DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's amendments and arguments/remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections presented herein. Specifically, the examiner has provided the Brunner and Roy references to teach the limitations presented in the newly amended claims.
Response to Amendment
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 1-8 and 10 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.
The term “improved” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “improved” is vague and not defined by the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first threshold value" in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘the first pressure threshold value’.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first threshold value" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘the first pressure threshold value’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frykman et al. (US 2004/0259690) in view of Brunner (US 2010/0035727) and Dilli et al. (US 2016/0166879) and Roy et al. (US 2015/0141878).
Regarding claim 1, Frykman teaches a load measurement system (Abstract) comprising:
a memory storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions (Paragraphs 0034-0036 and 0099-0103) to:
acquire measurement information output from a load distribution sensor that detects a load distribution received from a sole of a subject (Paragraph 0072; ‘ a force sensing member such as a forceplate 225. The forceplate 225 preferably includes a plurality of transducers to detect the force applied by an individual's feet through the belt onto the forceplate;’; Paragraph 0087),
extract a region comprising a set of the pressure detection points having a load value equal to or larger than a first pressure threshold value as a first region based on the measurement information, and detects the first region as a sole region (Paragraphs 0088-0091; Figures 12-13; examiner notes that pressure threshold value under BRI would be any threshold value related to pressure/force data);
extract a second region comprising a set of the pressure detection points having a load value equal to or larger than a second pressure threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value from a re-extraction target region defined with the first region as a reference, and adds the second region to the sole region (Paragraphs 0088-0091; Figures 12-13; examiner notes that pressure threshold value under BRI would be any threshold value related to pressure/force data); and
Frykman is silent on wherein the load distribution sensor comprises a plurality of pressure detection points arranged in a matrix, and the regions being a set of pressure detection points. Brunner teaches wherein the load distribution sensor comprises a plurality of pressure detection points arranged in a matrix, and the regions being a set of pressure detection points (Paragraphs 0006, 0049, and 0074-0075; Figures 2, 12, and 21; Claim 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Brunner because Brunner teaches this style of sensors being known in the art (Paragraph 0006) and it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the load distribution sensor of Frykman with that of Brunner.
Frykman is silent on the output.
Dilli teaches output information comprising an improved load distribution of the sole region (Paragraphs 0007 and 0021; Figure 5); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Dilli because allows for easy assessing of a patient’s gait parameters over time (Paragraphs 0005-0006 of Dilli).
Frykman is silent on the control of a leg robot.
Roy teaches control extension of a leg robot attached to at least one leg of the subject based on the information comprising the improved load distribution of the sole region of the subject (Paragraphs 0005-0006; Figure 3).
Should Frykman be found to be silent on the pressure thresholds.
Roy teaches extract a region comprising a set of the pressure detection points having a load value equal to or larger than a first pressure threshold value as a first region based on the measurement information, and detects the first region as a sole region (Paragraphs 0062-0063; Figure 4B; threshold met in one region showing up as grayed portion in Figure 4B);
extract a second region comprising a set of the pressure detection points having a load value equal to or larger than a second pressure threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value from a re-extraction target region defined with the first region as a reference, and adds the second region to the sole region (Paragraphs 0062-0063; Figure 4B; threshold met in multiple regions showing up as grayed portion in Figure 4B and being considered one sole in total).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Roy because it enables the ability to accurately track each portion and movement phase of a user (Paragraph 0062 of Roy) and employs better dynamics between a user to improve the robot assistance (Paragraphs 0003-0007 of Roy).
Regarding claim 2, Frykman teaches wherein the processor executes the instructions (Paragraphs 0034-0036 and 0099-0103) to calculate a center of pressure of the sole region (Figure 13; steps 1329 and 1331; Paragraphs 0118-0120), Frykman is silent on the output unit. Dilli teaches wherein the output unit outputs information on the center of pressure (Paragraphs 0007 and 0021; Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Dilli because allows for easy assessing of a patient’s gait parameters over time (Paragraphs 0005-0006 of Dilli).
Regarding claim 3, Frykman teaches wherein the processor executes the instructions (Paragraphs 0034-0036 and 0099-0103) to determine as the re-extraction target region, a region located within a predetermined distance from a position of the first region (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Frykman teaches wherein the processor executes the instructions (Paragraphs 0034-0036 and 0099-0103) to determine the re-extraction target region such that a front end portion of the re-extraction target region in a walking direction protrudes forward in the walking direction of the subject by a predetermined distance from a front end portion of the first region in the walking direction (Paragraphs 0016 and 0020).
Regarding claim 5, Frykman teaches wherein the processor executes the instructions (Paragraphs 0034-0036 and 0099-0103) to determine the re-extraction target region such that a left end portion of the re-extraction target region protrudes to left by a predetermined distance from a left end portion of the first region when the first region is a sole region of a right leg, and determines the re-extraction target region such that a right end portion of the re-extraction target region protrudes to right by a predetermined distance from a right end portion of the first region when the first region is a sole region of a left leg (Paragraphs 0016 and 0020).
Regarding claim 10, Frykman teaches A load measurement method (Abstract; Paragraphs 0002 and 0034), the load measurement method comprising:
a step of acquiring measurement information output from a load distribution sensor that detects a load distribution received from a sole of a subject Paragraph 0072; ‘ a force sensing member such as a forceplate 225. The forceplate 225 preferably includes a plurality of transducers to detect the force applied by an individual's feet through the belt onto the forceplate;’; Paragraph 0087);
a step of extracting a region having a load value equal to or larger than a first pressure threshold value as a first region based on the measurement information, and detecting the first region as a sole region (Paragraphs 0088-0091; Figures 12-13; examiner notes that pressure threshold value under BRI would be any threshold value related to pressure/force data);
a step of extracting a second region having a load value equal to or larger than a second pressure threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value from a re-extraction target region defined with the first region as a reference, and adding the second region to the sole region (Paragraphs 0088-0091; Figures 12-13; examiner notes that pressure threshold value under BRI would be any threshold value related to pressure/force data); and
Frykman is silent on wherein the load distribution sensor comprises a plurality of pressure detection points arranged in a matrix, and the regions being a set of pressure detection points. Brunner teaches wherein the load distribution sensor comprises a plurality of pressure detection points arranged in a matrix, and the regions being a set of pressure detection points (Paragraphs 0006, 0049, and 0074-0075; Figures 2, 12, and 21; Claim 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Brunner because Brunner teaches this style of sensors being known in the art (Paragraph 0006) and it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the load distribution sensor of Frykman with that of Brunner.
Frykman is silent on the step of outputting.
Dilli teaches a step of outputting information comprising an improved load distribution of the sole region (Paragraphs 0007 and 0021; Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Dilli because allows for easy assessing of a patient’s gait parameters over time (Paragraphs 0005-0006 of Dilli).
Frykman is silent on the control of a leg robot.
Roy teaches a step of controlling extension of a leg robot attached to at least one leg of the subject based on the information comprising the improved load distribution of the sole region of the subject (Paragraphs 0005-0006; Figure 3).
Should Frykman be found to be silent on the pressure thresholds.
Roy teaches a step of extracting a region having a load value equal to or larger than a first pressure threshold value as a first region based on the measurement information, and detecting the first region as a sole region (Paragraphs 0062-0063; Figure 4B; threshold met in one region showing up as grayed portion in Figure 4B);
a step of extracting a second region having a load value equal to or larger than a second pressure threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value from a re-extraction target region defined with the first region as a reference, and adding the second region to the sole region (Paragraphs 0062-0063; Figure 4B; threshold met in multiple regions showing up as grayed portion in Figure 4B and being considered one sole in total).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Roy because it enables the ability to accurately track each portion and movement phase of a user (Paragraph 0062 of Roy) and employs better dynamics between a user to improve the robot assistance (Paragraphs 0003-0007 of Roy).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frykman et al. (US 2004/0259690) in view of Brunner (US 2010/0035727) and Dilli et al. (US 2016/0166879) and Roy et al. (US 2015/0141878) and in further view of Yang et al. (US 2012/0253234).
Regarding claim 6, Frykman teaches wherein the processor executes the instructions (Paragraphs 0034-0036 and 0099-0103) to determine the re-extraction target region based on position information of a rear end portion of the sole region in a walking direction at a standing initial phase (Paragraphs 0016 and 0020) and Frykman is silent on the foot length information. Yang teaches foot length information of the subject (Paragraph 0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Yang to account for the position of the sensors to aid in analyzing the data for determining gait (Paragraph 0122 of Yang).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frykman et al. (US 2004/0259690) in view of Brunner (US 2010/0035727) and Dilli et al. (US 2016/0166879) and Roy et al. (US 2015/0141878) and in further view of Sashen (US 2021/0244318).
Regarding claim 7, Frykman is silent on the processor setting the second threshold based on attribute information. Sashen teaches wherein the processor executes the instructions to set the second threshold value based on attribute information of the subject (Paragraph 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Sashen to account for difference in the subject’s anatomies which will affect their ideal parameters (Paragraph 0067 of Sashen).
Regarding claim 8, Frykman is silent on the processor changing the second threshold based on history or area/shape. Sashen wherein the processor executes the instructions to change the second threshold value based on a history of an area or a shape of the sole region during walking of the subject (Paragraph 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Frykman with Sashen to account for difference in the subjects’ anatomies which will affect their ideal parameters (Paragraph 0067 of Sashen).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791