DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 August 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 16-17 and 23 is/are currently amended. New claim(s) 31 has/have been added. Claim(s) 1-31 is/are pending.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and/or rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph) not reproduced has/have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims and/or submitted remarks.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 31 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to contain a typographical error in view of the specification as filed (e.g., ¶ [00117]), and should be amended/corrected for consistency with the specification, e.g., within the scope of, "…wherein the gait metrics include a kinetic gait metric including peak and average forces in a plane, force angle, and gait line."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 1-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 16 and claims dependent thereon, the limitation(s) "determining analytical data associated with the motion data, the analytical data including …force distribution on the foot of the user during the session…based on the filtered data via a processor; and categorizing the determined analytical data to provide a measurement of load on each of a plurality of areas of the foot during the session…" of claim 1 and the comparable limitation(s) of claim 16 are indefinite. Applicant discloses, "The force distribution module uses calibrated force data to calculate the force differences between left and right foot, as well as the differences between the various regions of each foot. Through the subject matter expert, force-sensitive resistors in the insole layer 120 captures data from the most relevant regions of the foot, providing insight into the loading pattern experienced by the user during the gait cycle" (¶ [0112]); "The visualization 1800b shows a comparative graphical plot of load distribution over time measured by individual force-sensitive resistors in each region of the left foot and right foot of a user during a walking session" (¶ [0127]); etc. The above-noted paragraphs appear to indicate the force measured by the force-sensitive resistors is/provides a measure of load. Accordingly, it is unclear how, if at all, the provided measurement of "load on each of a plurality of areas of the foot during the session" differs in scope from the previously-recited determined "force distribution on the foot of the user during the session."
Regarding claim 31 and claims dependent thereon, the limitation "wherein the gait metrics include a [kinetic] gait metric including peak and average forces in a plane, force angle, and gait line" is indefinite. Due to the apparently conflicting language of the limitation, it is unclear how many kinetic gait metrics are required to be determined. Specifically, "a [kinetic] gait metric" is singular, while plural metrics are recited as being included in said metric. Are peak and average forces in a plane, force angle, and gait line somehow combined into a single "metric"? Is the limitation intended to indicate any one of the listed metrics are required to be determined? Is the limitation intended to indicate each of the listed metrics is required to be determined?
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-19, 22-23 and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0049670 A1 (previously cited, Markison) in view of WO 2019/175899 A1 (previously cited, Jain), US 2017/0239551 A1 (previously cited, Pease) and US 2016/0249833 A1 (previously cited, Ronchi); or alternatively, over Markison in view of US 6,360,597 B1 (Hubbard), Jain, Pease and Ronchi.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12-19, 22, 25 and 27-30, Markison teaches/suggests a motion analytics system comprising:
a footwear device having an insole layer (¶ [0053] insole of a shoe), the footwear device including one or more inertial sensors, such as one or more three-axis accelerometers and/or one or more three-axis gyroscopes, configured to detect motion of a user (¶ [0053] 3D foot positioning data from one or more accelerometers and/or gyroscopes) and a plurality of force pressure sensors distributed in different areas of the insole layer (Fig. 7, pressure sensor elements 20), such as one or more force-sensitive resistors (¶ [0065] pressure sensing elements 20 includes one more of a resistive pressure sensor)
an external computing device (computing device 25) having a processor and a non-transitory processor-readable memory coupled to the processor, the non-transitory processor-readable memory comprising machine-readable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the external computing device to perform a data analytics method (¶ [0059]), said method comprising:
receiving motion data generated by the sensors of the footwear device (¶ [0060]) during a session where the user is involved in physical activity (e.g., ¶ [0062] walking, running, playing a sport, executing an athletic movement, lifting weights, cross-fit training, etc.);
organizing the received data (¶ [0085] correlating foot force data and 3D foot data in accordance with the sampling signal to produce correlated foot data) including assigning user characteristics to the received motion data, such as age, height, weight, past injuries, etc. of the user (¶ [0087] characteristics used to adjust processing of the received data); and segmenting one or more portions of the received motion data based on one or more user-defined time-stamped sessions (¶ [0159] the processing module determines whether the end of the time period has been reached, such as by the user ending tracking);
determining analytical data associated with the motion data, the analytical data including at least force distribution on the foot of the user during the session (e.g., ¶ [0053] weight distribution, imbalances in weight distribution; ¶ [0054] forces of various locations on each foot; ¶ [0185] weight force vector distribution between medial-lateral sides of the foot, and between forefoot and heel; etc.), and gait metrics of the user during the session including stride length, foot angle, etc. (e.g., ¶ [0053] stride length, foot rotation, form, gait, etc.); and
categorizing the determined analytical data, e.g., as either a left foot of the user, or a right foot of the user and/or a dispersion of the data across regions within the left foot of the user, or a right foot of the user (¶ [0160] where a right/left imbalance may be determined; ¶ [0167] imbalances in foot forces; etc.); compiling the categorized data; and presenting the compiled data to provide a measurement load on each of a plurality of areas of the foot during the session and load distribution on the plurality of areas of the foot over time during the session via the processor (e.g., ¶ [0064] a GUI displays, in real-time, information about the session, e.g., a run, such as time duration, stride length information, foot force information, gait information, etc., and/or foot forces and foot positioning during the physical activity/session to determine proper form, fatigue analysis, injury predictive analysis, weight distribution, and corrective measures of form) and a predictive feedback based on the compiled data to the user, such as a recommended course of action to prevent an injury to the user (e.g., ¶ [0169] the processing module can interpret abnormalities in the data to identify potential injuries and determine a preventative measure based on the potential injury and/or abnormality).
Markison discloses the measured foot forces and foot positioning may be displayed, in real-time, during a physical activity to determine proper form, fatigue analysis, injury predictive analysis, weight distribution, etc., as noted above (e.g., ¶ [0064]). Since the "foot forces" are measured by a plurality of force sensors distributed across the foot of the user (e.g., Fig. 7), displaying the measured foot forces in real-time provides a measurement of load or force on each of a plurality of areas of the foot during the session and load distribution on the plurality of areas of the foot over time during the session. Alternatively/Additionally, Hubbard discloses a similar method comprising receiving motion data generated by a plurality of force pressure sensors distributed in different areas of shoe insert (Fig. 2) and providing a measurement of load on each of a plurality of areas of the foot and load distribution on the plurality of areas of the foot over time (e.g., Fig. 3). 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 method of Markison with categorizing the determined analytical data to provide a measurement of load on each of a plurality of areas of the foot during the session and load distribution on the plurality of areas of the foot over time during the session as disclosed/suggested by Hubbard in order to permit a user to obtain additional diagnostically useful information (Hubbard, col. 3, line 57 - col. 4, line 16).
While Markison discloses the plurality of force sensors are distributed in different areas of the insole layer as noted above, Markison as modified does not expressly disclose the inertial sensor(s) are disposed/positioned in the insole layer.
Jain discloses a comparable system comprising a footwear device having an insole layer (Fig. 3, insole that can be worn with a shoe/sock), the insole layer comprising one or more inertial sensors configured to detect motion of a user (Fig. 3, IMU) and a plurality of force pressure sensors distributed in different areas of the insole layer (Fig. 3, FSR).
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 method of Markison with the insole layer as taught and/or suggested by Jain as a simple substitution of one suitable means/method for integrating the claimed sensors with a footwear device for another to yield no more than predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Markison as modified does not discloses the method comprises filtering at least a portion of the organized data through a frequency-based signal processing filter to remove background noise and interference therefrom, wherein the analytical data is determined based on the filtered data.
Pease teaches/suggests a comparable data analytics method comprising filtering at least a portion of motion data, such as at least inertial data, through a frequency-based signal processing filter, such as a Butterworth filter, to remote background noise and interference therefrom (e.g., ¶ [0093] pre-processing of sensor data (e.g., amplification and/or Butterworth filtering) may be carried out prior to analyzing said data).
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 method of Markison with filtering at least a portion of the organized data through a frequency-based signal processing filter to remove background noise and interference therefrom, such that the analytical data is determined based on the filtered data, as taught and/or suggested by Pease in order to increase the accuracy/reliability of the analytical data by removing background noise and/or interference prior to the determination thereof.
Markison as modified does not expressly disclose the analytical data further includes a load absorbed by the user during the session. However, Markison does disclose determined analytical data may include ground reaction forces and further discloses a preventative measure provided to a user may include restricting training to a maximum amount (e.g., ¶ [0169]).
Ronchi teaches/suggests determining analytical data associated with motion data including load absorbed by a user during an activity/session (¶ [0023] determining a measure of "load total" for a jogging session). Ronchi discloses such a metric may be assessed with respect to a preferred range or threshold to indicate potential biomechanical issues that may relate to injury or indicate degradation of performance (e.g., ¶ [0022]). Accordingly, Ronchi teaches/suggests load absorbed by a user additional provides a measure or indicator of physical demand on the user from the session (e.g., within a recommended range, too much, too little, etc.).
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 method of Markison with the determined analytical data further including load absorbed by the user during the session as taught/suggested by Ronchi in order to provide an additional measure/indicator of physical demand on the user from the session; to enable the user to determine if he/she is complying with a recommended preventative measure, such as a maximum training amount; etc.
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Markison as modified teaches and/or suggests the analytical data further comprises a speed of a user (e.g., ¶ [0062] pace), a step of a user, and/or force and impulse of each step of the user (e.g., ¶ [0053] ground reaction forces).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Markison as modified teaches and/or suggests the limitations of claims 1 and 16, as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose categorizing the determined analytical data is based on categorizing a type of motion of the user defined by (i) a speed and acceleration of the user, (ii) force and impulse of each step of the user, and/or (iii) a directional change of the user. However, Markison discloses the system can automatically (e.g., based on sensor data) start tracking physical activity and discloses different optimization metrics and/or criteria are used for different activities, particularly activities in which the user makes different directional changes (e.g. Figs. 27-28, running vs. rotational sport optimization). Accordingly, 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 method of Markison with categorizing the determined analytical data based on categorizing a type of motion of the user, such as a directional change of the user, in order to facilitate providing performance information specific to the type of motion (Markison, Figs. 27-28).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markison in view of Jain, Pease and Ronchi (or Markison in view of Hubbard, Jain, Pease and Ronchi) as applied to claim(s) 3 and 18 above, and further in view of US 2019/0192910 A1 (previously cited, Weast).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 20-21, Markison as modified teaches/suggests the limitations of claims 3 and 18, as discussed above, but does not disclose organizing the received data further comprises validating the received motion data through removal of erroneous and missing data, thereby ensuring data integrity, and interpolating the erroneous and missing data into the validated data to form the organized data.
Weast teaches/suggests a method, said method comprising organizing received motion data by validating the received motion data through removal of erroneous and missing data (e.g., ¶ [0050] contact time and corresponding triplets may be filtered if the contact time is a specified number of standard deviations away from the mean to remove potential outliers or flawed data points), and interpolating the erroneous and missing data into the validated data to form the organized data (e.g., ¶ [0050] interpolating between accepted or non-removed triplets).
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 method of Markison with organizing the received data further comprising validating the received motion data through removal of erroneous and missing data, thereby ensuring data integrity, and interpolating the erroneous and missing data into the validated data to form the organized data as taught and/or suggested by Weast in order to remove and replace potentially inaccurate data that would skew the analytical data (Weast, ¶ [0050]).
Claim(s) 9 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markison in view of Jain, Pease and Ronchi (or Markison in view of Hubbard, Jain, Pease and Ronchi) as applied to claim(s) 8 and 23 above, and further in view of US 2020/0046061 A1 (previously cited, Mazzoleni).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Markison as modified teaches and/or suggests the limitations of claims 8 and 23, as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose determining the analytical data comprises recognizing patterns in the filtered data through (i) a classification algorithm, or (ii) a regression algorithm.
Mazzoleni teaches/suggests a comparable method comprising determining analytical data comprises recognizing patterns in the filtered data through a classification algorithm (e.g., ¶ [0094] system may determine and display foot strike characteristic data as a classification result, e.g., as one of a heel foot strike pattern, midfoot foot strike pattern, or forefoot foot strike pattern).
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 method of Markison with determining the analytical data further comprising recognizing patterns in the filtered data through a classification algorithm as taught/suggested by Mazzoleni in order to facilitate providing to the user his/her predominant gait and/or stride pattern (Mazzoleni, ¶ [0094]), changes in which may be monitored over time as an indication of fatigue (Markison, ¶ [0166]).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markison in view of Jain, Pease and Ronchi (or Markison in view of Hubbard, Jain, Pease and Ronchi) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0061698 A1 (Melakessou) and US 2021/0244318 A1 (Sashen).
Regarding claim 31, Markison discloses/suggests the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose the gait metrics include kinetic gait metrics including peak and average forces in a plane, force angle, and gait line.
Melakessou discloses a comparable method comprising receiving motion data generated by a plurality of force pressure sensors distributed in different areas of an insole (e.g., Fig. 1, plurality of pressure sensors 1.1-1.8) and determining gait metrics based on the motion data (stride key indicators, SKI), said gait metrics including kinetic gait metrics such as peak and average forces in a plane (e.g., ¶ [0061] maximum pressure Pmax over a stride cycle, average pressure Pave over the stride cycle), a gait line (¶¶ [0065]-[0066] trajectory of the geometric center G for a stride cycle, or a plurality of stride cycles), etc.
Sashen similarly discloses a comparable method comprising receiving motion data generated by one or more inertial sensors and/or a plurality of force pressure sensors distributed in different areas of an insole (¶¶ [0024]-[0025] sensors 116, 118) and determining gait metrics based on the motion data including at least force angle (e.g., ¶ [0033] one or more force vector angles at and during contact).
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 method of Markison with gait metrics comprising kinetic gait metrics including peak and average forces in a plane, force angle, and gait line as taught and/or suggested by Melakessou and Sashen in order to provide additional metrics indicative of whether performance of a physical activity is being done optimally (Markison, ¶ [0053]; Melakessou, ¶ [0067], ¶ [0070]; Sashen, ¶ [0062]; etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, "Markinson does not disclose load distribution on areas of the foot over time. Cited paragraph 53 of Markison only discloses weight distribution, but does not disclose that the distribution is determined over time during the exercise session as now recited by the amended claims" (Remarks, pg. 9).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejections above, Markison discloses the measured foot forces and foot positioning may be displayed, in real-time, during a physical activity to determine proper form, fatigue analysis, injury predictive analysis, weight distribution, etc., as noted above (e.g., ¶ [0064]). Since the "foot forces" are measured by a plurality of force sensors distributed across the foot of the user (e.g., Fig. 7), displaying the measured foot forces in real-time provides a measurement of load or force on each of a plurality of areas of the foot during the session and load distribution on the plurality of areas of the foot over time during the session. Alternatively/Additionally, Hubbard more expressly illustrates how the plurality of measured foot forces may be displayed, disclosing diagnostically useful information can be obtained from such a provided output (e.g., col. 4, lines 11-16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Meredith Weare whose telephone number is 571-270-3957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice to schedule an interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tse Chen, can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/Meredith Weare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791