DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the Response dated 06/01/2026, claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 14, 17, 22, and 34 are amended, claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 23, 25-28, 30-33, and 35-53 are cancelled, claims 54-61 are added, and claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 14, 17, 22, 24, 29, 34, and 54-61 are pending.
Response to Arguments
3. The arguments as to why the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 34 are found to be convincing. However, as detailed below, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3, 34, 54, 56, 58, 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per claim 3, the limitation “the first inductor structure” in lines 7-8 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 54 is consequently rejected due to its dependence on claim 3.
Per claim 34, the limitations “every two inductive sensors” in line 14 and “the plurality of inductive sensors” in lines 16-17 and 19 lack sufficient antecedent bases. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 56 describes “a left front hip sensor disposed at a left front position of the hip bone, and a right front hip sensor disposed at a right front position of the hip bone; intersection points of a connection line between a highest point of a left hip bone and a highest point of a right hip bone of the user and an outer edge of the wearable body are a first intersection point and a second intersection point, respectively.” However, the limitations “the hip bone” lack sufficient antecedent bases. It is unclear if said limitations refer to the “left hip bone” and “right hip” described in claim 55, from which claim 56 depends. Furthermore, because claim 55 recites the limitations “a highest point of a left hip bone” and “a highest point of a right hip bone,” it is unclear if the same limitations recited in claim 56 are intended to refer to their corresponding limitations in claim 55. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claim 58, the limitations “the first inductive structure” and “the arm root contour” lack sufficient antecedent bases. To note, said limitations are described in claim 3, but claim 58 depends on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 59 is consequently rejected due to its dependence on claim 58. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation “the inductive structure” in lines 2-3 of claim 58 and line 3 of claim 59 are intended to refer to “the first inductive structure.”
Claim Objections
6. Claim 34 is objected to due to the following informality.
Per claim 34, it appears that the phrase “the inductive structure” in lines 10 and 12 should be revised to “the spiral inductive structure.”
Allowable Subject Matter
7. In light of the rejections to claims 3, 34, 54, 56, 58, and 59, claims 1, 8, 11, 14, 17, 22, 24, 29, 55, 57, 60, and 61 are deemed allowable.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights