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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2024 ; 05/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a display control unit configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al. (US 2017/0076619) in view of Youn et al. (US 2016/0165037).
As to Claim 1, Wallach et al. discloses A motion state monitoring system comprising a plurality of sensors corresponding to a plurality of respective body parts of a body of a subject (fig.1, sensor devices 103 corresponding to shoulders 103a-b, elbows 103d-d, wrists 103e-f, hips 103k-l, knees 103g-h, ankles 103i-j; para.0023, 0028, 0080) and a motion state monitoring apparatus configured to monitor motions of the subject in accordance with results of detection from the plurality of sensors (fig.1-5, client device 121 obtains sensor data 127 collected during movement and displays a three-dimensional reconstruction of performed movements; para.0079,0082,0085), wherein the motion state monitoring apparatus comprises:
a display unit configured to display a plurality of sensor icons corresponding to the plurality of respective sensors (fig.1, display of three-dimensional reconstruction 150 of the body); and
a display control unit configured to change a display aspect of the corresponding sensor icon in accordance with an input from one of the plurality of sensors ({This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a CPU; fig.13-14; para.0080, client device sends a control signal to each sensor device 103 that causes the sensor 103 to collect data).
Wallach et al. discloses where a position and/or orientation of each of the sensor devices may be determined (para.0085) and based on the collected sensor data the three-dimensional reconstruction 150 is updated and rendered (para0082, 0085-0086).
Youn et al. discloses a motion state monitoring (fig.7) apparatus comprises: a display unit configured to display a plurality of sensor icons corresponding to the plurality of respective sensors (fig.5A- para.0198-0200-sensor icons 521-526 and plurality of sensed wearable devices 510-516 of different positions of a body; fig.7A, para.0234-0237, icons 712-716 corresponding to sensed wearable devices, and icons 730-736 corresponding to sensors provided in selected wearable device); and a display control unit configured to change a display aspect of the corresponding sensor icon in accordance with an input from one of the plurality of sensors ({This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a CPU; fig.1-para.0061; fig.5A-para.0202- 0203-user may apply an input 540 for dragging one of the sensor icons to one of the icons corresponding to one of the sensed wearable devices and a pop-up window indicating the sensor of the selected sensed wearable device is activated; fig.7A, para.0238-0240, user may apply a preset touch input to any of the displayed icons 730-736 corresponding to the plurality of sensors and respectively set the on/off of the respective sensor, and activated sensors may be clearly displayed and deactivated icons may be displayed along with a dim effect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wallach et al. with the teachings of Youn et al., such that a sensor icon (as disclosed by Youn) corresponding to each of the sensors (of Wallach) may be displayed. The motivation being to provide a user with individual control of a sensor, thereby avoiding redundant use of the same sensor and reduce energy consumption.
As to Claim 2, Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al. disclose, wherein the display control unit changes a display aspect in such a way that the corresponding sensor icon performs a motion in accordance with the motion of one of the plurality of sensors (Wallach-para.0081,0085- each sensor 103 is activated and start collecting sensor data 127 corresponding to the position where it is located; Youn- para.0237-0238, activated icon activates corresponding sensor function; para.0271,0326-0327, heart rate sensor activated when user is doing exercise).
As to Claim 4, Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al. disclose wherein the sensor includes an acceleration sensor (Wallach-fig.1, sensor 103a different position of the body includes accelerometer 112; para.0029-0030), and the display control unit changes a display aspect based on a tap input on the sensor collected by the acceleration sensor (Youn-fig.7; sensor icons corresponding to sensed wearable devices in different positions of the body, where a preset touch on sensor icon activates the sensor).
As to Claim 6, Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al. disclose wherein the display unit displays a diagram of a human body showing body parts to which the sensors are to be attached, and the sensor icon is displayed on the body parts to which the sensors are to be attached (Wallach-fig.1, three-dimensional reconstruction of a body; Youn-fig.7A- sensor icons 730-736 corresponding to sensed wearable devices to which the sensors are attached; para.0234)
As to Claim 7 is a method claim drawn to the apparatus of Claim 1 and is rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
As to Claim 8, has limitations similar to those of Claim 1 and are met by the references as set forth above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al. (US 2017/0076619) in view of Youn et al. (US 2016/0165037), further in view of Roh et al. (US 2017/0010677).
As to Claim 3, Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al. do not expressly disclose wherein the display control unit rotates the corresponding sensor icon in accordance with a rotation operation of the sensor with a predetermined axis as a rotation axis.
Roh et al. discloses a wearable device where the direction of the contents displayed on the screen is based the rotational movement of the wearable device (para. 0110-0112; 0272- 0274).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al. with the teachings of Roh et al., such that sensor icons (as disclosed by Youn) are rotated based on the rotational movement of the device, the motivation being to allow a user to easilty check contents depending on the state of user and the electronic device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al. (US 2017/0076619) in view of Youn et al. (US 2016/0165037), further in view of Longinotti-Buitoni et al. (US 2021/0195732).
As to Claim 5, Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al., Wallach et al. further discloses where sensor 103 may include a microcontroller and/or other components and where each of the sensors are activated by a control signal (Wallach-para.0029, 0081). Youn et al. further discloses the user may apply a preset touch input the any one of the icons 730, 732, 734, 736 corresponding to a plurality of sensors, respectively, to set the on/off of the sensors provided in the corresponding wearable device (para.0238).
Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al. do not expressly disclose the disclose wherein the sensor includes a switch, and the display control unit changes a display aspect based on a state of the switch being pressed.
Longinotti-Buitoni et al. discloses an intelligent system that may include capacitive capability 41 or other switching technologies that can trigger any or all activation points on, in, or around the intelligent wear (para.0300) and may also include a control switch 42 that can be incorporated into, on, around the intelligent wear, or be activated by individual elements added into the apparel (para.0301).
The combination of Wallach et al. in view of Youn et al. as modified by Longinotti-Buitoni et al each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would yield predictable results, in particular a sensor comprising a switch as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Wallach et al. in view of Youn et by incorporating a control switch, as disclosed by Longinotti-Buitoni et al., in the sensors of Wallach et al., so as to activate/deactivate the respective sensor using switching technologies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISMERY E. MERCEDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/DISMERY MERCEDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights