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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, drawn to an anomaly detection device of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 4/24/25 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/24/25.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 10/8/25, amended claim(s) 1-3 and 8, canceled claim(s) 4-5 and 9-10, and new claim(s) 11-20 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “output HV (hallux valgus) angle” (line 17) appears that it should be “output a HV hallux valgus) angle.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to value” (line 22) appears that it should be “according to a value.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “so as for the” (line 26) appears that it should be “for the.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “output HV (hallux valgus) angle” (line 15) appears that it should be “output a HV hallux valgus) angle.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “so as for the” (line 18) appears that it should be “for the.”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “output HV (hallux valgus) angle” (line 15) appears that it should be “output a HV hallux valgus) angle.”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to value” (line 20) appears that it should be “according to a value.”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “so as for the” (line 23) appears that it should be “for the.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1, the claim language “input the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of inputting the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “a machine learning model” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. For example, how many and what types of layers are there? How is the data propagated? What logics are programmed to help the machine learning algorithm make a decision? Is the training supervised or unsupervised? What are the weightings? Are other training concepts sed such as regression? What assumptions are being made regarding the perception of the model? How is the loss function minimized? It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 1, the claim language “determine an anomaly in a foot of the pedestrian walking wearing the footwear according to value of the HV angle output from the machine learning model in response to the input of the gait features extracted from the gait waveform” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of determining an anomaly in a foot of the pedestrian walking wearing the footwear according to value of the HV angle output from the machine learning model is response to the input of the gait features extracted from the gait waveform, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 2, the claim language “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine a progression state of hallux valgus of a foot of a pedestrian wearing the footwear according to a change in the HV angle” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of determining a progression state of hallux valgus of a foot of a pedestrian wearing the footwear according to a change in the HV angle, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 3, the claim language “estimate a progression state of the hallux valgus by using a model that is trained to output the progression state of the hallux valgus in response to input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the progression state of the hallux valgus of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of estimating a progression state of the hallux valgus by using a model that is trained to output the progression state of the hallux valgus in response to input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the progression state of the hallux valgus of each of the plurality of subjects as training data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 11, the claim language “inputting the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of inputting the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “a machine learning model” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. For example, how many and what types of layers are there? How is the data propagated? What logics are programmed to help the machine learning algorithm make a decision? Is the training supervised or unsupervised? What are the weightings? Are other training concepts sed such as regression? What assumptions are being made regarding the perception of the model? How is the loss function minimized? It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 11, the claim language “determining an anomaly in a foot of the pedestrian walking wearing the footwear according to value of the HV angle output from the machine learning model in response to the input of the gait features extracted from the gait waveform” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of determining an anomaly in a foot of the pedestrian walking wearing the footwear according to value of the HV angle output from the machine learning model is response to the input of the gait features extracted from the gait waveform, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 12, the claim language “determining a progression state of hallux valgus of a foot of a pedestrian wearing the footwear according to a change in the HV angle” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of determining a progression state of hallux valgus of a foot of a pedestrian wearing the footwear according to a change in the HV angle, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 13, the claim language “estimating a progression state of the hallux valgus by using a model that is trained to output the progression state of the hallux valgus in response to input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the progression state of the hallux valgus of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of estimating a progression state of the hallux valgus by using a model that is trained to output the progression state of the hallux valgus in response to input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the progression state of the hallux valgus of each of the plurality of subjects as training data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 16, the claim language “input the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of inputting the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “a machine learning model” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. For example, how many and what types of layers are there? How is the data propagated? What logics are programmed to help the machine learning algorithm make a decision? Is the training supervised or unsupervised? What are the weightings? Are other training concepts sed such as regression? What assumptions are being made regarding the perception of the model? How is the loss function minimized? It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 16, the claim language “determine an anomaly in a foot of the pedestrian walking wearing the footwear according to value of the HV angle output from the machine learning model in response to the input of the gait features extracted from the gait waveform” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of determining an anomaly in a foot of the pedestrian walking wearing the footwear according to value of the HV angle output from the machine learning model is response to the input of the gait features extracted from the gait waveform, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 17, the claim language “determine a progression state of hallux valgus of a foot of a pedestrian wearing the footwear according to a change in the HV angle” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of determining a progression state of hallux valgus of a foot of a pedestrian wearing the footwear according to a change in the HV angle, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 18, the claim language “estimate a progression state of the hallux valgus by using a model that is trained to output the progression state of the hallux valgus in response to input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the progression state of the hallux valgus of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of estimating a progression state of the hallux valgus by using a model that is trained to output the progression state of the hallux valgus in response to input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the progression state of the hallux valgus of each of the plurality of subjects as training data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 6-8, 12-15, and 17-20 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, thus claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-20 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim term “the coordinate system” (line 8) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 1, the claim term “the gait feature amount characteristic” (line 14) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 1, the claim term “the gait features” (line 16) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 1, the claim language “input the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” is ambiguous. It is unclear what this claim language means and what limitations are limiting what subject in the language because the phrase appears to be a run-on. For example, the claim language starts with “input” and then later recites “in response to input,” making it seem like the input is in response to itself. The claim is examined as meaning inputting gait features and outputting a HV angle.
For claim 1, the claim term “the gait and posture” (line 26) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 2, the claim term “a foot” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a foot.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same foot or a different foot is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 2, the claim term “a pedestrian” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a pedestrian.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same pedestrian or a different pedestrian is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “an anomaly” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “an anomaly.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same anomaly or a different anomaly is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a foot” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a foot.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same foot or a different foot is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a pedestrian” (lines 3-4) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a pedestrian.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same pedestrian or a different pedestrian is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 8, the claim term “a data acquisition device” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a data acquisition device.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same data acquisition device or a different data acquisition device is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 8, the claim term “an acceleration sensor” (line 5) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “an acceleration sensor.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same acceleration sensor or a different acceleration sensor is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 8, the claim term “an angular velocity sensor” (line 6) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “an angular velocity sensor.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same angular velocity sensor or a different angular velocity sensor is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 11, the claim term “the coordinate system” (line 6) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 11, the claim term “the gait feature amount characteristic” (line 12) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 11, the claim term “the gait features” (line 14) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 11, the claim language “inputting the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” is ambiguous. It is unclear what this claim language means and what limitations are limiting what subject in the language because the phrase appears to be a run-on. For example, the claim language starts with “input” and then later recites “in response to input,” making it seem like the input is in response to itself. The claim is examined as meaning inputting gait features and outputting a HV angle.
For claim 11, the claim term “the gait and posture” (line 23) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 12, the claim term “a foot” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a foot.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same foot or a different foot is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 12, the claim term “a pedestrian” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a pedestrian.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same pedestrian or a different pedestrian is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 15, the claim term “an anomaly” (line 2) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “an anomaly.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same anomaly or a different anomaly is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 15, the claim term “a foot” (line 2) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a foot.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same foot or a different foot is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 15, the claim term “a pedestrian” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a pedestrian.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same pedestrian or a different pedestrian is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 16, the claim term “the coordinate system” (line 6) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 16, the claim term “the gait feature amount characteristic” (line 12) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 16, the claim term “the gait features” (line 14) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 16, the claim language “input the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data” is ambiguous. It is unclear what this claim language means and what limitations are limiting what subject in the language because the phrase appears to be a run-on. For example, the claim language starts with “input” and then later recites “in response to input,” making it seem like the input is in response to itself. The claim is examined as meaning inputting gait features and outputting a HV angle.
For claim 16, the claim term “the gait and posture” (line 23) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 17, the claim term “a foot” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a foot.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same foot or a different foot is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 17, the claim term “a pedestrian” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a pedestrian.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same pedestrian or a different pedestrian is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 20, the claim term “an anomaly” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “an anomaly.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same anomaly or a different anomaly is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 20, the claim term “a foot” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a foot.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same foot or a different foot is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 20, the claim term “a pedestrian” (lines 3-4) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “a pedestrian.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same pedestrian or a different pedestrian is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 6-8, 12-15, and 17-20 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, thus claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “acquire sensor data via wireless communication from a data acquisition device installed in footwear worn by a pedestrian, the data acquisition device includes an acceleration sensor and an angular velocity sensor,” “generate time series data of the sensor data by converting the coordinate system of the sensor data from a local coordinate system to a world coordinate system,” “extract a gait waveform for one gait cycle from the time series data of the sensor data of an extraction target of a gait feature amount for detecting an anomaly regarding hallux valgus,” “generate gait waveform data by normalizing the gait waveform for one gait cycle extracted from the time series data of the sensor data,” “extract the gait feature amount characteristic in gait of the pedestrian wearing the footwear from the gait waveform data,” “input the gait features extracted from the gait waveform into a machine learning model that is trained to output HV (hallux valgus) angle, which is formed by a center line of a first metatarsal bone and a center line of a first proximal phalanx, in response to the input of gait features extracted from gaits of a plurality of subjects and the HV angle of each of the plurality of subjects as training data,” “determine an anomaly in a foot of the pedestrian walking wearing the footwear according to value of the HV angle output from the machine learning model in response to the input of the gait features extracted from the gait waveform,” and “display content according to the anomaly … for the pedestrian to make a decision to address the gait and posture.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “at least one memory storing instructions,” “at least one processor connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions,” and “a screen of a mobile terminal used by the pedestrian.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional because Alice has held that generic computer structures do not transform an otherwise patent-ineligible claim into an eligible one. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 6-7, 12-15, and 17-20 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Dependent claim 8 fails to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 because a “an acceleration sensor” and “an angular velocity sensor” is well-known, routine, and conventional as evidenced by para [0037] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0054355 to Kim and “a signal processor” and “a data transmitter” are well-known, routine, and/or conventional because Alice has held that generic computer structures do not transform an otherwise patent-ineligible claim into an eligible one. Thus, claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/8/25 have been fully considered.
With respect to the 112 rejections, these rejections have been updated to address the newly amended claim language.
With respect to the 101 rejection(s), Applicant’s arguments will be treated in the order they were presented. With respect to the first argument, this is a conclusory statement. There is no evidence that the claimed subject matter can’t be performed in the human mind. The claim language is broad enough to encompass just two data points and a human mind can perform the functions on just two data points. With respect to the second argument, determining an anomaly in the foot of a pedestrian is not a technology, and therefore an improvement in this determination is not an improvement in technology.
With respect to the 102/103 rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791