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 .
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.
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)(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 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Forutanpour et al. (hereinafter “Forutanpour” US 2013 / 0265229).
As pertaining to Claim 1, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) a wearable apparatus (220) for gesture control (see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0017]), comprising:
one or more first sensors (see (330) as EMG sensors) configured to contact skin on a wrist (210) of a user when the wearable apparatus (220) is worn by the user, wherein the one or more first sensors (330) are configured to generate first signals (i.e., EMG signals) associated with muscle activity of the user (see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]);
an inertial sensor (310) configured to generate second signals (i.e., motion signals) associated with a motion of the user (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0022]-[0025]);
one or more processors (320; see Page 3, Para. [0026]) configured to:
receive the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals) generated by the one or more first sensors (330);
receive the second signals (i.e., the motion signals) generated by the inertial sensor (310);
determine a gesture of the user (see (540) in Fig. 5) based at least in part on an analysis (see (520, 530) in Fig. 5) of the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals) and the second signals (i.e., the motion signals);
perform an action (i.e., a command action; see (550) in Fig. 5) associated with the gesture (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
As pertaining to Claim 2, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the one or more first sensors (330) are positioned on a back-plate (i.e., an underside) of a wristwatch (220; see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]).
As pertaining to Claim 3, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the one or more first sensors (330) comprise at least two contact sensors (i.e., multiple EMG sensors and/or multiple EMG electrodes) configured to contact the skin on the wrist (210) of the user (see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]).
As pertaining to Claim 4, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the one or more first sensors (330) comprise an electromyography (EMG) sensor configured to detect electrical signals generated by the muscle activity of the user (see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]).
As pertaining to Claim 7, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the second signals (i.e., the motion signals; see (310)) comprise rotation information (i.e., hand motion information) associated with the motion of the user (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0022]-[0025] and Page 5, Para. [0048]).
As pertaining to Claim 8, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the analysis of the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals; see (330)) and the second signals (i.e., the motion signals; see (310)) uses a machine learning algorithm (i.e., processing functionality) to determine the gesture (see Page 3, Para. [0026] and Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
As pertaining to Claim 9, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the action (i.e., the command action; see (550) in Fig. 5) comprises outputting a flag (i.e., a gesture-identifier) that identifies a gesture (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
As pertaining to Claim 10, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the action (i.e., the command action; see (550) in Fig. 5) comprises controlling an electronic device distinct from the wearable apparatus (see Page 3, Para. [0026] and Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
As pertaining to Claim 11, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) a method of gesture control with a wearable apparatus (220; see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0017]), the method comprising:
generating, by one or more first sensors (see (330) as EMG sensors) configured to contact skin on a wrist (210) of a user when the wearable apparatus (220) is worn by the user, first signals (i.e., EMG signals) associated with muscle activity of the user (see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]);
generating, by an inertial sensor (310), second signals (i.e., motion signals) associated with a motion of the user (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0022]-[0025]);
receiving (i.e., via one or more processors (320; see Page 3, Para. [0026]) the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals) generated by the one or more first sensors (330);
receiving (i.e., via (320)) the second signals (i.e., the motion signals) generated by the inertial sensor (310);
determining (i.e., via (320)) a gesture of the user (see (540) in Fig. 5) based at least in part on an analysis (see (520, 530) in Fig. 5) of the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals) and the second signals (i.e., the motion signals); and
performing (i.e., via (320)) an action (i.e., a command action; see (550) in Fig. 5) associated with the gesture (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
As pertaining to Claim 12, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the one or more first sensors (330) are positioned on a back-plate (i.e., an underside) of a wristwatch (220; see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]).
As pertaining to Claim 13, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the one or more first sensors (330) comprise at least two contact sensors (i.e., multiple EMG sensors and/or multiple EMG electrodes) configured to contact the skin on the wrist (210) of the user (see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]).
As pertaining to Claim 14, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the one or more first sensors (330) comprise an electromyography (EMG) sensor configured to detect electrical signals generated by the muscle activity of the user (see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]).
As pertaining to Claim 17, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the second signals (i.e., the motion signals; see (310)) comprise rotation information (i.e., hand motion information) associated with the motion of the user (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0022]-[0025] and Page 5, Para. [0048]).
As pertaining to Claim 18, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the analysis of the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals; see (330)) and the second signals (i.e., the motion signals; see (310)) uses a machine learning algorithm (i.e., processing functionality) to determine the gesture (see Page 3, Para. [0026] and Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
As pertaining to Claim 19, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that the action (i.e., the command action; see (550) in Fig. 5) comprises outputting a flag (i.e., a gesture-identifier) that identifies a gesture (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
As pertaining to Claim 20, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Page 6, Para. [0058]-[0059]) comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device (220; see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0017]), cause the computing device to:
generate, by one or more first sensors (see (330) as EMG sensors) configured to contact skin on a wrist (210) of a user when the wearable apparatus (220) is worn by the user, first signals (i.e., EMG signals) associated with muscle activity of the user (see Page 2, Para. [0019]-[0021]);
generate, by an inertial sensor (310), second signals (i.e., motion signals) associated with a motion of the user (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0022]-[0025]);
receive (i.e., via one or more processors (320; see Page 3, Para. [0026]) the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals) generated by the one or more first sensors (330);
receive (i.e., via (320)) the second signals (i.e., the motion signals) generated by the inertial sensor (310);
determine (i.e., via (320)) a gesture of the user (see (540) in Fig. 5) based at least in part on an analysis (see (520, 530) in Fig. 5) of the first signals (i.e., the EMG signals) and the second signals (i.e., the motion signals); and
perform (i.e., via (320)) an action (i.e., a command action; see (550) in Fig. 5) associated with the gesture (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0039]-[0042]).
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 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour in view of Beck et al. (hereinafter “Beck” US 2010 / 0317958).
As pertaining to Claim 5, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that an EMG sensor comprises one or more electrodes to detect electrical activity (see Page 2, Para. [0019]). However, Forutanpour does not explicitly show that the EMG sensor comprises a first sensor electrode comprising a first electrically conductive plate and a second sensor electrode comprising a second electrically conductive plate.
Still, in the same field of endeavor, Beck discloses (see Fig. 2a) a wearable apparatus (100) comprising one or more first sensors (102, 104) configured to contact skin of a user when the wearable apparatus (100) is worn by the user, wherein the one or more first sensors (102, 104) comprise an electromyography (EMG) sensor configured to detect electrical signals generated by the muscle activity of the user (see Page 1, Para. [0009]). In this regard, Beck discloses that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an electromyography (EMG) sensor comprises a first sensor electrode (102) comprising a first electrically conductive plate (see (102)) and a second sensor electrode (104) comprising a second electrically conductive plate (see (104)) that are structurally arranged to provide accurate neuromuscular-signal sensing while simultaneously rejecting unwanted electric signals, or noise, to thereby further improve neuromuscular signal detection (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0034]-[0037] and [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Forutanpour with the teachings of Beck, such that that the EMG sensor comprises a first sensor electrode comprising a first electrically conductive plate and a second sensor electrode comprising a second electrically conductive plate, as suggested by the structural configuration of Beck, in order to provide a wrist-wearable apparatus for gesture control that supports accurate neuromuscular-signal sensing while simultaneously rejecting unwanted electric signals, or noise, to thereby further improve neuromuscular signal detection.
As pertaining to Claim 6, Beck discloses (see Fig. 2a) that the second sensor electrode (104) is a ground electrode (again, see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0037]; and again note that the structure suggested by Beck provides accurate neuromuscular-signal sensing while simultaneously rejecting unwanted electric signals, or noise, to thereby further improve neuromuscular signal detection).
As pertaining to Claim 15, Forutanpour discloses (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5) that an EMG sensor comprises one or more electrodes to detect electrical activity (see Page 2, Para. [0019]). However, Forutanpour does not explicitly show that the EMG sensor comprises a first sensor electrode comprising a first electrically conductive plate and a second sensor electrode comprising a second electrically conductive plate.
Still, in the same field of endeavor, Beck discloses (see Fig. 2a) a wearable apparatus (100) comprising one or more first sensors (102, 104) configured to contact skin of a user when the wearable apparatus (100) is worn by the user, wherein the one or more first sensors (102, 104) comprise an electromyography (EMG) sensor configured to detect electrical signals generated by the muscle activity of the user (see Page 1, Para. [0009]). In this regard, Beck discloses that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an electromyography (EMG) sensor comprises a first sensor electrode (102) comprising a first electrically conductive plate (see (102)) and a second sensor electrode (104) comprising a second electrically conductive plate (see (104)) that are structurally arranged to provide accurate neuromuscular-signal sensing while simultaneously rejecting unwanted electric signals, or noise, to thereby further improve neuromuscular signal detection (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0034]-[0037] and [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Forutanpour with the teachings of Beck, such that that the EMG sensor comprises a first sensor electrode comprising a first electrically conductive plate and a second sensor electrode comprising a second electrically conductive plate, as suggested by the structural configuration of Beck, in order to provide a wrist-wearable apparatus for gesture control that supports accurate neuromuscular-signal sensing while simultaneously rejecting unwanted electric signals, or noise, to thereby further improve neuromuscular signal detection.
As pertaining to Claim 16, Beck discloses (see Fig. 2a) that the second sensor electrode (104) is a ground electrode (again, see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0037]; and again note that the structure suggested by Beck provides accurate neuromuscular-signal sensing while simultaneously rejecting unwanted electric signals, or noise, to thereby further improve neuromuscular signal detection).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,644,799. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of Claims 1, 11, and 20 of the instant application are entirely overlapped in scope by the subject matter recited in Claims 1 and 4 of the cited U.S. Patent.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claims 1 and 4 of cited U.S. Patent
1. A wearable apparatus for gesture control, comprising:
one or more first sensors configured to contact skin on a wrist of a user when the wearable apparatus is worn by the user, wherein the one or more first sensors are configured to generate first signals associated with muscle activity of the user;
an inertial sensor configured to generate second signals associated with a motion of the user;
one or more processors configured to:
receive the first signals generated by the one or more first sensors;
receive the second signals generated by the inertial sensor;
determine a gesture of the user based at least in part on an analysis of the first signals and the second signals;
perform an action associated with the gesture.
1. A wearable electronic device comprising:
one or more contact surfaces that are substantially in contact with the user's wrist when the wearable electronic device is worn by the user, the one or more contact surfaces comprising:
one or more electromyography (EMG) sensors responsive to muscle activity corresponding to hand poses performed by the user while wearing the wearable electronic device; and
one or more capacitive sensors responsive to a body capacitance of the user corresponding to physical contact between the user and an object;
at least one processor; and
physical memory comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
identify a pose of a hand of the user based on signals provided by the one or more EMG sensors; and
identify a physical contact between the hand of the user and the object based on signals provided by the one or more capacitive sensors.
4. The wearable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising one or more inertial sensors communicatively coupled to the processor, the one or more inertial sensors responsive to motion corresponding to a gesture of the hand of the user and to provide at least one signal in response thereto, wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
recognize the gesture performed by the user based on signals provided by the one or more EMG sensors; and
determine a motion aspect of the gesture based on at least one signal provided by the one or more inertial sensors.
The subject matter of Claim 1 of the instant application is entirely overlapped in scope by the subject matter recited in Claims 1 and 4 of the cited U.S. Patent. The claimed “one or more first sensors configured to contact skin on a wrist of a user” and to “generate first signals,” as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application is overlapped by the claimed “one or more electromyography (EMG) sensors” on “one or more contact surfaces… in contact with the user’s wrist” as recited in Claim 1 of the cited U.S. Patent. Likewise, the claimed “inertial sensor configured to generate second signals,” as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application is overlapped by the claimed “one or more inertial sensors” as recited in Claim 4 of the cited U.S. Patent. Furthermore, the claimed “one or more processors” as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application perform the same functions as the claimed “at least one processor” as recited in Claims 1 and 4 of the cited U.S. Patent, including receiving “first signals” provided by the “one or more first sensors” or “electromyography (EMG) sensors,” receiving “second signals” provided by the “inertial sensor” or “one or more inertial sensors,” determining a “gesture of the user” or recognizing “the gesture performed by the user” and determining “a motion aspect of the gesture” based on the received signals, and performing an arbitrary “action” associated with the gesture, such as an arbitrary function implicit in the processing of the signals and the determining of a gesture.
Claim 11 of the instant application recites a “method of gesture control with a wearable apparatus” that is entirely overlapped in scope by the functional steps performed by the “wearable electronic device” recited in Claims 1 and 4 of the cited U.S. Patent.
Claim 20 of the instant application recites a “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to” perform a method that is entirely overlapped in scope by the functional steps performed by the “wearable electronic device” recited in Claims 1 and 4 of the cited U.S. Patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Assad (US 2013 / 0317648) and Bouton et al. (US 2015 / 0306373) disclose a wearable apparatus combining EMG sensing with inertial sensing to determine associated gestures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623