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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112: Examiner notes that Figure 3B and Paragraphs 0084-0103 do not disclose how the models are trained or validated. The cited specification section points to Figure 4 as well which states a ‘semi-empirical model’ and ‘classifier’ but neither of these things are sufficiently described in the specification. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not detail any specifics with regards to the training, to develop their claimed model. Merely claiming training is done doesn’t provide adequate description of how one of ordinary skill in the art is meant to train a model to develop the claimed model. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
Regarding the 101 rejection:
Examiner notes from MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A: “Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include: • a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.” Outputting of kinetic forces is merely outputting of data. The analysis steps are claimed at a high level of generality. Further from MPEP 2106.05 I: “An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?”) (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).” Thus the abstract ideas themselves cannot provide significantly more.
Examiner notes that the claim does not actually claim to measure the sensor data merely that sensor data is received. A human can receive data. The claim is not specific. Further Examiner notes that merely data gathering wouldn’t provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:• Mere Data Gathering: i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);…vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).” (emphasis added).
Regarding the prior art rejection:
Examiner notes the following from the cited Paragraph 0072 of Kanchan: “Examples of the present disclosure may be configured to recognize certain activities based on input from the sensors. For example, analyzing patterns of movement with respect to orientation of the entire body and specific limbs in two or more dimensions may allow for the recognition of the activity the user is performing. Data from the sensors (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer) with respect to the earth may be compared to a database of data known to relate to performed activities. For example, collected data from sensors of sock 40 may be compared to data previously collected from previous users wearing a sock 40 to help controllers of the present disclosure recognize that a certain type of exercise or activity occurred. For example, when a user is swimming, data collected from the various sensors may be compared to the database of known data, and an algorithm may determine that the collected data is representative of someone that is swimming. Once a recognition is made that a user is performing a particular activity, a more tailored and nuanced analysis may be performed and activity-specific information can be relayed to the user.” And from Paragraph 0070 of Kanchan: “Examples of the present disclosure may measure and analyze full body biomechanics and gait analysis on-the-go, including biomechanics analysis of multiple varieties of activities in two or more dimensions.” It is therefore clear that Fu in view of Kanchan and Clark teach the amended claim limitations.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-‘the strides’ should read ‘the strides of the sequence of strides’
-‘the plurality of strides’ should read ‘the sequence of strides’
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
-‘motion capture system’ in claim 10, ‘system’ being the placeholder and ‘motion capture’ being the function; interpreted to be a camera or video camera per the specification
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 13 recite ‘a plurality of model’ but Applicant’s disclosure provides no details regarding these models or how they are to be implemented. No specific algorithm is disclosed. The specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term a plurality of models is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. What logics are programmed to help the models make an output? It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
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.
Claims 1, 5-13, and 15-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the identified strides" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the strides of the sequence of strides’
Claim 1 recites the limitation ‘the respective model’ in Lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the respective one of the plurality of models’.
The term “respective” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “respective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 uses the term ‘respective’ in relation to four different elements. It is unclear what ‘respective’ is relative to, and how each respective for each term are related given the numerous usages and inconsistent usage. For examination purposes it will be interpreted it as if there are a plurality of models, and a model from that plurality is selected depending on the gait type that is determined and the kinematic parameter and gait properties for that gait type that is determined are input into the model that is selected from the plurality of models.
Claim 1 recites ‘a respective gait type’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective kinematic parameters" in Line 12-13 and 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective interpolated kinematic gait properties" in Line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determined gait types" in Line 14 and ‘the determined gait type’ in Line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the identified strides" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the strides of the sequence of strides’
Claim 13 recites the limitation ‘the respective one’ in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “respective” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “respective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 13 uses the term ‘respective’ in relation to four different elements. It is unclear what ‘respective’ is relative to, and how each respective for each term are related given the numerous usages and inconsistent usage. For examination purposes it will be interpreted it as if there are a plurality of models, and a model from that plurality is selected depending on the gait type that is determined and the kinematic parameters that gait type that is determined are input into the model that is selected from the plurality of models.
Claim 13 recites ‘a respective gait type’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the respective kinematic parameters" in Line 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the determined gait types" in Line 14 and 16 and ‘the determined gait type’ in Line 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1, claims 1, 5-13, and 15-20 are all within at least one of the four categories (claims 1, 5-12, and 15-17 being a method and 13 and 18-20 being an apparatus).
Regarding Step 2, the independent claims 1 and 13 recite:
receiving sensory data of motion by a human subject
extracting features from the sensory data;
identifying the strides from the features extracted from the sensory data;
calculating kinematic parameters of each of the identified strides from the plurality of strides from the sensory data;
classifying each stride from the plurality of strides in accordance with the kinematic parameters to determine for the stride a respective gait type from a plurality of gait types; and
for each of the determined gait types, interpolating kinematic gait properties from the respective kinematic parameters,
providing the kinematic parameters and the respective interpolated kinematic gait properties to a respective one of a plurality of models associated with the determined gait type, each of the plurality of models associated with a respective gait type, the respective model outputting kinetic forces applied on and by the human subject in response to performing gaits of the respective gait type,
outputting a representation of the kinetic forces.
The above claim limitations are tied to the abstract idea of mental processes in that they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind. This group encompasses concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claimed steps of receiving, extracting, calculating, classifying, interpolating, providing, and outputting can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output/processing that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea. This similarly applies to the new claim limitation of “wherein the model is based on a second analytic model for interpolating kinematic gait properties as a function of foot velocity.” This merely narrows the abstract ideas and thus does not provide significantly more.
The additional elements recited include ‘a processor’ in claim 1, ‘a model’ in claim 1, ‘a second analytic model’ in claims 1 and 13, ‘at least one sensor’ in claim 8, ‘one or more sensors’ in claim 9, ‘a second sensor’ in claim 9, ‘at least one sensor’ in claim 10, ‘at least one Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) or a motion capture system’ in claim 10, ‘a processor’ in claim 13, ‘a model ‘in claim 13.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for receiving, extracting, calculating, classifying, interpolating, providing, and outputting merely invoke a computer as a tool. Each of the additional element limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function or as a generic sensor performing a mere extra-solution data gathering) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component or generic sensor component. Examiner notes those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for extra solution data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the prior art provided below teaching said components. The claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The additional elements do not provide an improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for receiving, extracting, calculating, classifying, interpolating, providing, and outputting.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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, 5-7, 10-11, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2010/0305480) in view of Kanchan et al. (US 2016/0338621) and Clark et al. (NPL Document Citation 1 on IDS filed 04/20/2021; 2017).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Fu teaches a method performed by a processor (202/350) (Abstract) and a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium retaining program instructions, which program instructions when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method (202/350) (Abstract), comprising:
receiving sensory data of motion by a human subject (Paragraph 0032; ‘or classifying human motion as corresponding to an activity will now be discussed in connection with FIG. 1. At 102, ankle motion characteristics and trunk motion characteristics associated with an activity are sensed.’), wherein the sensory data is obtained during motion in an uncontrolled environment (Paragraphs 0031-0032; ‘Dynamic activities, on the other hand, may include walking, running, cycling, etc. For example, in embodiments discussed herein, the dynamic activities recognized by the method 100 include walking, running, cycling, elliptical machine walking (i.e., elliptical walking), and rowing, any one of which may be performed with or without the aid of an exercise machine, such as a treadmill or stationary bicycle. Distinctions between each of the foregoing activities are made at nodes 406-412. More complex dynamic activities, e.g., playing sports such as tennis or soccer, may be recognized as a combination of primitive dynamic activities, such as running, walking, swinging arms, kicking, etc.’), and wherein the motion comprises a sequence of strides (Paragraph 0035; ‘Swing events, corresponding to a step, stride, or cycle, may define swing cycle intervals in the angular velocity data. Each of FIGS. 6A-6E is labeled as corresponding to a different dynamic activity. For example, graph 602a in FIG. 6A shows angular velocity data generated while a subject is walking, FIG. 6B corresponds to data generated while running, FIG. 6C to cycling, FIG. 6D to rowing, and FIG. 6E to elliptical walking. The identification of swing events and intervals is similar for each activity and will therefore be described without reference to a particular activity.);
extracting features from the sensory data (Paragraphs 0032-0034);
identifying the strides from the features extracted from the sensory data (Paragraphs 0032 and 0035-0038; Figures 6A-6E);
calculating kinematic parameters of each of the identified strides from the plurality of strides from the sensory data (Paragraphs 0032 and 0035-0038);
classifying each stride from the plurality of strides in accordance with the kinematic parameters to determine for the stride a respective gait type from a plurality of gait types (Paragraphs 0032 and 0035-0038);
outputting a representation of the kinetic forces (Paragraphs 0024 and 0028; ‘the processor 306 can implement the methodological acts of the method 100 on the motion data to detect a cyclically occurring interval and to identify an activity based on the identified interval as well as based on features of the motion data. The features may be derived using the interval and/or motion events occurring in the interval as a timing reference. Further processing may be performed on the motion data, if necessary, and an indication of the identified activity (e.g., a graphic and/or text) may be displayed by the portable computing device 202 on a display 314, such as an LCD panel, for example, or transferred to the computer 350.’).
Fu is silent on the interpolating kinematic gait properties and the models.
Clark teaches for each of the determined gait types, interpolating kinematic gait properties from the respective kinematic parameters (Figures 1-2; Introduction; Model formulation; Model force-time waveforms; Pages 247-250).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Clark because it can provide economical options for generating running ground reaction force waveforms without a force platform which can thus help inform gait interventions to reduce injuries or enhance performance (Introduction of Clark).
Kanchan teaches for each of the determined gait types, providing the respective kinematic parameters and the respective interpolated kinematic gait properties to a respective one of a plurality of models associated with the determined gait type (Paragraph 0072; ‘Once a recognition is made that a user is performing a particular activity, a more tailored and nuanced analysis may be performed and activity-specific information can be relayed to the user.’), each of the plurality of models associated with a respective gait type, the respective model outputting kinetic forces applied on and by the human subject in response to performing gaits of the respective gait type (Paragraphs 0070, 0073 and 0094-0096; Figure 8C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Kanchan because it would allow for more thorough and full analysis and feedback and allows data to be sent to an expert anywhere in the world (Paragraph 0068 of Kanchan).
Regarding claim 5, Fu teaches wherein at least one feature from the features is selected from the group consisting of: human subject information including: subject height, weight, age, gender, leg length, foot length, or dominant leg; stride information for each stride in a sequence of one or more strides including: side, stride length, stride duration, contact time with the ground, flight ratio, stride change in heading angle, pronation, maximal foot height, or change in height; and ball touch data, including: type or release velocity (Paragraphs 0032-0034).
Regarding claim 6, Fu teaches wherein at least one feature from the features relates to the sensory data in at least one dimension in time or frequency domain (Paragraphs 0032-0034; Figures 6A-6E).
Regarding claim 7, Fu teaches wherein at least one feature from the features relates to a three dimensional motion profile of the human subject (Paragraphs 0032-0034; ‘FIG. 5 discloses various example graphs of angular velocity data gathered by a gyroscopic sensor attached to an ankle during different activities. A gyroscopic sensor can sense angular velocity in three dimensions or axes.’).
Regarding claim 10, Fu teaches wherein the sensory data is obtained from at least one sensor comprising at least one Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) or a motion capture system (Paragraph 0025; ‘The sensors 204 may include motion sensors, such as accelerometers, tilt sensors, and gyroscopic sensors, as well as other types of sensors.’).
Regarding claim 11, Fu teaches wherein the method is used for assessing a medical condition of the human subject (Paragraph 0024; ‘ The computing device may include an activity classification capability to, for example, monitor and gauge health risks and improvements, track performance of an exercise routine, build medical histories, and/or augment a virtual reality system, among other things.’).
Regarding claim 15, Fu is silent on the interpolating kinematic gait properties. Clark teaches wherein the interpolation of kinematic gait properties comprises a prediction of a contact time of the respective stride for each foot of the human subject by a second analytic model (Model force-time waveforms section and Figure 3 discusses prediction waveforms that would predict footfalls and thus contact times). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Clark because it can provide economical options for generating running ground reaction force waveforms without a force platform which can thus help inform gait interventions to reduce injuries or enhance performance (Introduction of Clark).
Regarding claim 16, Fu is silent on the interpolating kinematic gait properties. Clark teaches wherein the interpolation of kinematic gait properties comprises a prediction of a contact time asymmetry of the respective stride by the second analytic model (Model force-time waveforms section and Figure 3 discusses prediction waveforms that would predict footfalls of both feet and thus contact time asymmetry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Clark because it can provide economical options for generating running ground reaction force waveforms without a force platform which can thus help inform gait interventions to reduce injuries or enhance performance (Introduction of Clark).
Regarding claim 17, Fu is silent on the interpolating kinematic gait properties. Clark teaches wherein the interpolation of kinematic gait properties comprises a prediction of symmetry of flight time or step length of the human subject by a second analytic model (Model force-time waveforms section and Figure 3 discusses prediction waveforms that would predict footfalls of both feet and thus symmetry of flight of time or step length). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Clark because it can provide economical options for generating running ground reaction force waveforms without a force platform which can thus help inform gait interventions to reduce injuries or enhance performance (Introduction of Clark).
Regarding claim 18, Fu is silent on the interpolating kinematic gait properties. Clark teaches wherein the interpolation of kinematic gait properties comprises a prediction of a contact time of the respective stride for each foot of the human subject by a second analytic model (Model force-time waveforms section and Figure 3 discusses prediction waveforms that would predict footfalls and thus contact times). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Clark because it can provide economical options for generating running ground reaction force waveforms without a force platform which can thus help inform gait interventions to reduce injuries or enhance performance (Introduction of Clark).
Regarding claim 19, Fu is silent on the interpolating kinematic gait properties. Clark teaches wherein the interpolation of kinematic gait properties comprises a prediction of a contact time asymmetry of the respective stride by the second analytic model (Model force-time waveforms section and Figure 3 discusses prediction waveforms that would predict footfalls of both feet and thus contact time asymmetry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Clark because it can provide economical options for generating running ground reaction force waveforms without a force platform which can thus help inform gait interventions to reduce injuries or enhance performance (Introduction of Clark).
Regarding claim 20, Fu is silent on the interpolating kinematic gait properties. Clark teaches wherein the interpolation of kinematic gait properties comprises a prediction of symmetry of flight time or step length of the human subject by a second analytic model (Model force-time waveforms section and Figure 3 discusses prediction waveforms that would predict footfalls of both feet and thus symmetry of flight of time or step length). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Clark because it can provide economical options for generating running ground reaction force waveforms without a force platform which can thus help inform gait interventions to reduce injuries or enhance performance (Introduction of Clark).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2010/0305480) in view of Kanchan et al. (US 2016/0338621) and Clark et al. (NPL Document Citation 1 on IDS filed 04/20/2021; 2017) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Molyneux et al. (US 2010/0184563).
Regarding claim 8, Fu is silent on a sensor mounted to a shoe of the subject but does teach integrating sensors into clothing of the user (Paragraph 0025). Molyneux teaches wherein the sensory data is obtained from at least one sensor mounted on at least one shoe of the human subject (Paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Molyneux because both Fu and Molyneux teach the placement of the sensors as being a design choice (Paragraph 0025 of Fu and Paragraph 0045 of Molyneux).
Regarding claim 9, Fu is silent on a sensor mounted to a shoe of the subject but does teach integrating sensors into clothing of the user (Paragraph 0025). Molyneux teaches wherein the sensory data is obtained from one or more first sensors mounted on at least one shoe of the subject (Paragraph 0045) and a second sensor mounted on another location on the human subject (Paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fu with Molyneux because both Fu and Molyneux teach the placement of the sensors as being a design choice (Paragraph 0025 of Fu and Paragraph 0045 of Molyneux).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2010/0305480) in view of Kanchan et al. (US 2016/0338621) and Clark et al. (NPL Document Citation 1 on IDS filed 04/20/2021; 2017) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Jangle et al. (US 2011/0066383).
Regarding claim 12, Fu is silent on using the system for indication of fall risks. Jangle teaches further comprising providing an indication to an increased risk of fall or another neurological condition of the human subject based on changes in kinetic and kinematic parameters or recognition of abnormal gait patterns (Paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art to have modified Fu with Jangle because it aids in identifying safety patterns to avoid injuries by preventing/reducing falls (Paragraph 0052 of Jangle).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM 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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791