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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second generation cycle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to change the phrase to “a second generation cycle” in order to introduce the term.
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, 4 – 6 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Wilson et al. (US 9408558 B2)
Regarding claim 1, A model generation method to be executed by a computer, comprising:
a step of acquiring sensor data generated by measuring walking of one or more cycles of a user with a sensor (Column 2, lines 48 – 65);
a step of calculating an estimated value of a gait phase in the acquired sensor data (Column 2, lines 48 – 65), using a reference model (Figure 3 – 8);
a step of calculating an ideal value of the gait phase corresponding to the calculated estimated value (Column 5, lines 63 – Column 6, lines 1 – 5), based on a cycle of the walking that appears in the sensor data (Column 5, lines 63 – Column 6, lines 1 – 35); and
a step of generating a correction model by modeling an error between the estimated value of the gait phase and the ideal value (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson discloses the model generation method as claimed in claim 1.
Wilson discloses wherein the computer repeatedly executes a generation cycle including the step of acquiring the sensor data, the step of calculating the estimated value of the phase, the step of calculating the ideal value of the phase, and the step of generating the correction model. (Column 8, last paragraph – Column 10, first paragraph)
Regarding claim 5, Wilson discloses the model generation method as claimed in claim 4.
Wilson discloses wherein in the step of calculating the estimated value of the phase in the second generation cycle or later, the computer calculates the estimated value of the gait phase in the sensor data acquired in the current generation cycle by using a corrected reference model obtained by correcting a reference model used in the previous generation cycle using a correction model generated in the previous generation cycle. (Column 5, last paragraph – Column 6, first paragraph)
Regarding claim 6, Wilson discloses the model generation method as claimed in claim 4
Wilson discloses wherein after executing the generation cycle, the computer executes the next generation cycle in response to a request from an operator. (Column 8, last paragraph)
Regarding claim 8, A phase estimation method to be executed by a computer, comprising:
a step of acquiring a sensor value of a sensor regarding walking of a user (Column 2, lines 48 – 65);
a step of calculating an estimated value of a gait phase from the acquired sensor value (Column 2, lines 48 – 65), using a reference model (Figure 3 – 8);
a step of estimating an error from the calculated estimated value of the phase, using a correction model (Column 5, lines 63 – Column 6, lines 1 – 5);
a step of correcting the calculated estimated value of the phase using the estimated error (Abstract); and
a step of outputting information relating to the corrected estimated value of the phase, wherein the correction model is generated by modeling the error between the estimated value of the gait phase and an ideal value, using training sensor data generated by measuring the walking of one or more cycles of the user with the sensor. (Column 8, last paragraph – Column 10, first paragraph)
Claim(s) 10 – 11 & 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Seo et al. (US 20150190923 A1)
Regarding claim 10, A control method to be executed by a computer, comprising:
a step of setting an assistance pattern (Paragraph 0102); a step of acquiring a sensor value of a sensor regarding walking of a user (Paragraph 0064 – 0065);
a step of calculating an estimated value of a gait phase from the acquired sensor value, using a reference model (Paragraph 0011 – 0012);
a step of estimating an error from the calculated estimated value of the phase, using a correction model (Paragraph 0166);
a step of correcting the calculated estimated value of the phase using the estimated error (Paragraph 0166);
a step of determining an assistance amount of a gait assistance device from the corrected estimated value of the phase in accordance with the set assistance pattern (Abstract); and
a step of outputting the determined assistance amount, wherein the correction model is generated by modeling the error between the estimated value of the gait phase and an ideal value, using training sensor data generated by measuring the walking of one or more cycles of the user with the sensor (Paragraph 0106, 0166 & 0189).
Regarding claim 11, Seo discloses the control method as claimed in claim 10.
Seo wherein the assistance pattern is constituted by one or more muscle modules, and the muscle module is configured by combining a plurality of periodic functions so as to reproduce muscular synergy (Paragraph 0180 & 0194).
Regarding claim 13, Seo discloses the control method as claimed in claim 10.
Seo discloses wherein the computer further executes:
a step of specifying a shift in the phase caused by a delay relating to estimation of the phase (Paragraph 0214); and
a step of further correcting the corrected estimated value of the phase using the specified shift, and determining the assistance amount from the corrected estimated value of the phase is determining the assistance amount from the further-corrected estimated value of the phase (Paragraph 0214).
Regarding claim 14, Seo discloses the control method as claimed in claim 10.
Seo discloses wherein the computer repeatedly executes an estimation cycle including the step of acquiring the sensor value, the step of calculating the estimated value of the phase, the step of estimating the error, the step of correcting the estimated value of the phase, the step of determining the assistance amount, and the step of outputting the assistance amount, and in response to repeatedly executing the estimation cycle for the walking of one or more cycles of the user (Paragraph 0106, 0118 & 0149) the computer further executes:
a step of calculating an ideal value of the gait phase with respect to the corrected estimated value (Paragraph 0106), based on a cycle of the walking;
a step of calculating an error between the corrected estimated value and the ideal value (Paragraph 0151); and
a step of outputting information relating to the calculated error (Paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 15, Seo discloses the control method as claimed in claim 10.
Seo discloses wherein the computer repeatedly executes an estimation cycle including the step of acquiring the sensor value, the step of calculating the estimated value of the phase, the step of estimating the error, the step of correcting the estimated value of the phase, the step of determining the assistance amount, and the step of outputting the assistance amount, and in the step of determining the assistance amount in the second estimation cycle or later, the computer calculates an amount of change between the corrected estimated value in the previous estimation cycle and the corrected estimated value in the current estimation cycle, determines whether or not the calculated amount of change satisfies a permissible condition, if the amount of change satisfies the permissible condition, determines an assistance amount in the current estimation cycle from the corrected estimated value in the current estimation cycle, and if the amount of change does not satisfy a permissible condition, determines the assistance amount in the current estimation cycle based on the corrected estimation value in the previous estimation cycle, without relying on the corrected estimation value in the current estimation cycle (Paragraph 0106 / Claim 16).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 9408558 B2) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Otsuki et al. (CN 112185507 A)
Regarding claim 2, Wilson discloses the model generation method as claimed in claim 1.
Wilson discloses wherein the sensor data is generated by measuring the walking of a plurality of cycles, and after executing the step of calculating the estimated value of the phase (Column 1, lines 46 – 65), the computer further executes:
a step of calculating variation in the calculated estimated value of the phase Column 2, lines 4 – 35); and
a magnitude of the variation in the estimated value exceeds a threshold (Column 9, lines 40 – 62).
Wilson does not disclose a step of performing notification of an alert.
Otsuki discloses a step of performing notification of an alert. (Page 14, last paragraph)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wilson to include a step of performing notification of an alert as it would allow the user to receive a notification when the training gets to an abnormal state allowing the user to take the necessary steps to better the training or walking. (Page 14, last paragraph)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 9408558 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson discloses the model generation method as claimed in claim 1.
Wilson does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor data is generated by measuring the walking while the user receives assistance.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Wilson to include wherein the sensor data is generated by measuring the walking while the user receives assistance as Wilson discloses the sensors are configured in both shoes and are able to detect any gait cycle that is done. This means it would be obvious to add assistance to the data acquired as the assistance includes a walking cycle. (Abstract)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 9408558 B2) as claimed in claim 8, in further view of Choi et al. (US 10548803 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson discloses the phase estimation method as claimed in claim 8.
Wilson does not disclose wherein the computer further executes:
a step of specifying a shift in the phase caused by a delay relating to estimation of the phase; and
a step of further correcting the corrected estimated value of the phase using the specified shift, and information relating to the corrected estimated value of the phase is constituted by information relating to the further-corrected estimated value of the phase.
Choi discloses a step of specifying a shift in the phase caused by a delay relating to estimation of the phase (Column 10, lines 33 – Column 11,first paragraph); and
a step of further correcting the corrected estimated value of the phase using the specified shift, and information relating to the corrected estimated value of the phase is constituted by information relating to the further-corrected estimated value of the phase (Column 10, lines 33 – Column 11,first paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Wilson to include a step of specifying a shift in the phase caused by a delay relating to estimation of the phase and a step of further correcting the corrected estimated value of the phase using the specified shift, and information relating to the corrected estimated value of the phase is constituted by information relating to the further-corrected estimated value of the phase as the delay may occur due to a wireless interval. The delay causes the recent date to not be received and not be uploaded quickly. (Column 10, lines 33 – Column 11,first paragraph).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Seo et al. (US 20150190923 A1) as claimed in claim 10, in view of Sargent et al. (US 2021/0312097 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Seo discloses the control method as claimed in claim 10.
Seo discloses the gait assistance device. (as claimed in claim 10)
Seo discloses the device contains hinges to which different support frames are connected. (Abstract)
Seo does not disclose configured to assist the walking through output of a pneumatic artificial muscle.
Sargent discloses an exosuit that can include anatomy support components and connector components, such as hinges, support bars or beams or to provide force, and is able to contact a relatively large surface area of a person’s body. Connector components can be designed to form connections between other components which can include pneumatic or hydraulic artificial muscles. (Paragraph 0044)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Seo configured to assist the walking through output of a pneumatic artificial muscle as it would provide a contractile and/or extensional force when triggered. (Paragraph 0044)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights