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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (Claims 12-20) in the reply filed on 07 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: "planning" should be --plan-- in each instance. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US
Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan
2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 U.S.C. 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong One), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then in the second part of Step 2A (Prong Two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claim recite(s) "comparing the posture maintenance parameter with a reference value of posture maintenance for each of the body parts under the specific body posture so as to generate an evaluation result of the postural control ability". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 satisfies Step 1, namely the claim is directed to one of the four statutory classes, method. Following Step 2A Prong one, any judicial exceptions are identified in the claims. In claim 12, the limitations "comparing the posture maintenance parameter with a reference value of posture maintenance for each of the body parts under the specific body posture so as to generate an evaluation result of the postural control ability" are abstract ideas as they are directed to a mental process. With the identification of an abstract idea, the next phase is to proceed Step 2A, Prong Two, wherewith additional elements and taken as a whole, evaluation occurs of whether the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not recite any additional elements or evidence that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements “configuring a plurality of motion sensors on a plurality of body parts of the subject correspondingly to generate a plurality of sensing data, wherein each of the plurality of sensing data comprises static sensing data and dynamic sensing data; performing a posture determination procedure according to the plurality of static sensing data to determine a specific body posture of the subject; and performing an evaluation procedure for the postural control ability, wherein the evaluation procedure comprises: processing each of the plurality of dynamic sensing data to obtain a posture maintenance parameter for each of the plurality of body parts under the specific body posture”. However, these components may be seen as the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step, much like the example given in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), such that these limitations are extra-solution activity and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The steps leads to the final limitation of “generat[ing]” such that the end result of use of the system is only the generic evaluation result which may be any generic output, or no output at all. As this determination is not defined as requiring any further action, such as a particular form of prophylaxis or treatment or an improvement to a computer or other technology, the claim limitations constitute mere generation of data, in this case measurement of static and dynamic data and from this data, determining a body posture and a body maintenance parameter, such that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into any practical application. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim elements are recited with a high level of generality (as written, each claimed step of the process may be performed by a person in an undefined manner) that there are no meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “configuring a plurality of motion sensors on a plurality of body parts of the subject correspondingly to generate a plurality of sensing data, wherein each of the plurality of sensing data comprises static sensing data and dynamic sensing data” constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitation constitutes adding a generic motion sensor, which Dodemont (US 20220296129 A1) describes as well-understood, routine, or conventional in its description that is known to detect movement in order to monitor activity (Paragraph 0003). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the present elements amount to no more than mere indications to apply the exception.
In Summary, claim 12 recites abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and does not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claim and is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. As each of these claims depends from claim 12, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in paragraph 7 of this action, these claims must be evaluated on whether they sufficiently add to the practical application of claim 12, or comprise significantly more than the limitations of claim 12.
Besides the abstract idea of claim 12, claim 13 recites further limitations of mere data gathering while claims 14-17 recite further limitations of the abstract idea which are themselves abstract. The claim element of claim 12 of method for evaluating postural control is recited with a high level of generality (as written, the steps may be carried out by a person alone or with a generic computer in any undefined manner). The limitations provide no practical application, nor do they provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. As each of these claims depends from claim 18, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in paragraph 7-8 of this action, these claims must be evaluated on whether they sufficiently add to the practical application of claim 18, or comprise significantly more than the limitations of claim 18.
Besides the abstract idea of claim 18, claim 19 recites further limitations of extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional (see Paragraph 0110-0111 of Dodemont which describes sensors for measuring contact which are well-understood, routine, or conventional) while claims 14-17 recite further limitations of mere data gathering. The claim element of claim 18 of method for evaluating postural control is recited with a high level of generality (as written, the steps may be carried out by a person alone or with a generic computer in any undefined manner). The limitations provide no practical application, nor do they provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashida (US 20200015712 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashida discloses a method for evaluating a postural control ability of a subject (Method 400), comprising the steps of:
configuring a plurality of motion sensors on a plurality of body parts of the subject correspondingly to generate a plurality of sensing data (Paragraph 0012, 0038-0039-- placement of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor in/around the center of mass of a user, the sensor providing data that may be analyzed by a processing device), wherein each of the plurality of sensing data comprises static sensing data (Paragraph 0039-- The data will typically comprise 3 to 6-axis IMU data) and dynamic sensing data (Paragraph 0041-- The data will typically comprise 3 to 6-axis IMU data);
performing a posture determination procedure according to the plurality of static sensing data to determine a specific body posture of the subject (Paragraph 0012, 0039-0040-- the data being recognized by the processing device as indicating a known body position such as standing, sitting, kneeling, lying down, etc; paragraph 0041-- the first processing device receives second data sent over a wireless communication channel from a second IMU sensor positioned on the user, the second data being recognized by the processing device as indicating a known fundamental movement, such as walking, running, jumping etc.); and
performing an evaluation procedure for the postural control ability, wherein the evaluation procedure comprises:
processing each of the plurality of dynamic sensing data to obtain a posture maintenance parameter for each of the plurality of body parts under the specific body posture (Paragraph 0040, 0049-- the processing device may have access to stored patterns representative of leaning to the left, leaning to the right, tipping forwards, and tipping backwards, for a seated body position; paragraph 0042-- the first processing device analyzes the second data to identify a distinguishing characteristic of the fundamental movement… For example, after the second data was recognized at step 430 as indicating a running movement, analysis at step 440 may show that part of the data matches a pattern of a turning tendency in the left ankle); and
comparing the posture maintenance parameter with a reference value of posture maintenance for each of the body parts under the specific body posture so as to generate an evaluation result of the postural control ability (Paragraph 0049-- after the first processing device identifies a posture of the body position, the device may evaluate the posture for quality or correctness. For example, if the first data are indicative of a forward stooped sitting posture, but the stoop is a slight one, and only held for a short time, the posture may be deemed as being of acceptable quality, but if the stoop is more pronounced and/or held for a longer time, an alert may be generated and displayed to the user by the processing device; paragraph 0050-- after the first processing device identifies a distinguishing characteristic of the fundamental movement, the device may evaluate the characteristic for quality or correctness. For example, if the second data are indicative of a tendency towards an ankle turn while running, that is deemed risky, an alert noting the problem may be generated and displayed to the user by the processing device.).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashida discloses the method of claim 12. Hayashida additionally discloses wherein the specific body posture is a specific static body posture or a dynamic body posture (Paragraph 0012, 0039-0040-- a known body position such as standing, sitting, kneeling, lying down, etc; paragraph 0041-- a known fundamental movement, such as walking, running, jumping etc.), and the dynamic body posture is a state that starts from the specific static body posture (Paragraph 0012, 0039-0040-- For example, the processing device may have access to stored patterns representative of leaning to the left, leaning to the right, tipping forwards, and tipping backwards, for a seated body position; paragraph 0042-- For example, after the second data was recognized at step 430 as indicating a running movement, analysis at step 440 may show that part of the data matches a pattern of a turning tendency in the left ankle).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashida discloses the method of claim 12. Hayashida additionally discloses wherein the posture determination procedure comprises forming a body posture configuration according to the plurality of static sensing data (Paragraph 0039--the data being recognized by the processing device as indicating a known body position such as standing, sitting, kneeling, lying down, etc.; paragraph 0041--the second data being recognized by the processing device as indicating a known fundamental movement, such as walking, running, jumping etc.), and comparing the body posture configuration to an evaluation content including a plurality of evaluation items and a plurality of evaluation conditions, to determine a corresponding evaluation item for the body posture configuration (Paragraph 0040--the first processing device analyzes the first data to identify a posture of the body position that was recognized at step 410. In some embodiments, this analysis involves comparing the data to a first pattern, representative of the posture, to find a match, within a first tolerance, between a portion of the first data and the first pattern. For example, the processing device may have access to stored patterns representative of leaning to the left, leaning to the right, tipping forwards, and tipping backwards, for a seated body position. Then, when the processor receives data indicative of a seated position, the processor may compare the data to those stored patterns and find a match between some portion of the data and a pattern indicating a “lean to the right” posture; paragraph 0042--At step 440, the first processing device analyzes the second data to identify a distinguishing characteristic of the fundamental movement. In some embodiments, this analysis involves comparing the second data to a second pattern, representative of the distinguishing characteristic, to find a match, within a first tolerance, between a portion of the second data and the second pattern. For example, after the second data was recognized at step 430 as indicating a running movement, analysis at step 440 may show that part of the data matches a pattern of a turning tendency in the left ankle).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashida discloses the method of claim 12. Hayashida additionally discloses comparing the evaluation result of the postural control ability to the evaluation content; determining a corresponding evaluation condition for the evaluation result of the postural control ability; selecting another evaluation condition according to the evaluation result of the postural control ability; and generating another evaluation result of the postural control ability (Paragraph 0049-0050-- Returning to step 420, in some embodiments, after the first processing device identifies a posture of the body position, the device may evaluate the posture for quality or correctness. For example, if the first data are indicative of a forward stooped sitting posture, but the stoop is a slight one, and only held for a short time, the posture may be deemed as being of acceptable quality, but if the stoop is more pronounced and/or held for a longer time, an alert may be generated and displayed to the user by the processing device. The alert may be, for example, a visual one, such as an indication displayed on a screen of the processing device, or it may be an audible or tactile notification provided by the processing device. Other examples exist. The determination of what is acceptable or correct may be made on the basis of comparison of one or more portions of the first data to stored patterns of position data, generated by the same individual user or by one or more other users. Similarly, at step 440, after the the first processing device identifies a distinguishing characteristic of the fundamental movement, the device may evaluate the characteristic for quality or correctness. For example, if the second data are indicative of a tendency towards an ankle turn while running, that is deemed risky, an alert noting the problem may be generated and displayed to the user by the processing device. The alert may be, for example, a visual one, such as an indication displayed on a screen of the processing device, or it may be an audible or tactile notification provided by the processing device. The determination of what is problematic as opposed to acceptable may be made on the basis of comparison of one or more portions of the first data to stored patterns of fundamental movement data, generated by the same individual user or by one or more other users.).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashida discloses the method of claim 12. Hayashida additionally discloses further comprising re-performing the posture determination procedure and the evaluation procedure for the postural control ability to verify the evaluation result of the postural control ability (Paragraph 0049-0050-- The determination of what is problematic as opposed to acceptable may be made on the basis of comparison of one or more portions of the first data to stored patterns of fundamental movement data, generated by the same individual user or by one or more other users; Paragraph 0102-0105-- Embodiments described herein are directed towards establishing whether such correlations exist for an individual user, so that, for example, the user may be guided to adopt better postures, or to change body positions more frequently, before carrying out particular movements NOTE: Hayashida discloses repeating the method and additionally that these repetitions may be used to verify that a pattern is problematic or acceptable, which thus verifies the result of the evaluation).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashida discloses the method of claim 12. Hayashida additionally discloses further comprising suggesting an action practice planning according to the evaluation result of the postural control ability, and the action practice planning comprises a plurality of different action practice contents and a corresponding time allocation for each of the plurality of different action practice contents (Paragraph 0084-0086-- Recommendations/Interventions: The player gets practical alternatives for postural mechanics (i.e. switch (or un-cross) crossed legs, switch shoulder carrying bag) to exercises to implement when he checks into hotel room after travel day (i.e. low back exercises; hip strengthening movements, etc.) relevant to postural behaviors he's been participating in that day as well as learned behaviors/trends/patterns that the monitoring and analysis system is picking up day-after-day…; paragraph 0090-0098--) if a diagnosis is previously established/known then the user feedback and intervention/treatment can be customized for the user. 2) There may be a backend option for the provider to make changes to feedback and intervention as a condition goes through phases… the physical therapist care can be more customized and provoking behaviors during the day, and the activities the patient participates in that worsen the condition can be identified using the data collected by the sensor(s) 101X and/or 101Y and analyzed using the processing device(s) 200, 202).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashida discloses a method for evaluating a postural control ability of a subject (Method 400), comprising the steps of:
configuring a plurality of motion sensors on a plurality of body parts of the subject (Paragraph 0012, 0038-0039-- placement of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor in/around the center of mass of a user, the sensor providing data that may be analyzed by a processing device) correspondingly to generate a plurality of dynamic sensing data (Paragraph 0041-- The data will typically comprise 3 to 6-axis IMU data);
performing an evaluation procedure for the postural control ability under a specific body posture, wherein the evaluation procedure comprises:
processing each of the plurality of dynamic sensing data to obtain a posture maintenance parameter for each of the plurality of body parts under the specific body posture (Paragraph 0040, 0049-- the processing device may have access to stored patterns representative of leaning to the left, leaning to the right, tipping forwards, and tipping backwards, for a seated body position; paragraph 0042-- the first processing device analyzes the second data to identify a distinguishing characteristic of the fundamental movement… For example, after the second data was recognized at step 430 as indicating a running movement, analysis at step 440 may show that part of the data matches a pattern of a turning tendency in the left ankle); and
comparing the posture maintenance parameter with a reference value of posture maintenance for each of the body parts under the specific body posture so as to generate an evaluation result of the postural control ability (Paragraph 0049-- after the first processing device identifies a posture of the body position, the device may evaluate the posture for quality or correctness. For example, if the first data are indicative of a forward stooped sitting posture, but the stoop is a slight one, and only held for a short time, the posture may be deemed as being of acceptable quality, but if the stoop is more pronounced and/or held for a longer time, an alert may be generated and displayed to the user by the processing device; paragraph 0050-- after the the first processing device identifies a distinguishing characteristic of the fundamental movement, the device may evaluate the characteristic for quality or correctness. For example, if the second data are indicative of a tendency towards an ankle turn while running, that is deemed risky, an alert noting the problem may be generated and displayed to the user by the processing device).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 107943271 A).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a method for evaluating a subject's posture control ability, comprising the steps of: configuring a plurality of motion sensors on a plurality of body parts of the subject correspondingly to generate a plurality of sensing data (“the first terminal is fixed on the leg of a person, left leg thigh fixed with an inertia sensor and a communication module, the inertia sensor collects leg thigh motion of acceleration data and angular velocity data, leg shank is fixed with inertia sensor and the communication module, the inertia sensor collects the leg movement of the acceleration data and the angular velocity data…"; “the first terminal is provided with an inertial sensor, comprising a three-axis MEMS micro-accelerometer and a three-axis MEMS gyroscope, composed of six-axis inertial sensor, obtaining the acceleration data and corner speed data”), wherein each of the plurality of sensing data comprises static sensing data (“the first position parameter is the angle of left leg thigh with the direction of gravity, a second position parameter is the angle between the leg and the direction of gravity…”) and dynamic sensing data ( “the server detects the moving state of the first object according to the first position parameter and the second position parameter, outputting the first detection result information. Specifically, the motion parameter data for determining the first object according to the first position parameter and the second position parameter according to the change of the motion parameter in a period of time whether the first object type of movement data of the object…”);
performing a posture determination procedure according to the plurality of static sensing data to determine which specific body posture of the subject (“calculating the attitude quaternion thigh thigh and leg to the gravity direction calculation in the world coordinate system and the angle of the leg with the direction of gravity”; “under the real-time working mode of rehabilitation training angle and shank of the thigh and the gravity direction and the angle of the direction of gravity can be hip joint angle and the knee joint angle and other motion parameters”); and
performing an evaluation procedure for the postural control ability, wherein the evaluation procedure comprises:
processing each of the plurality of dynamic sensing data to obtain a posture maintenance parameter for each of the plurality of body parts under the specific body posture (“the motion data performs statistics and analysis to obtain the motion data such as recovery operation finishing times, activity time, and athletic performance data. The movement range, operation finishing rate, key posture holding time, and so on”); and
comparing the posture maintenance parameter with a reference value of posture maintenance for each of the body parts under the specific body posture so as to generate an evaluation result of the postural control ability (“each recovery operation corresponding to a standard motion index data by motion type data can query the standard motion index data surface comprises standard motion index and corresponding athletic performance index. the motion data index with the standard motion data, obtaining the comparing result, according to whether the operation finishing times reach the recommended value. the athletic performance data and the standard motion compared to obtain performance index data comparison result…”).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses the method of claim 12. Liu additionally discloses wherein the specific body posture is a specific static body posture or a dynamic body posture, and the dynamic body posture is a state that starts from the specific static body posture (“the first position parameter is the angle of left leg thigh with the direction of gravity, a second position parameter is the angle between the leg and the direction of gravity…the server detects the moving state of the first object according to the first position parameter and the second position parameter, outputting the first detection result information”).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses the method of claim 12. Liu additionally discloses wherein the posture determination procedure comprises forming a body posture configuration according to the plurality of static sensing data (“angle and shank of the thigh and the gravity direction and the angle of the direction of gravity can be hip joint angle and the knee joint angle and other motion parameters…”), and comparing the body posture configuration to an evaluation content including a plurality of evaluation items and a plurality of evaluation conditions, to determine a corresponding evaluation item for the body posture configuration (“the motion data performs statistics and analysis to obtain the motion data such as recovery operation finishing times, activity time, and athletic performance data. The movement range, operation finishing rate, key posture holding time, and so on. each recovery operation corresponding to a standard motion index data by motion type data can query the standard motion index data surface comprises standard motion index and corresponding athletic performance index. the motion data index with the standard motion data, obtaining the comparing result, according to whether the operation finishing times reach the recommended value. the athletic performance data and the standard motion compared to obtain performance index data comparison result”).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses the method of claim 12. Liu additionally discloses further comprising:
comparing the evaluation result of the postural control ability to the evaluation content (“each recovery operation corresponding to a standard motion index data by motion type data can query the standard motion index data surface comprises standard motion index and corresponding athletic performance index. the motion data index with the standard motion data, obtaining the comparing result, according to whether the operation finishing times reach the recommended value. the athletic performance data and the standard motion compared to obtain performance index data comparison result. The rehabilitation movement range, speed and key posture holding time satisfies the requirement”; “the movement condition summary, calculating the motion amount and motion performance index”);
determining a corresponding evaluation condition for the evaluation result of the postural control ability (“the motion data performs statistics and analysis to obtain the motion data such as recovery operation finishing times, activity time, and athletic performance data. The movement range, operation finishing rate, key posture holding time, and so on”; “processing the motion analysis (movement range, stability, etc.)”);
selecting another evaluation condition according to the evaluation result of the postural control ability (“each recovery operation corresponding to a standard motion index data by motion type data can query the standard motion index data surface comprises standard motion index and corresponding athletic performance index. the motion data index with the standard motion data, obtaining the comparing result, according to whether the operation finishing times reach the recommended value. the athletic performance data and the standard motion compared to obtain performance index data comparison result. The rehabilitation movement range, speed and key posture holding time satisfies the requirement”; “the movement condition summary, calculating the motion amount and motion performance index”); and
generating another evaluation result of the postural control ability (“the motion data performs statistics and analysis to obtain the motion data such as recovery operation finishing times, activity time, and athletic performance data. The movement range, operation finishing rate, key posture holding time, and so on”; “processing the motion analysis (movement range, stability, etc.) the movement parameter and standard rehabilitation operation operating parameter of patient are compared to obtain comparison result information”).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses a method for evaluating a postural control ability of a subject, comprising the steps of: configuring a plurality of motion sensors on a plurality of body parts of the subject (“the first terminal is fixed on the leg of a person, left leg thigh fixed with an inertia sensor and a communication module, the inertia sensor collects leg thigh motion of acceleration data and angular velocity data, leg shank is fixed with inertia sensor and the communication module, the inertia sensor collects the leg movement of the acceleration data and the angular velocity data…" “the first terminal is provided with an inertial sensor, comprising a three-axis MEMS micro-accelerometer and a three-axis MEMS gyroscope, composed of six-axis inertial sensor, obtaining the acceleration data and corner speed data”) correspondingly to generate a plurality of dynamic sensing data ( “the server detects the moving state of the first object according to the first position parameter and the second position parameter, outputting the first detection result information. Specifically, the motion parameter data for determining the first object according to the first position parameter and the second position parameter according to the change of the motion parameter in a period of time whether the first object type of movement data of the object…”);
performing an evaluation procedure for the postural control ability under a specific body posture, wherein the evaluation procedure comprises:
processing each of the plurality of dynamic sensing data to obtain a posture maintenance parameter for each of the plurality of body parts under the specific body posture (“the motion data performs statistics and analysis to obtain the motion data such as recovery operation finishing times, activity time, and athletic performance data. The movement range, operation finishing rate, key posture holding time, and so on”); and
comparing the posture maintenance parameter with a reference value of posture maintenance for each of the body parts under the specific body posture so as to generate an evaluation result of the postural control ability (“each recovery operation corresponding to a standard motion index data by motion type data can query the standard motion index data surface comprises standard motion index and corresponding athletic performance index. the motion data index with the standard motion data, obtaining the comparing result, according to whether the operation finishing times reach the recommended value. the athletic performance data and the standard motion compared to obtain performance index data comparison result…”).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hayashida.
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses the method of claim 12. Liu additionally discloses verifying a step of the procedure to ensure an accurate result (“firstly judging whether the motion data is effective action data, if so, storing data, if the effective action is invalid data, for example, in a period of time of leg and the horizontal direction included angle is always zero degrees, sitting or lying, it is invalid, deleting the invalid action data”). However, Liu fails to explicitly disclose re-performing the posture determination procedure and the evaluation procedure for the postural control ability to verify the evaluation result of the postural control ability. Liu, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring posture of a user (Abstract), discloses re-performing the posture determination procedure and the evaluation procedure for the postural control ability to verify the evaluation result of the postural control ability (Paragraph 0049-0050-- The determination of what is problematic as opposed to acceptable may be made on the basis of comparison of one or more portions of the first data to stored patterns of fundamental movement data, generated by the same individual user or by one or more other users; Paragraph 0102-0105-- Embodiments described herein are directed towards establishing whether such correlations exist for an individual user, so that, for example, the user may be guided to adopt better postures, or to change body positions more frequently, before carrying out particular movements). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to repeat the procedure of Liu in order to verify the result as disclosed by Hayashida in order to predictably improve the accuracy of the method by determining not just if the initial data is valid (as in Liu) but also if the later processing and determination are valid.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yin (CN 110404243 A).
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses the method of claim 12. Liu additionally discloses the method may be used in monitoring rehabilitation training and recovery of a patient (“The method in this embodiment can be applied to the medical field, patient after the leg rehabilitation, the patient rehabilitation training by the terminal through mobile phone terminal, the system default is real-time working mode. terminal collecting patient rehabilitation training movement data…to record and evaluate the recovery condition of the patient”). However, Liu fails to disclose further comprising suggesting an action practice planning according to the evaluation result of the postural control ability, and the action practice planning comprises a plurality of different action practice contents and a corresponding time allocation for each of the plurality of different action practice contents.
Yin, in the same field of endeavor of evaluating posture of a user (Abstract), discloses a system comprising suggesting an action practice planning according to the evaluation result of the postural control ability, and the action practice planning comprises a plurality of different action practice contents and a corresponding time allocation for each of the plurality of different action practice contents (“gives the rehabilitation exercise suggested according to the evaluation result of the posture information”; “S2, providing a rehabilitation exercise for the user according to the posture evaluation result of step S1 suggests that the rehabilitation exercise suggestion comprises: combination suggested rehabilitation training projects”; “step S2 rehabilitation exercise items comprises suggested combination suggested by the sensory recovery of game, at least comprising one of said suggested the sensory recovery game, and the name of the sensory recovery game, and/or the execution order, and/or execution times. example of the measurement as an example, after the user passes the test of step S1 to obtain measurement result the shoulder posture is not qualified, in rehabilitation exercise recommendations, shoulder-related sensory rehabilitation game number, and/or the game time, and/or game execution time, to be more sensing game of the other parts. Thus, in step S2, according to the recovery suggested the specific mark condition give a specific work activity of " shoulder training game upper limb training, is completed three times, and score needs to reach 80, swimming game + systemic training game to finish two times, and the score needs to reach 80 minute, and similar suggestion. job activity of step S2 the number of times and/or standard set according to the recovery target”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Liu with the teachings of Yin in order to predictably improve the ability of the method to be used in a medical field by not only monitoring rehabilitation progress but also modifying the rehabilitation itself based on the progress.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Dodemont (US 20220296129 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses the method of claim 18. Liu additionally discloses wherein the plurality of motion sensors are further configured to generate a plurality of static sensing data (“the first position parameter is the angle of left leg thigh with the direction of gravity, a second position parameter is the angle between the leg and the direction of gravity…”), the plurality of body parts comprise trunk, upper arms, wrists, thighs and calf (“first object specifically comprises: body of the left/right upper limb, a left/right lower limb. the first part of the first object specifically comprises: large/small arm of the left/right upper limb, the left/right lower limb/leg”; “the second part of the first object specifically comprises: large/small arm of the left/right upper limb, the left/right lower limb/leg…”).
However, Liu fails to disclose the method further comprises sensing, by a support sensor, a contact of the subject to generate a contact sensing signal. Dodemont, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring posture of a user (see paragraphs 0088-0089, abstract-- monitoring a physical activity performed by a subject, the system including: a pose sensor, a garment and one or more processing devices. The pose sensor is configured to sense one or more pose parameters) discloses a method which includes sensing data by a plurality of motion sensors (Paragraph 0109) as well as sensing, by a support sensor, a contact of the subject to generate a contact sensing signal (Paragraph 0110-0111--- A strain sensor can be incorporated into the garment and used to measure strain of the garment, which can in turn be used to derive pose information… the strain sensor can assist in determining vertebral segment movement, for example by including the strain sensor on the subject's back. During a physical activity, the strain sensor on the subject's back may measure excessive movement of certain intervertebral segments, which may result in excess stress and/or strain of tissues, which may result in spinal pain. In this example, the system 100 may inform the subject of the excessive movement, potentially allowing the subject to avoid spinal pain… A pressure sensor can be configured to measure pressure imparted by the subject and/or a part of the subject… the pressure sensor may be included in one or more shoes and be configured to measure the pressure exerted by one or more of the subject's feet, or could be incorporated into an activity mat, allowing the pressure of multiple points of contact, such as hands and/or feet to be measured. The data indicative of the pressure exerted by one or more of the subject's feet may assist in determining how the subject leans, transfers their body weight or the like).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method to additionally include a support sensor for measuring contact as disclosed by Dodemont in order to predictably improve the ability of the device to further monitor abnormalities in posture which may cause pain or imbalance (see Dodemont Paragraph 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses the method of claim 19. Liu additionally discloses further comprising performing a posture determination procedure according to the plurality of static sensing data to determine a specific static body posture of the subject (“calculating the attitude quaternion thigh thigh and leg to the gravity direction calculation in the world coordinate system and the angle of the leg with the direction of gravity”; “under the real-time working mode of rehabilitation training angle and shank of the thigh and the gravity direction and the angle of the direction of gravity can be hip joint angle and the knee joint angle and other motion parameters”).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida in view of Dodemont (US 20220296129 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Hayashida discloses the method of claim 18. Hayashida additionally discloses wherein the plurality of motion sensors are further configured to generate a plurality of static sensing data, the plurality of body parts comprise trunk, upper arms, wrists, thighs and calf (Paragraph 0015, 0019-- IMU device 101X is placed at, near, or around the waist of the user, where it can be approximated to be at the center of mass of the user. It may, for example, be attached to or embedded within a belt or other garment, or attached to the skin with an adhesive patch. In these embodiments, a second IMU sensor device 101Y may be placed in or around a second part of the body. For example, sensor device 101Y may be placed in the sole of a shoe or in an orthotic shoe insole (also called an “orthotic shoe insert”) placed within the shoe, on or around the knee, on or around the shoulder, arm, or elbow, or other places on the body).
However, Hayashida fails to disclose the method further comprises sensing, by a support sensor, a contact of the subject to generate a contact sensing signal. Dodemont, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring posture of a user (see paragraphs 0088-0089, abstract-- monitoring a physical activity performed by a subject, the system including: a pose sensor, a garment and one or more processing devices. The pose sensor is configured to sense one or more pose parameters) discloses a method which includes sensing data by a plurality of motion sensors (Paragraph 0109) as well as sensing, by a support sensor, a contact of the subject to generate a contact sensing signal (Paragraph 0110-0111--- A strain sensor can be incorporated into the garment and used to measure strain of the garment, which can in turn be used to derive pose information… the strain sensor can assist in determining vertebral segment movement, for example by including the strain sensor on the subject's back. During a physical activity, the strain sensor on the subject's back may measure excessive movement of certain intervertebral segments, which may result in excess stress and/or strain of tissues, which may result in spinal pain. In this example, the system 100 may inform the subject of the excessive movement, potentially allowing the subject to avoid spinal pain… A pressure sensor can be configured to measure pressure imparted by the subject and/or a part of the subject… the pressure sensor may be included in one or more shoes and be configured to measure the pressure exerted by one or more of the subject's feet, or could be incorporated into an activity mat, allowing the pressure of multiple points of contact, such as hands and/or feet to be measured. The data indicative of the pressure exerted by one or more of the subject's feet may assist in determining how the subject leans, transfers their body weight or the like).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method to additionally include a support sensor for measuring contact as disclosed by Dodemont in order to predictably improve the ability of the device to further monitor abnormalities in posture which may cause pain or imbalance (see Dodemont Paragraph 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashida discloses the method of claim 19. Hayashida additionally discloses further comprising performing a posture determination procedure according to the plurality of static sensing data to determine a specific body posture of the subject (Paragraph 0012, 0039-0040-- the data being recognized by the processing device as indicating a known body position such as standing, sitting, kneeling, lying down, etc; paragraph 0041-- the first processing device receives second data sent over a wireless communication channel from a second IMU sensor positioned on the user, the second data being recognized by the processing device as indicating a known fundamental movement, such as walking, running, jumping etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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