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 .
This Office action is responsive to the Reply of Office Action filed March 17, 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1-12. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed March 17, 2025, with respect to the objections made to claims 1-2, 5 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objections made to claims 1-2, 5 and 7 has been withdrawn. Additionally, the Examiner would like to further note that as Applicant has provided more details regarding the data acquisition device of claim 8, the walk measurement device of claim 9, and the output device of claim 10, the claims will no longer be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
However, some of Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2025 are not considered to be persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 112(b), there are still indefiniteness issues present in the claims. In claim 1, it is unclear whether the recitation of "change the second threshold based on a detection result of the change in a trend of the peak values" recited at lines 17-18 is the same as or different than the recitation of "a change in a trend of peak values" recited at line 15. Claims 11 and 12 are similarly rejected and interpreted for their respective recitations of "change in a trend of the peak values" when each claim respectively previously recites “change in a trend of peak values”, and claims 3 and 7 are similarly rejected and interpreted for their respective recitations of “change in a trend of the peak values” when they each depend upon claim 1 which already recites “change in a trend of peak values”. With respect to claim 2, it is unclear what further limitation claim 2 is providing to the device of claim 1 as claim 2 merely states what the peak values are associated with and does not provide a further structural limitation. Therefore, there are still indefiniteness issues found within the claims, and as such, the claims are still rejected under 35 USC 112(b). See 35 USC 112(b) rejections below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the 101 rejection seems mischaracterized as the Examiner has determined that the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter but then the Examiner considers the invention in view of Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B analysis. Applicant further argues that the claims, even if having features that could be analogous to an abstract idea, are overall indicative of a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because Applicant’s specification describes a technical problem in power consumption related to use of walk measurement sensors, and that Applicant’s specification describes technical improvements that achieve high efficiency and low power consumption of walk measurement while flexibly responding to a change in walking state. Moreover, Applicant argues that the claims do not represent using a computer as a tool but instead improves the computer technology itself. The Examiner would like to first clarify that the Examiner deduced that the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter after analysis of the claimed invention in view of Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Applicant’s specification describes a technical problem in power consumption related to use of walk measurement sensors, and that Applicant’s specification describes technical improvements that achieve high efficiency and low power consumption of walk measurement while flexibly responding to a change in walking state, which improves computer technology, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant has not provided evidence of an improvement, and the mere assertion that there is an improvement to the technological field is not persuasive. Therefore, the claims are still rejected under 35 USC 101 because considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In response to Applicant’s request that the Examiner suggests an amendment to overcome the 101 rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite a practical application of the detected change in the trend of peak values using log data of the peak values of an acceleration in the travel direction in a discrimination mode (i.e., what outcome for a user is effected by the detection of the change in trend of peak values?).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103, Applicant argues that the Hirabayashi does not anticipate claim 1 because Hirabayashi does not teach “in the power saving mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a low-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the gravity direction, in the discrimination mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a high-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the travel direction, and in the walk measurement mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data and the angular velocity data by high-speed operation, and the walk measurement device calculates an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device". Furthermore, Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 103 over Hirabayashi in view of Chang should be traversed because Chang does not cure the deficiencies of Hirabayashi.
The Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive because Hirabayashi does teach power-saving with respect to the angular velocity and acceleration sensors when it is determined that the user is engaging in specific actions (see Hirabayashi, par 0008, 0024-0026, 0027, 0042-0044). Moreover, with respect to the limitation of calculating an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See 35 USC 103 rejections below.
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 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 1-12 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 “detect a change in a trend of peak values using log data of the peak values” at line 15, and “change the second threshold based on a detection result of the change in a trend of the peak values” at lines 17-18 [emphasis added]. It is unclear whether the recitation of "change the second threshold based on a detection result of the change in a trend of the peak values" recited at lines 17-18 is the same as or different than the recitation of "a change in a trend of peak values" recited at line 15. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the recitations at line 15 and lines 17-18 are referring to the same change in a trend of peak values. The examiner suggests changing the recitation at lines 17-18 to recite "change the second threshold based on a detection result of the change in the trend of the peak values". Claims 11 and 12 are similarly rejected and interpreted for their respective recitations of "change in a trend of the peak values" when each claim respectively previously recites “change in a trend of peak values”, and claims 3 and 7 are similarly rejected and interpreted for their respective recitations of “change in a trend of the peak values” when they each depend upon claim 1 which already recites “change in a trend of peak values”.
Claim 1 recites “the angular velocity data” at line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation, and as such, it is unclear as to what angular velocity the claim is referring. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the data acquisition device generates angular velocity data in addition to acceleration data in the walk measurement mode using a high-speed operation. Claim 11 (see line 21) and Claim 12 (see line 21) are similarly rejected and interpreted.
Claim 1 recites “the walk measurement device” at line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation, and as such, it is unclear as to whether this recited “walk measurement device” is the same as or different than the walk measurement system recited at line 2 of the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the recited “walk measurement device” is the recited “walk measurement system”. Claim 11 (see lines 2 & 21) and Claim 12 (see lines 2 & 22) are similarly rejected and interpreted.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether Applicant is claiming the overall walk measurement system that includes the determination device and the data acquisition device or merely the determination device only, as claim 1 does not explicitly state that the operation modes (i.e., the power saving mode, the discrimination mode, and the walk measurement mode) are related to any device other than the determination device. Further, the determination device is not recited to have control over the data acquisition device, but at lines 20-28 of claim 1, there are limitations directed to how the acquisition device operates in each mode, and it is unclear how those limitations relate to the determination device. The Examiner respectfully requests clarification of this matter.
Claim 8 recites “a walk measurement system comprising: the determination device according to claim 1; and a data acquisition device that is arranged in footwear of the user” at lines 1-3. It is unclear how these lines of claim 8 differ from the preamble of claim 1 that recites “a determination device that constitutes a walk measurement system together with a data acquisition device”. The Examiner respectfully requests clarification.
Dependent claims are similarly rejected as their base 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 11 follows.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including detecting a change in a trend of peak values using log data of the peak values of an acceleration in the travel direction in a discrimination mode, and calculating an attitude angle using a determination result. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of detecting a change in a trend of peak values using log data of the peak values of an acceleration in the travel direction in a discrimination mode and calculating an attitude angle using a determination result set forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 11 recites changing the second threshold based on the change trend of the peak values, generating acceleration data in a power saving mode using a low-speed operation, generating acceleration data in a discrimination mode using a high-speed operation, and generating acceleration data and angular velocity data in a walk measurement mode using a high-speed operation, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Neither the change of the second threshold value nor the generation of acceleration data and angular velocity data provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the changed second threshold value, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of receiving sensor data, switching an operation mode from a power saving mode to a discrimination mode, switching an operation mode from the discrimination mode to a walk measurement mode, and transmitting sensor data in the walk measurement mode. The receiving, switching, and transmitting steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited memory and processor are configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The same rationale applies to claim 12.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and data processing. The receiving, switching, and transmitting steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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.
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) ) 1-9 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20150370310 -- as cited by applicant--, hereinafter referenced as "Hirabayashi", in view of US Patent Application Publication 20200333137, hereinafter referenced as "Cutri".
With respect to claim 1, Hirabayashi teaches a determination device 20, 30 (i.e., an electronic device that comprises a determiner) (see Hirabayashi, par 0052, 0064, figs. 7 & 9) that constitutes a walk measurement system together with a data acquisition device (see Hirabayashi, par 0054-0055), the determination device comprising:
at least one memory 24 storing instructions (i.e., the memory is connected to a controller that controls operation of the electronic device) (see Hirabayashi, par 0052-0053, 0075, fig. 7);
and at least one processor 23, 25 (i.e., a controller that contains a determiner unit configured to receive waveforms of angular velocity signals and acceleration signals) connected to the at least one memory (see Hirabayashi, par 0053-0055, 0058-0059, 0062, fig. 7) and configured to execute the instructions to:
receive sensor data including acceleration in a travel direction of a user and in a gravity direction (i.e., the determiner connected to the controller is connected to and receives data from an acceleration sensor 12, wherein the acceleration sensor detects respective accelerations along directions of x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis) (see Hirabayashi, par 0029, 0054, 0056, 0059, 0061-0063, 0064-0066, 0068-0069, 0071-0072, 0074-0077, figs. 4A-4B, 7-8);
switch an operation mode from a power saving mode to a discrimination mode in response to the acceleration in the gravity direction exceeding a first threshold in the power saving mode (i.e., the determiner determines an action mode of the user based on the acceleration signal wherein a difference between acceleration signals in the direction of the y-axis of two cycles is compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether or not a user has stopped a first action, such as walking) (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074)
switch the operation mode from the discrimination mode to a walk measurement mode in response to the acceleration in the travel direction exceeding a second threshold in the discrimination mode (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044);
detect a change in a trend of peak values using log data of the peak values of the acceleration in the travel direction in the discrimination mode (i.e., peak values of the acceleration signal waveform data are used to determine whether the user is continuing to walk or has stopped) (see Hirabayashi, par 0032, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0047, 0059, fig. 4B);
change the second threshold based on a detection result of the change in the trend of the peak values (i.e., the predetermined threshold defined to the angular velocity sensor can be set to a value smaller than the peak value of the angular velocity signal) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044);
and transmit the sensor data in the walk measurement mode (i.e., determination results from the determiner 13 can be transmitted to the controller 15) (see Hirabayashi, par 0049),
wherein in the power saving mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a low-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the gravity direction (i.e., the determiner determines an action mode of the user based on the acceleration signal wherein a difference between acceleration signals in the direction of the y-axis of two cycles is compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether or not a user has stopped a first action, such as walking) (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074),
in the discrimination mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a high-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the travel direction (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044),
and in the walk measurement mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data and the angular velocity data by high-speed operation (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044).
Hirabayashi fails to teach the walk measurement device calculates an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device.
Cutri teaches a method for estimating the direction of motion of an individual, wherein acceleration and angular rotation of an individual is measured as they walk (see Cutri, abstract, par 0002). From that obtained data, the attitude (i.e., attitude angle) of the individual is determined (see Cutri, abstract, par 0002, 0042, 0070, figs. 3 & 4). The determination of the attitude of the individual based upon their acceleration and angular rotation while walking can be used to reconstruct the axis and direction of motion of the individual’s movement on a horizontal plane regardless of how the individual is carrying the device that measures their acceleration and angular rotation (see Cutri, par 0042, figs. 3 & 4).
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 system of Hirabayashi such that the walk measurement device calculates an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device because the determination of the attitude of an individual based upon their acceleration and angular rotation while walking can be used to reconstruct the axis and direction of motion of the individual’s movement on a horizontal plane regardless of how the individual is carrying the device that measures their acceleration and angular rotation (see Cutri, par 0042, figs. 3 & 4).
With respect to claim 2, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Hirabayashi further teaches the at least one processor 23, 25 is configured to execute the instructions to detect the change in the trend of the peak values using the log data of the peak values caused by heel contact of the user (i.e., peak values of the acceleration signal waveform data are used to determine whether the user is continuing to walk or has stopped, therefore such data is associated with heel contact of the user as they move/walk) (see Hirabayashi, par 0032, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0047, 0059, fig. 4B).
With respect to claim 3, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Hirabayashi further teaches the at least one processor 23, 25 is configured to execute the instructions to:
store the log data of the peak values of the acceleration in the travel direction in the discrimination mode (i.e., the memory connected to the processor stores characteristic waveforms and their associated peaks of a user's predetermined action) (see Hirabayashi, par 0053);
read the stored log data of the peak values (i.e., the stored characteristic waveforms and their associated peaks are retrieved and used to compare with data obtained from the sensors) (see Hirabayashi, par 0053-0054, 0058, 0060-0062, 0072, 0075);
and determine the change in a trend of the peak values using the log data of the peak values (i.e., the stored characteristic waveforms and their associated peaks are retrieved and used to compare with data obtained from the sensors) (see Hirabayashi, par 0053-0054, 0058, 0060-0062, 0072, 0075).
With respect to claim 4, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Hirabayashi further teaches the at least one processor 23, 25 is configured to execute the instructions to
determine that the change in the trend of the peak values is upward in a case where a slope of a regression line obtained by performing linear regression on the log data of the peak values is positive (i.e., the determiner determines whether or not the values from the angular velocity signal are positive and whether the positive value increases) (see Hirabayashi, par 0038-0040, 0047, fig. 6),
determine that the change in the trend of the peak values is downward in a case where the slope of the regression line is negative (i.e., the determiner 13 determines whether or not there are negative peaks in the acceleration signal in the direction of the y-axis) (see Hirabayashi, par 0038-0040, fig. 6),
increase an absolute value of the second threshold in a case where the change in the trend of the peak values is determined to be upward (i.e., the threshold can be set based on a correlation function to modulate the threshold according to the correlation between the waveform of obtained signals and the waveforms stored in the memory) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044, 0060),
and decrease the absolute value of the second threshold in a case where the change in the trend of the peak values is determined to be downward (i.e., the predetermined threshold defined to the angular velocity sensor can be set to a value smaller than the peak value of the angular velocity signal when the peak value exceeds the current threshold) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044).
With respect to claim 5, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the determination device according to claim 4. Hirabayashi further teaches the at least one processor 23, 25 is configured to execute the instructions to
store a determination criterion regarding a range of the slope of the regression line within which the change in the trend of the peak values is determined to be constant (i.e., stored characteristic waveforms are stored in the memory and are representative of the user walking at a constant distance or for a constant period of time, therefore the characteristic waveform is of constant walking of a user) (see Hirabayashi, par 0053),
determine that the change in the trend of the peak values is constant in a case where the slope of the regression line is within the range of the determination criterion (i.e., the characteristic waveform is representative of a constant waveform of the user and is used to identify the start of walking of the user) (see Hirabayashi, par 0042, 0053),
maintain the second threshold without change in a case where the change in the trend of the peak values is determined to be constant (i.e., no threshold change is needed when the waveform matches the characteristic waveform as that is indicative that the user has started walking) (see Hirabayashi, par 0042, 0053).
With respect to claim 6, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Hirabayashi further teaches
the at least one processor 23, 25 is configured to execute the instructions to store a learning model regarding the change in the trend of the peak values,
and detect the change in the trend of the peak values by applying the log data of the peak values to the learning model (i.e., the controller is configured to store a characteristic waveform of the user walking which is used to detect changes in peak values of the waveform data obtained from the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor) (see Hirabayashi, par 0033, 0042-0043, 0053).
With respect to claim 7, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Hirabayashi further teaches a storage 24 (i.e., a memory) that stores the first threshold set for the acceleration in the gravity direction and the second threshold set for the acceleration in the travel direction (i.e., the thresholds are used by the determiner which is connected to the memory and are thus stored in the memory) (see Hirabayashi, par 0053),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the second threshold in the storage based on the detection result of the change in the trend of the peak values (i.e., the thresholds are used by the determiner which is connected to the memory and are thus stored in the memory) (see Hirabayashi, par 0053).
With respect to claim 8, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches a walk measurement system comprising:
the determination device 20, 30 according to claim 1 (i.e., an electronic device that comprises a determiner) (see Hirabayashi, par 0052, 0064, figs. 7 & 9);
and a data acquisition device 11, 12 that is arranged in footwear of the user (i.e., an acceleration sensor and an angular velocity sensor that are a part of an electronic device that is put on a foot of the user) (see Hirabayashi, par 0031-0033, 0054, 0061),
wherein the data acquisition device comprises an acceleration sensor 12 that measures an acceleration (see Hirabayashi, par 0031-0033, 0054, 0061),
an angular velocity sensor 11 that measures an angular velocity (see Hirabayashi, par 0031-0033, 0054, 0061),
a signal processor 25 (i.e., a controller) configured to generate the sensor data using the acceleration and the angular velocity measured by the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor (i.e., when it is determined that the electronic device is in operation, power is supplied to the sensors for data collection via a controller) (see Hirabayashi, par 0003, 0024, 0053-0055),
and a transmitter configured to transmit the generated sensor data to the determination device (i.e., the angular velocity sensor and the acceleration sensor outputs signals to the determiner 13) (see Hirabayashi, par 0029).
With respect to claim 9, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the walk measurement system according to claim 8. Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri further teaches a walk measurement device 20, 30 20, 30 (i.e., an electronic device that comprises a determiner for determining an action mode of a user as they walk) that comprises a memory 24 storing instructions and a processor 25 (i.e., a controller) (see Hirabayashi, par 0052-0055, 0064, figs. 7 & 9) connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to
receive the sensor data transmitted from the determination device (i.e., the angular velocity sensor and the acceleration sensor outputs signals to the determiner 13) (see Hirabayashi, par 0029), and calculates an attitude angle using the received sensor data (see Cutri, abstract, par 0002, 0042, 0070, figs. 3 & 4).
With respect to claim 11, Hirabayashi teaches a determination method for switching an operation mode of a walk measurement system that comprises a determination device and a data acquisition device (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0044, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074), the determination method comprising:
receiving sensor data including acceleration in a travel direction of a user and in a gravity direction (i.e., the determiner connected to the controller is connected to and receives data from an acceleration sensor 12, wherein the acceleration sensor detects respective accelerations along directions of x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis) (see Hirabayashi, par 0029, 0054, 0056, 0059, 0061-0063, 0064-0066, 0068-0069, 0071-0072, 0074-0077, figs. 4A-4B, 7-8);
switching an operation mode to a discrimination mode in response to the acceleration in the gravity direction exceeding a first threshold in a power saving mode (i.e., the determiner determines an action mode of the user based on the acceleration signal wherein a difference between acceleration signals in the direction of the y-axis of two cycles is compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether or not a user has stopped a first action, such as walking) (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074);
switching an operation mode to a walk measurement mode in response to the acceleration in the travel direction exceeding a second threshold in the discrimination mode (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044);
transmitting the sensor data in the walk measurement mode (i.e., determination results from the determiner 13 can be transmitted to the controller 15) (see Hirabayashi, par 0049);
detecting a change in a trend of peak values using log data of the peak values of the acceleration in the travel direction in the discrimination mode (i.e., peak values of the acceleration signal waveform data are used to determine whether the user is continuing to walk or has stopped) (see Hirabayashi, par 0032, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0047, 0059, fig. 4B);
and changing the second threshold based on the change in the trend of the peak values (i.e., the predetermined threshold defined to the angular velocity sensor can be set to a value smaller than the peak value of the angular velocity signal) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044),
wherein in the power saving mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a low-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the gravity direction (i.e., the determiner determines an action mode of the user based on the acceleration signal wherein a difference between acceleration signals in the direction of the y-axis of two cycles is compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether or not a user has stopped a first action, such as walking) (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074),
in the discrimination mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a high-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the travel direction (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044),
and in the walk measurement mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data and the angular velocity data by high-speed operation (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044).
Hirabayashi fails to teach the walk measurement device calculates an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device.
Cutri teaches a method for estimating the direction of motion of an individual, wherein acceleration and angular rotation of an individual is measured as they walk (see Cutri, abstract, par 0002). From that obtained data, the attitude (i.e., attitude angle) of the individual is determined (see Cutri, abstract, par 0002, 0042, 0070, figs. 3 & 4). The determination of the attitude of the individual based upon their acceleration and angular rotation while walking can be used to reconstruct the axis and direction of motion of the individual’s movement on a horizontal plane regardless of how the individual is carrying the device that measures their acceleration and angular rotation (see Cutri, par 0042, figs. 3 & 4).
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 system of Hirabayashi such that the walk measurement device calculates an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device because the determination of the attitude of an individual based upon their acceleration and angular rotation while walking can be used to reconstruct the axis and direction of motion of the individual’s movement on a horizontal plane regardless of how the individual is carrying the device that measures their acceleration and angular rotation (see Cutri, par 0042, figs. 3 & 4).
With respect to claim 12, Hirabayashi teaches a non-transient (i.e., the program is stored in a memory) program recording medium recording a program for switching an operation mode of a walk measurement system that comprises a determination device and a data acquisition device (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0044, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074), the program causing a computer to execute:
processing for receiving sensor data including acceleration in a travel direction of a user and in a gravity direction (i.e., the determiner connected to the controller is connected to and receives data from an acceleration sensor 12, wherein the acceleration sensor detects respective accelerations along directions of x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis) (see Hirabayashi, par 0029, 0054, 0056, 0059, 0061-0063, 0064-0066, 0068-0069, 0071-0072, 0074-0077, figs. 4A-4B, 7-8);
processing for switching an operation mode to a discrimination mode in response to the acceleration in the gravity direction exceeding a first threshold in a power saving mode (i.e., the determiner determines an action mode of the user based on the acceleration signal wherein a difference between acceleration signals in the direction of the y-axis of two cycles is compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether or not a user has stopped a first action, such as walking) (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074);
processing for switching the operation mode to a walk measurement mode in response to the acceleration in the travel direction exceeding a second threshold in the discrimination mode (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044);
processing for transmitting the sensor data in the walk measurement mode (i.e., determination results from the determiner 13 can be transmitted to the controller 15) (see Hirabayashi, par 0049);
processing for detecting a change in the trend of peak values using log data of the peak values of the acceleration in the travel direction in the discrimination mode (i.e., peak values of the acceleration signal waveform data are used to determine whether the user is continuing to walk or has stopped) (see Hirabayashi, par 0032, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0047, 0059, fig. 4B);
and processing for changing the second threshold based on the change in the trend of the peak values (i.e., the predetermined threshold defined to the angular velocity sensor can be set to a value smaller than the peak value of the angular velocity signal) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044),
wherein in the power saving mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a low-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the gravity direction (i.e., the determiner determines an action mode of the user based on the acceleration signal wherein a difference between acceleration signals in the direction of the y-axis of two cycles is compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether or not a user has stopped a first action, such as walking) (see Hirabayashi, par 0006-0008, 0027, 0042, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064-0066, 0069, 0074),
in the discrimination mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data by a high-speed operation, and the determination device determines walking state using the acceleration in the travel direction (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044),
and in the walk measurement mode, the data acquisition device generates the acceleration data and the angular velocity data by high-speed operation (i.e., if a predetermined threshold that is defined to an angular velocity sensor is exceeded, it is determined that the user has started walking, wherein the angular velocity is indicative of the acceleration of a user in the user's travel direction) (see Hirabayashi, par 0044).
Hirabayashi fails to teach the walk measurement device calculates an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device.
Cutri teaches a method for estimating the direction of motion of an individual, wherein acceleration and angular rotation of an individual is measured as they walk (see Cutri, abstract, par 0002). From that obtained data, the attitude (i.e., attitude angle) of the individual is determined (see Cutri, abstract, par 0002, 0042, 0070, figs. 3 & 4). The determination of the attitude of the individual based upon their acceleration and angular rotation while walking can be used to reconstruct the axis and direction of motion of the individual’s movement on a horizontal plane regardless of how the individual is carrying the device that measures their acceleration and angular rotation (see Cutri, par 0042, figs. 3 & 4).
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 system of Hirabayashi such that the walk measurement device calculates an attitude angle using the determination result by the determination device because the determination of the attitude of an individual based upon their acceleration and angular rotation while walking can be used to reconstruct the axis and direction of motion of the individual’s movement on a horizontal plane regardless of how the individual is carrying the device that measures their acceleration and angular rotation (see Cutri, par 0042, figs. 3 & 4).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US Patent Application Publication 20170188894 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Chang".
With respect to claim 10, Hirabayashi as modified by Cutri teaches the walk measurement system according to claim 9.
Hirabayashi further teaches:
an output device that is connected to the walk measurement device, the output device comprises a memory storing instructions and a processor connected to the memory (i.e., the memory is connected to a controller that controls operation of the electronic device) (see Hirabayashi, par 0052-0053, 0075, fig. 7) and configured to execute the instructions to output information received from the walk measurement device (i.e., the angular velocity sensor and the acceleration sensor outputs signals to the determiner 13, and the electronic device contains a display such that the user can view measurement results) (see Hirabayashi, par 0029, 0084).
Hirabayashi and Cutri fail to teach that the at least one processor of the determination device is configured to execute generating notification information according to the detection result of the change in the trend of the peak value of the acceleration in the travel direction in the discrimination mode, transmit the generated notification information to the walk measurement device, and the output device is configured to receive the notification information transmitted from the walk measurement device and display the received notification information on a screen of a terminal device.
Chang teaches a system and method for sensing and responding to fatigue during a physical activity wherein the system comprises a fatigue model (see Chang, par 0043) that uses the rate of change of values of ground contact time of a user to detect a fatigue condition of the user (see Chang, par 0113, fig. 2). When a user is determined to be fatigued or near fatigue using the fatigue model, the user is notified on a display, such as that of a computing device, of their condition (see Chang, par 0124).
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 walk measurement system of Hirabayashi, as modified with Cutri hereinabove, such that the at least one processor of the determination device is configured to execute generating notification information according to the detection result of the change in the trend of the peak value of the acceleration in the travel direction in the discrimination mode, transmit the generated notification information to the walk measurement device, and the output device is configured to receive the notification information transmitted from the walk measurement device and display the received notification information on a screen of a terminal device because that would improve the modified system of Hirabayashi by using the change in the trend of peak values to provide the user with real-time information such as when they near fatigue, if they are at risk of injury, or if they have imbalances during walking or running (see Chang, par 0043, 0113, 0124-0125).
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 Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights