 1, the actuator is controlled to apply a torque having/according to the second strength, when it is determined that the rotational motion (of the joint) is ceased in a non-standby posture for a preset duration. Furthermore, the claim recites that the actuator is controlled to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion to be performed according to a third strength, different than the second strength, to maintain a posture of the joint as a first preset posture, wherein the third strength is a predetermined strength determined so that the user can more easily perform restoring to a standby posture. However, if the applied torque of the actuator according to the third strength is for maintaining (a posture of the joint as) a first preset posture, how can such third strength applied also be for restoring/changing to a standby posture. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 5-6 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 9 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 9 recites: “[in response to] identifying that a parameter is maintained within a preset range…wherein the parameter includes at least one of a first parameter indicating an angle of the joint, a second parameter indicating an angular speed of the joint, and a third parameter indicating a heart rate of the user”. The phrase “at least one” implies that more than one can also be present. However, it is unclear how “a parameter” can include more than one parameter. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 18 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 reasons. Claim 18 recites: “controlling the actuator to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion to be performed according to a third strength that is different from the second strength to maintain a posture of the joint as a first preset posture”. However, it is unclear whether “a first preset posture” recited in claim 18, is the same as or different from the “non-standby posture” recited in claim 16, upon which claim 18 depends, since according to claim 16, the actuator is controlled to apply a torque having/according to the second strength, when it is determined that the rotational motion (of the joint) is ceased in a non-standby posture for a preset duration. Claim 19 is 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 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Although the amendments have overcome the previous claim objections, 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections and prior art rejections, they have introduced other issues that resulted in further claim objections and 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections (see above for details).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 16-17 and 20 are allowed upon overcoming the above cited objections.
Claims 3-6, 9, 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and 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 claims 1 and 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or render obvious an electronic device and a method performed by the electronic device, with all the structural components and functional limitations, comprising: an actuator associated with a joint of a user of the electronic device; at least one sensor; memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors operatively coupled with the actuator, the at least one sensor, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: control the actuator to apply a torque having a strength of rotational motion of the joint to be performed according to a first strength, while controlling the actuator to apply the torque having the first strength of the rotational motion to be performed according to the first strength, identify data indicating the rotational motion of the joint by using the at least one sensor, and further comprising: at least based on identifying the rotational motion is ceased in a non-standby posture for a preset duration based on the identified data, control the actuator to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion of the joint to be performed according to a second strength smaller than the first strength, and wherein the non-standby posture is a particular posture in which a quantity of motion required to maintain the particular posture is not maximized.
According to applicant’s original specification, including the drawings, a “standby” posture (502) is a posture in which a quantity of motion required to maintain the posture is minimized, and posture (504) is a posture in which a quantity of motion required to maintain the posture is maximized. As shown in Fig. 7, the user (101) has a “standby” posture (502) as he is standing, the user (101) then squats and assumes another posture (504). Posture (504) is a full squat posture. Figure 7 also shows another posture (702). Although the disclosure does not provide any specific name or definition for such posture (702), it is implied that such posture (702), which is between the full squat posture (504) and standby posture (502), is a non-standby posture in which a quantity of motion required to maintain the posture is not maximized. As such, any posture that is between standby posture (502) and full squat posture (504), has been considered to be a “non-standby posture”. The prior arts of record, fail to disclose, teach or render obvious at least based on identifying the rotational motion is ceased in such non-standby posture (in which a quantity of motion required to maintain the particular posture is not maximized) for a preset duration based on the identified data, control the actuator to apply the torque having the strength of the rotational motion of the joint to be performed according to a second strength smaller than the first strengths.
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 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