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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/12/2025 has been entered. Amendments to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30, 32-34, and 36 are acknowledged. Claims 1-44 remain pending in the application, and claims 1-22 and 38-44 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/10/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 23-28, 30-32, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Whitall et al. (US 20110184225 A1), hereinafter Whitall.
Regarding claim 23, Whitall discloses an apparatus for reducing of a patient with gait asymmetry (abstract, [0003]) of a patient with gait impairment ([0028]: “subjects who may had or are suffering from a disease or condition affecting gait”), comprising: a processor ([0036]: " The processor 210"); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor ([0036]: " The processor 210 is connected to a program and data storage device 220 for acquiring the information and program instructions needed to form the audio cuing data 201"), wherein the processor and the memory are configured to: measure one or more gait parameters of the patient while administering one or more perturbation techniques ([0008]: “measuring a person's step length and rate, such as through sensors that collect gait parameter data… accomplish real time adjustments to better help change the person's step length/rate ratio in a desired direction depending on therapeutic or performance goals.”); calculate a joint metric based on the measured one or more gait parameters ([0056]: "The pitch angle of the gait may be obtained by integrating angular velocity with respect to time in step 733", Fig 6A); and adjust an amount of one or more perturbation techniques based on the joint metric for reducing asymmetry in a gait pattern of the patient ([0008]: “The measurements are used to determine the rate of a rhythmic auditory cue to improve the person's gait.”), wherein one or more perturbation techniques comprise asymmetric rhythmic auditory cueing making a first audible cue with a first cue spacing for one leg of the patient and a second audible cue with a second cue spacing for another leg of the patient ([0031]: “rate of 50 steps per minute and a step length of 0.33 meters and the judgment was that the step rate should be increased but the step length remain the same then a method of increasing the step rate would be to set the audio cue at a rate of, say 60 steps per minute and have the individual match this.” wherein adjusting the number of cues per minute but maintaining length of the cue adjusts the spacing between cues), the first cue spacing being different from the second cue spacing ([0059-0061]: " A rhythmic auditory cue 950, optionally as separate left and right audio cues 951 and 952….. A rhythmic auditory cue 950, optionally as separate left and right audio cues 951 and 952 that increases the rate of audio cues when needed to maintain/change a step length to step rate ratio.”); and administer the adjusted one or more perturbation techniques to the patient ([0022]: “a test subject receiving treatment in accordance with an embodiments”, Fig 11)
Regarding claim 24, Whitall discloses the adjusting is based on real-time feedback to measure the one or more gait parameters ([0008]: "providing the appropriate algorithms to accomplish real time adjustments to better help change the person's step length/rate ratio in a desired direction depending on therapeutic or performance goals.").
Regarding claim 25, Whitall discloses the one or more gait parameters comprise at least one of: a spatiotemporal gait parameter, a kinetic gait parameter, or a force gait parameter ([0024]: “increasing or decreasing stride length, step length, stride frequency, and step frequency”)
Regarding claim 26, Whitall discloses wherein the spatiotemporal gait parameter comprises at least one of: a step length of the patient, a step time of the patient, a double limb support time of the patient, a stance time of the patient, or a swing time of the patient ([0024]: “increasing or decreasing stride length, step length, stride frequency, and step frequency”).
Regarding claim 27, Whitall discloses wherein the kinetic gait parameter comprises at least one of: a hip angle of the patient, a knee angle of the patient, or an ankle angle of the patient ([0040]: "angle of the foot.").
Regarding claim 28, Whitall discloses wherein the force gait parameter comprises at least one of: a vertical force of the patient, a braking force of the patient, or a push-off force of the patient ([0046]: “and gravity induced reaction forces.”).
Regarding claim 30, Whitall discloses wherein the joint metric is calculated by incorporating the measured one or more gait parameters for indicating an incorporated level of asymmetry in the gait pattern of the patient ([0047]: " For a normal gait (i.e., when symmetry=1 such that gait parameters for each foot are substantially equivalent), the number of total steps can be obtained by doubling the number of spikes from any one foot. If the person goes through the motion of walking but without any advancement in distance, the accelerometer in the sensor 530 still reports a spike in the output for each step. A processor in the gait improvement device 300, 400 may then decide whether the step is being counted towards advancement according to an encoded algorithm.").
Regarding claim 31, Whitall discloses wherein the processor and the memory are further configured to: iterate the measuring the one or more gait parameters of an patient, the calculating the joint metric based on the measured one or more gait parameters, and the signaling the adjustment of the amount of one or more perturbation techniques based on the joint metric ([0039]: “receive continuous feedback about their leg movements to determine if and when resetting of the rhythmic auditory cueing is necessary.”, wherein the measuring, calculation, and adjustment via cueing is continuous and therefore iterates).
Regarding claim 32, Whitall discloses wherein the one or more perturbation techniques applies physical properties of the patient or external manipulations that affect the one or more gait parameters ([0040]: “treadmill… The system 300 may include a user interface that has, for example, a display 301 and an input device 302. A moving belt 310 driven by motor (also not depicted) travels at one or more preset speed(s), causing the user to move at that speed(s). The speed(s) of the moving belt 10 may be combined with other gait data to form the audio cuing data provided to the user.” wherein the adjustment of speed physically manipulates the gait of the user).
Regarding claim 34, Whitall discloses wherein the one or more gait parameters further comprise a gait perception parameter for the gait pattern of the patient ([0025]: "ideal gait parameters may be determined using the user's physical characteristics, such as the user's age, sex, height, weight, etc", [0057]: " ideal gait is typically defined in view of the particular need of the observed person.").
Regarding claim 35, Whitall discloses the gait perception parameter is a weight parameter ([0025]: "ideal gait parameters may be determined using the user's physical characteristics, such as the user's age, sex, height, weight, etc").
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.
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) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitall in view of Huang et al. (US 20230066952 A1), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 29, Whitall discloses the apparatus of claim 23 but fails to disclose wherein the measuring one or more gait parameters comprises measuring the one or more gait parameters for a predetermined period of time using at least one of a force plate or a motion capture camera. However, Whitall discloses the measuring one or more gait parameters comprises measuring the one or more gait parameters for a predetermined period of time using a force sensor ([0045]: “The sensor 530 may also use a force sensor in the sole of the shoe to detect movements”).
Huang discloses a system to achieve a target gait characteristic (abstract) wherein measuring one or more gait parameters comprises measuring the one or more gait parameters for a predetermined period of time using at least one of a force plate or a motion capture camera ([0044]: “these gait parameters can be measured using one or more of the following sensors: a foot switch, an accelerometer, an inertial moment unit, a foot pressure sensor, a strain gauge, force plate, and/or a motion capture system (e.g., an imaging system).”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known force sensor disclosed by Whitall with the known force plate/motion capture camera disclosed by Huang for the predictable result of collecting gait data.
Claim(s) 33 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitall in view of Yokoyama et al. (“Characteristics of the gait adaptation process due to split-belt treadmill walking under a wide range of right-left speed ratios in humans”, as cited by applicant’s IDS files 02/23/2022), hereinafter Yokoyama.
Regarding claim 33, Whitall discloses the apparatus of claim 23, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more perturbation techniques further comprises at least one of: changing weight one foot by adding weight to a leg of the patient; changing height on foot by adding height to a leg of the patient; laterally pulling at a hip of the patient; anteriorly pulling on a leg of the patient; or training with a split-belt treadmill having different speeds for two treads.
Yokoyama discloses a gait adaptive system (abstract: “gait adaptation”) wherein one or more perturbation techniques comprises training on a split-belt treadmill having different speeds for two treads (abstract: “examined a gait behavior due to on split-belt treadmill adaptation under five belt speed difference conditions”, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the treadmill disclosed by Whitall to the split-belt treadmill disclosed by Yokoyama in order to improve the method of gait adaption via perturbation by providing differing speeds for each leg (Yokoyama pg 1 paras 1-3: “subjects walk on two belts (left and right sides) independently moving on different speeds and acquire a new walking pattern… can quickly adjust the swing and stance time on each leg to the speed difference between left and right belts”).
Regarding claim 36, Whitall discloses the apparatus of claim 23, and further discloses wherein the one or more perturbation techniques further comprises performing on a treadmill ([0039]: “treadmill training”), and wherein the signaling the adjustment comprises simultaneously signaling a first adjustment of the asymmetric rhythmic auditory cueing and a second adjustment of treadmill training ([0061]: “train the user in the ideal stride length/time ratios over a desired range of speeds using treadmill and audio cuing individually, in combination or in sequence, depending on the user.”).
Whitall fails to disclose a split-belt treadmill having different speeds for two treads.
Yokoyama discloses a gait adaptive system (abstract: “gait adaptation”) wherein one or more perturbation techniques comprises performing on a split-belt treadmill having different speeds for two treads (abstract: “examined a gait behavior due to on split-belt treadmill adaptation under five belt speed difference conditions”, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the treadmill disclosed by Whitall to the split-belt treadmill disclosed by Yokoyama in order to improve gait adaption via perturbation by providing differing speeds for each leg (Yokoyama pg 1 paras 1-3: “subjects walk on two belts (left and right sides) independently moving on different speeds and acquire a new walking pattern… can quickly adjust the swing and stance time on each leg to the speed difference between left and right belts”).
Regarding claim 37, Whitall further discloses wherein the first adjustment of the asymmetric rhythmic auditory cueing is an auditory cueing ratio of 2:1 ([0061]: "the audio cues may be provided at a constant rate to encourage a larger step length to step rate ratio, or the rate of the audio cues may be increased sufficiently to maintain a constant step length, thereby increasing the step rate to step length ratio... a gait detection and feedback system that increases the rate of audio cues when needed to maintain/change a step length to step rate ratio and optionally uses different tones to indicate to the user whether to make a shorter step length or a longer step length." wherein the audio cue may be altered to match the desired gait symmetry/asymmetry), and wherein the second adjustment of split-belt treadmill training is a split-belt ratio of 2:1 ([0061]: “a user on a treadmill may receive audio cuing during an increase in speed by increasing treadmill speed.”, as modified by Yokoyama above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11 and 12 of Remarks, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 23-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim amendments to independent claim 23 now actively recite the performed treatment. The rejection of claims 23-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 23-28, 30-32, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 29, 33, and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Whitall discloses changing the number of cues per minute and maintaining the length of the cue, which effectively changes the spacing between audio cues (see rejection above). Additionally Whitall, as cited by applicant, discloses separate audio cues for both legs (see above) for rhythmic audio cues, which includes spacing between beats. As such, Whitall discloses the amended limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791