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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the IDS filed 8/21/2024 and 4/29/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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 9 recites the limitation "the mobile object" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki (JP 2021025831A).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyuki teaches: A movement assistance device comprising:
a drive control unit configured to control a drive unit to apply, to a user, an assisting force that is a resultant force of a virtual force that is a force for stabilizing a posture of the user (See Hiroyuki [0037] for detection of posture changes and calculation of external force to prevent the user from falling or colliding with an object) and a guiding force that is a force for guiding the user. (See Hiroyuki [0037] for guiding force calculated based on route to user’s destination.)
Regarding claim 2, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 1, wherein a direction of the virtual force is set in a vertical direction, and
a direction of the guiding force is set to a guidance direction that is a direction of guiding the user. (See Hiroyuki [0020] for propulsion unit always generating thrust in an upward direction to reduce the burden on the user due to the weight, and adjusting the strength and direction of the propulsion force in accordance with the user’s walking motion to reduce the walking burden and improve or suppress walking speed.)
Regarding claim 3, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 2, wherein a magnitude of the virtual force changes depending on a height of a part in the vertical direction of a body of the user to which the assisting force is applied. (See Hiroyuki [0075] for measure of height of system and distance to each body part to determine posture, with assistance force determined by posture to avoid falling.)
Regarding claim 8, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 2, further comprising a guidance direction setting unit that sets the guidance direction on a basis of an environment around the user. (See Hiroyuki [0055] for direction of surrounding environment and influence on external force provided to ensure safety of user and those around them)
Regarding claim 9, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 8, wherein the drive control unit applies the assisting force to the user by controlling the drive unit of the mobile object to move the mobile object, and
the guidance direction setting unit sets the guidance direction further on a basis of an environment around the mobile object. (See Hiroyuki Figs 1-3 for mobile object, [0020] for propulsion unit always generating thrust in an upward direction to reduce the burden on the user due to the weight, and adjusting the strength and direction of the propulsion force in accordance with the user’s walking motion to reduce the walking burden and improve or suppress walking speed. See Hiroyuki [0055] for direction of surrounding environment and influence on external force provided to ensure safety of user and those around them)
Regarding claim 10, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the drive control unit applies the assisting force to the user by controlling the drive unit of a mobile object to move the mobile object. (See Hiroyuki Figs 1-3 for mobile object, [0020] for propulsion unit always generating thrust in an upward direction to reduce the burden on the user due to the weight, and adjusting the strength and direction of the propulsion force in accordance with the user’s walking motion to reduce the walking burden and improve or suppress walking speed.)
Regarding claim 13, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 10, further comprising the drive unit, wherein
the drive control unit is provided in the mobile object. (See Hiroyuki [0017] where thrust generated by each thrust generating unit can be controlled individually, controlled by walking control device.)
Regarding claim 15, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising the drive unit, wherein
the movement assistance device is worn on a predetermined part of a body of the user, and
the drive control unit controls the drive unit to apply the assisting force to the part. (See Hiroyuki Figs 1-3)
Regarding claim 17, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the drive control unit adjusts a balance between the virtual force and the guiding force on a basis of at least one of a state of the user and an environment around the user. (See Hiroyuki Figs 1-3 for mobile object, [0020] for propulsion unit always generating thrust in an upward direction to reduce the burden on the user due to the weight, and adjusting the strength and direction of the propulsion force in accordance with the user’s walking motion to reduce the walking burden and improve or suppress walking speed. See Hiroyuki [0055] for direction of surrounding environment and influence on external force provided to ensure safety of user and those around them)
Regarding claim 18, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the drive control unit gradually changes the virtual force and the guiding force at a start and end of the guidance of the user. (Hiroyuki does not explicitly teach gradual changes in applied force, but such changes are inherent in the application of force via a drone, as time is required for changes in power to the motors to become changes in force applied to the user.)
19. The movement assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the drive control unit applies the virtual force and the guiding force to the user in this order at a start of the guidance of the user, and sets the virtual force and the guiding force to 0 in this order at an end of the guidance of the user.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a method for operating the device of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 6-7, 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP 2021025831A) in view of Huppert at al. (Huppert, Felix, Gerold Hoelzl, and Matthias Kranz. "GuideCopter-A precise drone-based haptic guidance interface for blind or visually impaired people." Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2021.)
Regarding claim 6, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 3,
Hiroyuki does not explicitly teach: wherein the magnitude of the guiding force is constant.
However, Huppert teaches a drone for assistance of a visually impaired user which pursues a constant force output (See pages 6-8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hiroyuki to apply a constant guiding force as taught in Huppert in order to improve the easy of use by a user.
Regarding claim 7, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 3,
Hiroyuki does not explicitly teach: wherein the part is a hand of the user.
However, Huppert teaches a drone for assistance of a visually impaired user which connects to the user’s hand. (See pages 1-2 and throughout)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hiroyuki to connect to the user’s hand, as taught in Huppert, in order to provide a convenient and dexterous attachment point.
Regarding claim 11, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 10,
Hiroyuki does not explicitly teach: wherein the user and the mobile object are connected by a string-like member, and
the assisting force is applied to the user as a tension by the string-like member.
However, Huppert teaches a drone for assistance of a visually impaired user which connects to the user’s hand via a string. (See Figs. 1 and 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hiroyuki to connect to the user’s hand via a string, as taught in Huppert, in order to provide a convenient and dexterous attachment point while allowing the drone to remain at a safe distance from the user.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 11, wherein the mobile object is a drone. (See Hiroyuki [0015] and throughout, Huppert page 1 and throughout.)
Regarding claim 16, Hiroyuki teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 15,
Hiroyuki does not explicitly teach: wherein the part is a finger, a wrist, an arm, a back, a shoulder, or a waist of the user.
However, Huppert teaches a drone for assistance of a visually impaired user which connects to the user’s body via a string (See Figs. 1 and 4) including at the finger (See Fig. 1) or hand or wrist (See page 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hiroyuki to connect to the user’s hand, finger or wrist, via a string, as taught in Huppert, in order to provide a convenient and dexterous attachment point while allowing the drone to remain at a safe distance from the user.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP 2021025831A) in view of Huppert at al. (Huppert, Felix, Gerold Hoelzl, and Matthias Kranz. "GuideCopter-A precise drone-based haptic guidance interface for blind or visually impaired people." Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2021.) and Yu et al. (JP 2018007677 A)
Regarding claim 14, Hiroyuki in view of Huppert teaches: The movement assistance device according to claim 11,
Hiroyuki in view of Huppert does not explicitly teach: wherein the drive control unit causes the mobile object to follow the user in a case where stabilization and guidance of a posture of the user are unnecessary.
However, Yu teaches a UAV drone guiding a user on a leash wherein, if the user does not require guidance, the UAV will instead follow the user (See Yu [0059]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hiroyuki in view of Huppert to include a following function of the drone when not required for guidance, as taught in Yu, in order for the drone to be prepared to provide guidance with minimal delay.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights