DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the claim amendments and Applicant’s Remarks filed 20 July 2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16, and the cancelation of claim 15. Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 20 July 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “These temporal indices allow the walking analysis module (13) to align and synchronize consecutive image frames with the pressure sensors of the walkway analyzer to map walking test progress positions”. The Examiner notes that while the other amendments to ¶96 of the Applicant’s Specification [the Examiner notes that the presented amendment to the Specification recites “¶0084”, which does not match the corresponding language of ¶84 of the Applicant’s Specification filed 14 February 2023, but does match ¶96 of the Specification filed 14 February 2023] appear to have sufficient written description support in at least ¶¶17-20, 32-33, 54, and 89-91, which are considered to refer to the continuous capturing of 3D depth images and 2D RGB images for analysis to detect an error frame from 2D and 3D images frames [which may be considered to provide antecedent basis to the term “temporal index/indices”], there does not appear to be any disclosure in the originally filed Specification, Drawings, or Claims that indicate that the image frames/temporal indices are utilized by the walking analysis module 13 to align and synchronize consecutive image frames with the pressure sensors of the walkway analyzer to map walking test progress positions, as there is no disclosure of the 2D and/or 3D image frames/temporal indices being used to determine a progress position [Applicant’s Specification ¶¶19, 85-87, 90, and 94 refer to determining position and orientation of a subject’s skeleton and joints, but not specifically walking test progress position].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in replay to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 should read “the unique identification information of each [line 4].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 112
Examiner’s Note Regarding Machine Learning: the claimed “machine learning” of claim(s) 7 and those dependent therefrom was considered under § 112(a), wherein the Examiner notes that the disclosure of machine learning to extract images of the skeleton and joints from 3D depth images [Applicant’s Specification ¶¶19, 96] of the Applicant’s Specification is considered to provide sufficient written description support for the machine learning as presently claimed for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the Applicant possessed the instant invention at the time of filing.
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) 16 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the matrix is formed at a predetermined interval of 1.27 cm, representing a preset threshold for real-time boundary resolution and microcontroller processing overhead optimization” [lines 1-3, emphasis applied], which the Examiner notes lacks sufficient written description support, as the Examiner notes that the only reference to the predetermined interval of 1.27 cm in the Applicant’s Specification reads “In the above-described mat-type walking analyzer 11, as an embodiment, the matrix is set to have a minimum interval of 0.5″ (1.27 cm) so that areas of the foot pressure during walking are precisely divided and detected” [Applicant’s Specification ¶70]. The Examiner notes that the cited portion of the Applicant’s Specification is considered to be broader than the narrower emphasized portion of claim 16, and there does not appear to be any other portion of the Applicant’s Specification that references the predetermined interval of the matrix in relation to real-time boundary resolution or microcontroller processing overhead optimization.
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) 12 and those dependent therefrom 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a terminal device of the subject” [lines 6-7], which is considered indefinite, as claim 1 [from which claim 12 is dependent from] recites “a terminal device of the subject” [line 27 of claim 1], such that it is unclear whether the terminal device of claim 12 is meant to refer to the same terminal device of claim 1 or define a new/separate terminal device. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the indefinite limitation of claim 12 to refer to the terminal device of claim 1 and read “[[a]] the terminal device of subject”.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
Examiner’s Note Regarding § 101 Analysis: The Examiner notes that claim(s) 1 recites a judicial exception [“analyze a walking state of the subject including gait-related parameters”] at Step 2A Prong 1, which is considered to be an abstract idea that may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper by merely observing known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom. However, the Examiner further notes that claim(s) 1 recites limitations directed towards additional elements [walking analyzer having an array of a plurality of unit mat sensors; the particularity of each of the unit mat sensors; a depth camera] that is/are considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2 and allow the invention to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets (US-9149222-B1, previously presented) in view of Shim (US-20190145817-A1, previously presented) and Morgenthau (US-20170270463-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Zets teaches
A hybrid walking analysis apparatus for fall prevention, the apparatus comprising:
a walking analyzer installed on a floor and allowing a subject of a fall prevention test to walk thereon, the walking analyzer having an array of a plurality of unit mat sensors, wherein each of the plurality of unit mat sensors includes a plurality of pressure sensors to measure a foot pressure during walking by the subject to provide foot pressure information [The sensors of the system and method of the invention may be any sensor that is configured to measure movement, position, weight, pressure, or the like. Examples of such sensors are force plates comprised of sensors providing a signal relative to the force applied (Zets Col 4:37-42); FIG. 12 illustrates particular features 600 of the invention; specifically training and computerized assessment during a series of functional gait tasks. It is well known that vision plays a major role in maintaining stability, both during stance and while undergoing movement such as walking (Zets Col 23:63-67, Fig. 12)],
the array of the plurality of unit mat sensors having:
a first unit mat sensor and a second unit mat sensor disposed adjacent to each other and connected in an extendable manner in a two-dimensional direction in a mat shape [The view 600 shows a top down depiction of one 602 or more (603 and 604) force plates that are aligned end-to end along a particular axis 601 (Zets Col 28:28-30, Fig. 12)] and,
a depth camera configured to photograph the walking subject and provide a three-dimensional (3D) depth image of the subject [one or more 3D camera sensors 150 and 152, may be used for the measurement of the subjects 80 COG location and postural orientation during the activities described in further detail below (Zets Col 18:54-57)]; and
a walking data analyzer configured to aggregate the foot pressure information of the subject from the walking analyzer and skeletal information of the subject from the depth camera and to analyze a walking state of the subject including gait-related parameters [the subject's postural signals and orientation is calculated from the COG (derived from the 3D camera sensor data) and estimated skeletal postural model (calculated on the intelligent controller 20), and can be used together with the force plate data (if available) to calculate an accurate depiction of the COP and further identify what particular movement stage, or sub-task the subject 80 may be completing (Zets Col 18:66-Col 19:5); Therefore it is also an object of this invention, to provide measures that consist of multiple items that are to be summarized clinically into a composite score using computer based (automated scoring) (Zets Col 32:37-40)].
However, Zets fails to explicitly disclose each of the plurality of unit mat sensors having: a first sensor sheet having a plurality of first axis pressure sensors linearly arranged along a first direction, a second sensor sheet having a plurality of second axis pressure sensors linearly arranged along a second direction different from the first direction, and a conductive material layer sandwiched between the first sensor sheet and the second sensor sheet, wherein a respective linear arrangement of each of the plurality of first axis pressure sensors and the plurality of second axis pressure sensors intersect to form a matrix.
Shim discloses mat sensors for detecting an applied pressure [Shim ¶0102] as applied to at least fall detection systems [Shim ¶0106] and for laying on [Shim ¶0141], wherein Shim discloses wherein the mat sensors comprise: a first sensor sheet having a plurality of first axis pressure sensors linearly arranged along a first direction, a second sensor sheet having a plurality of second axis pressure sensors linearly arranged along a second direction different from the first direction [An electronic controller 102 directs electrical current along conductive paths, conductive path 106 to second conductive path 108 leading in one direction, and conductive path 104 to first conductive path 110 leading in a direction perpendicular to conductive path 108, thereby creating a sensor at each intersecting point 112. Conductive textile strips define conductive paths 108 and 110 are an example embodiment used in a grid where each intersecting point determines the surface coverage of the sensing area 112 (Shim ¶0042, Fig. 1); In a matrix design, for example, one side of the electrical connections of a second conductive path 108 (e.g., rows) to the conductive apparatus serves as an input signals and is connected to one MUX whereas the other side of the connections of a first conductive path 110 (e.g., columns) serves as the output and is connected to the other MUX (Shim ¶0070), wherein based on the Applicant’s Specification ¶68, which recites “Accordingly, the horizontal axis pressure sensors of the first sensor sheet 11 b and the vertical axis pressure sensors of the second sensor sheet 11 d intersect to form a matrix pattern, and simultaneously measure the foot pressure of the subject at each point of the sensors”, each conductive path 108 and conductive path 110 are considered to respectively define a first axis pressure sensor of a plurality of first axis pressure sensors and a second axis pressure sensor of a plurality of second axis pressure sensors], and a conductive material layer sandwiched between the first sensor sheet and the second sensor sheet [In an alternate embodiment where a conductive layer is provided between the two conductive paths, using a material having a lower conductivity and higher surface area resistivity than the two conductive paths, this will also decrease the level of sensitivity of the apparatus (Shim ¶0094)], wherein a respective linear arrangement of each of the plurality of first axis pressure sensors and the plurality of second axis pressure sensors intersect to form a matrix [Shim ¶0042, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets to employ each of the plurality of unit mat sensors having: a first sensor sheet having a plurality of first axis pressure sensors linearly arranged along a first direction, a second sensor sheet having a plurality of second axis pressure sensors linearly arranged along a second direction different from the first direction, and a conductive material layer sandwiched between the first sensor sheet and the second sensor sheet, wherein a respective linear arrangement of each of the plurality of first axis pressure sensors and the plurality of second axis pressure sensors intersect to form a matrix, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element [unit mat sensors of Zets] for another [system 100 of Shim] with similar expected results [sense pressure applied] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
However, Zets in view of Shim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the walking data analyzer is further configured to match identification of the subject, collected from a terminal device of the subject, with unique identification information of each of the plurality of unit mat sensors, and thereby read a walking test progress position of the subject in real-time.
Morgenthau discloses systems for tracking user movement, wherein Morgenthau discloses a terminal device of a subject [a sensor assigned to the monitored subject may be capable of determining the location of the subject (Morgenthau ¶0070)], wherein a computer system is configured to match identification information of a subject, collected from the terminal device of the subject, with unique identification information of each of a plurality of node sensors, and thereby read a traveling path of the subject in real-time [Further, sensor data including events, indications of the location of an event, the time at which an event occurred, and any parameters associated with that event may be communicated through a communication network to the distributed computer system (e.g. computer system 103). In one embodiment, a logical location (e.g., a specific room on a specific floor of a building) may be inferred by the system, responsive to an altitude of the sensor, and determined location of the user (e.g., based on relative position of the sensor to one or more fixed locations). As discussed, the communication network may be a wireless network that is configured and arranged on a particular worksite (e.g., worksite 100). In one implementation, the wireless network may be constructed of a number of wireless nodes (e.g., nodes 102A-102D) that communicate together to form a mesh-type network (Morgenthau ¶0074); Mobile Nodes—The mobile nodes, according to one implementation, router nodes include the sensors. According to various embodiments, these sensors are worn by personnel moving around the job site. They report status, location, and events to the nearest router or gateway node. The nearest router or gateway node may be determined, for example, by comparing values of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) as measured from the perspective of each sensor. The nearest router or gateway node may be selected as the entity with the highest value of RSSI (Morgenthau ¶0116); Because people generally move at a walking pace on a job site, and tend to move in regular paths, a significant amount of filtering can be done on the location data to prevent the reported position from jumping around (Morgenthau ¶0208); Calibration map: For fixed installations, part of the deployment can be mapping signal strengths across the job site, which can then be used to provide much more accurate location measurements… Calibration maps may be determined when the system is first installed, and may associate actual logical locations (e.g., via a map or other locational construct) with a pattern of RSSI values from multiple mesh nodes (Morgenthau ¶0210); the sensor may have a more real-time view of the person's location for the purpose of event reporting (Morgenthau ¶0222)].
As Zets teaches monitoring a walking test progress position of the subject [Zets Col 23:63-67, Fig. 12], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets in view of Shim to employ wherein the walking data analyzer is further configured to match identification information of the subject, collected from a terminal device of the subject, with unique identification information of each of the plurality of unit mat sensors, and thereby read a walking test progress position of the subject in real-time, so as to facilitate monitoring of the location of the user and provide additional context with respect to specific user location relative to each of the plurality of unit mat sensors of the walking data analyzer.
Regarding claim 2, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose further comprising an automatic user recognizer that automatically identifies a position of the subject from a point in time when the subject enters the walking analyzer and a point in time when the subject leaves the walking analyzer without requiring manual input.
Morgenthau further discloses an automatic user recognizer [Coordinator/Gateway—Coordinates communication activity within a cell and routes data from nodes in that cell to the cloud server (e.g., via the Internet). These nodes are powered externally and have some form of network connectivity (e.g., Internet). One coordinator in the network is designated the master and drives the timing for the entire network (Morgenthau ¶0114)] that identifies a position of the subject from a point in time when the subject enters a particular location and a point in time when the subject leaves the particular location without requiring manual input [The mobile nodes, according to one implementation, router nodes include the sensors. According to various embodiments, these sensors are worn by personnel moving around the job site. They report status, location, and events to the nearest router or gateway node (Morgenthau ¶0116; See functionality of mesh nodes to determinate a location of a user (including at least a specific room) in Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0208, 0210, wherein the mobile nodes providing location information to the coordinator/gateway node is considered to read on the coordinator/gateway node performing the function of identifying position as recited].
As Zets teaches monitoring a walking test progress position of the subject [Zets Col 23:63-67, Fig. 12], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ further comprising an automatic user recognizer that automatically identifies a position of the subject from a point in time when the subject enters the walking analyzer and a point in time when the subject leaves the walking analyzer without requiring manual input, so as to facilitate monitoring of the location of the user and provide additional context with respect to specific user location relative to each of the plurality of unit mat sensors of the walking data analyzer.
Regarding claim 5, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1, wherein the depth camera is installed along the walking analyzer and is configured to continuously photograph the subject within designated sections [Zets Col 18:54-57].
Regarding claim 9, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of unit mat sensors have a mat identifier that allows a unique identification information thereof to be transmitted, wherein the unique identification information of each of the mat identifier is transmitted as a data packet corresponding to a communication protocol that is receivable by an automatic user recognizer.
Morgenthau discloses wherein each of a plurality of node sensors have a node identifier that allows a unique identification information thereof to be transmitted, wherein the unique identification information of each of the node identifier is transmitted as a data packet corresponding to a communication protocol that is receivable by an automatic user recognizer [Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0114, 0116, 0208, 0210].
As Zets teaches monitoring a walking test progress position of the subject [Zets Col 23:63-67, Figure 12], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ wherein each of the plurality of unit mat sensors have a mat identifier that allows a unique identification information thereof to be transmitted, wherein the unique identification information of each of the mat identifier is transmitted as a data packet corresponding to a communication protocol that is receivable by an automatic user recognizer, so as to facilitate monitoring of the location of the user and provide additional context with respect to specific user location relative to each of the plurality of unit mat sensors of the walking data analyzer.
Regarding claim 10, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 2, wherein the automatic user recognizer is configured to analyze signals transmitted from each of the plurality of unit mat sensors to provide relative position information between the automatic user recognizer and each of the plurality of unit mat sensors using a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) [Morgenthau ¶¶0114, 0116, 0210, such that determining a nearest coordinator /gateway node based on a RSSI between the sensor and the mobile nodes is considered to read on the claimed limitation], and
wherein the walking data analyzer reflects the array of the plurality of unit mat sensors read from the relative position information [Morgenthau ¶¶0114, 0116, 0210] and analyzes the walking state of the subject [Zets Col 18:66-19:5].
Regarding claim 11, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a mat-side recognizer installed among the plurality of unit mat sensors in at least one direction change point between an entry point at which the subject enters for testing and an exit point at which the subject leaves after completing the test, wherein, when the mat-side recognizer detects the subject walking on one of the plurality of unit mat sensors on which the mat-side recognizer is installed, the mat-side recognizer transmits a mat passing signal to the walking data analyzer by a relay of an automatic user recognizer, and wherein the walking data analyzer reflects information measured while the subject is walking through the at least one direction change point in analyzing the walking state of the subject.
Morgenthau discloses node recognizers positioned in areas/paths where the subject may travel, wherein, when the node recognizer detects the subject within a predefined range, the node recognizer transmits a passing signal to a managing computing system by a relay of an automatic user recognizer [Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0114, 0116, 0208, 0210].
As Zets teaches monitoring a walking test progress position of the subject [Zets Col 23:63-67, Figure 12], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ further comprising a mat-side recognizer installed among the plurality of unit mat sensors, wherein, when the mat-side recognizer detects the subject walking on one of the plurality of unit mat sensors on which the mat-side recognizer is installed, the mat-side recognizer transmits a mat passing signal to the walking data analyzer by a relay of an automatic user recognizer, so as to facilitate monitoring of the location of the user and provide additional context with respect to specific user location relative to each of the plurality of unit mat sensors of the walking data analyzer; wherein specifically installing a mat-side recognizer in at least one direction change point between an entry point at which the subject enters for testing and an exit point at which the subject leaves after completing the test is considered to amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [installing a node recognizer/mat-side recognizer at a particular location (Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0116, 0208, 0210) to allow for increased accuracy in determining a subject’s location] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)]. Furthermore, as Zets already discloses continuously monitoring a walking test progress position of the subject [Zets Col 23:63-67, Fig. 12], Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau is considered to teach wherein the walking data analyzer reflects information measured while the subject is walking through the at least one direction change point in analyzing the walking state of the subject.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Smith (US-20180125413-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 4, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the first and second directions are positioned normal from one another [Shim ¶¶0042, 0070, Fig. 1].
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of unit mat sensors comprises a floor sheet and a finishing sheet.
Smith discloses a pressure-sensitive mat sensor comprising multiple layers [The pad 102 relies on an electrical circuit having pressure-sensitive resistance. The pad 102 includes two electrically conductive layers 8 and 9 (e.g., Aluminum foil PET Mylar) separated by a non-conductive layer 13 (e.g. Mylar with die cuts) and a layer of conductive foam 12 (Smith ¶0050, Fig. 3)], wherein the mat sensor comprises a floor sheet and a finishing sheet [wherein the each of the plurality of unit mat sensors comprises a floor sheet, and a finishing sheet (Smith ¶0016); Optionally the pad 102 includes a sheath (layers 7 and 10) that contains and seals the conductive layers 8 and 9, the non-conductive layer 13, and the conductive foam 12. Optionally the sheath is an RF-welded vinyl cover. Optionally the pad 102 is fully sealed and water proof (Smith ¶0050)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ wherein each of the plurality of unit mat sensors comprises a floor sheet and a finishing sheet, so as to seal and protect each of the plurality of unit mat sensors.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Koppal (US-20150023563-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 6, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau fails to explicitly disclose wherein the walking data analyzer extracts, among a plurality of image frames in which the subject is photographed, an error frame that is different from an actual walking state using an analysis result of the 3D depth image provided by the depth camera and an analysis result of a two-dimensional (2D) red-green-blue (RGB) image provided by a 2D inspection camera and performs interpolation, and wherein the plurality of image frames collectively represent 2D or 3D image data photographed during walking by the subject.
Koppal discloses systems for human subject movement tracking [Koppal ¶0032], wherein Koppal discloses using a two-dimensional (2D) inspection camera configured to photograph the subject as a 2D red-green-blue (RGB) image to correct image frames from a depth camera [The depth image is also checked 307 for errors. Error detection that may be performed is described in more detail below. If there are no errors, the aligned depth-RGB image pair is output, and processing continues 302 with the next depth-RGB image pair. Otherwise, error correction is performed 308 on the aligned depth image using information from tracking objects in the RGB images, the corrected depth image and the RGB image are output, and processing continues 302 with the next depth-RGB image pair (Koppal ¶0029)], wherein Koppal discloses extracting, among image frames in which the subject is photographed, an error frame that is different from an actual walking state using an analysis result of the 3D depth image provided by the depth camera and an analysis result of the 2D RGB image provided by the inspection camera and perform interpolation [object tracking is performed using the RGB images of the incoming depth-RGB image pairs and information derived from the object tracking is used to improve the depth images, i.e., to correct detected errors in the depth images (Koppal ¶0026); Thus, after the RGB sensor projection matrix is applied, there will be locations in the aligned depth image without a valid depth value. Interpolation is performed on the aligned depth image to generate these depth values. (Koppal ¶0027); Koppal ¶¶0029,0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ wherein the walking data analyzer extracts, among a plurality of image frames in which the subject is photographed, an error frame that is different from an actual walking state using an analysis result of the 3D depth image provided by the depth camera and an analysis result of a two-dimensional (2D) red-green-blue (RGB) image provided by a 2D inspection camera and performs interpolation, and wherein the plurality of image frames collectively represent 2D or 3D image data photographed during walking by the subject, so as to correct errors that may occur in the collected depth images based on known information regarding human appearance and expected speed of movement [Koppal ¶0032]. Wherein based on the modification by Koppal, the plurality of image frames collectively represent 2D or 3D image data photographed during walking by the subject [Zets Col 18:54-57; Koppal ¶0029].
Regarding claim 14, Zets in view of Shim, Morgenthau, and Koppal teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 6, wherein the 2D RGB image of the subject is photographed by a 2D inspection camera [see § 103 modification of claim 6 above; Koppal ¶0029].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Mao (US-20180024641-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 7, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1, wherein the walking data analyzer extracts a plurality images of a skeleton and joints of the subject from a plurality of image frames,
wherein the walking state of the subject including a position value and an orientation value of the skeleton and the joints is analyzed [Zets Col 18:66-Col 19:5, Col 32:37-40; The 3D camera sensor (701) provides an instrument for measuring the position, body sway as well as the biomechanical joint positions and angles of the subject 704 who is standing within the field of view 708 of the sensor. Specifically the body segments (such as the torso or limbs) are identified from the 3D camera sensor image field (sensor output) and their position and orientations can be individually tracked by the intelligent controller 20 (Zets Col 33:38-45)].
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau fails to explicitly disclose wherein the skeleton and joint images are extracted through machine learning.
Mao discloses systems for monitoring movement of a human subject, wherein Mao discloses extracting skeleton and joint images from depth images using machine learning [other limbs or body parts can be captured and corresponding skeleton points can be similarly tracked by the systems and methods described in this disclosure. With a dedicated stereo camera system, the methods described above can detect and track the hand skeleton in 3D, based on a combination of machine learning, inverse kinematics, per-person model, off-line learning, and cloud learning (Mao ¶0072)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the walking data analyzer of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ machine learning to extract the skeleton and joint images, as this modification would amount to merely applying a known technique [machine learning] to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement [walking analysis module of Zets] to yield predictable results [extract the skeleton and joint images] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Utsunomiya (US-20150325004-A1, previously presented) and Cole (US-20150282766-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 8, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1, wherein the walking data analyzer comprises:
a walking state analyzer analyzing the walking state of the subject [Zets Col 18:66-Col 19:5; Zets Col 32:37-40]; and
a fall prediction unit configured to compare the walking state of the subject with a fall risk factor to predict a risk of falling [The COP sway may be compared to pre-set limits or scored proportional to preset constant that are based on subject height, foot size and age). Excursions due to unplanned trips and falls may similarly be evaluated from the collected data and presented as a variance to be included in a score (Zets Col 32:42-47)].
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau fails to explicitly disclose wherein the walking data analyzer comprises: an object extractor extracting a walking aid used by the subject during walking from the 3D depth image; a noise remover excluding the extracted walking aid from a plurality of image frames to be analyzed and detecting a pressure value generated by the walking aid from a plurality of pressure sensors of the walking analyzer and removing the detected pressure value from a pressure sensing data; and wherein the analysis by the walking state analyzer using the image frame from which the walking aid is excluded and the pressure sensing data from which the walking aid pressure is removed.
Utsunomiya discloses systems for monitoring movement of a human subject, wherein Utsunomiya discloses circuitry configured to extract a walking aid used by the subject during walking from a 3D depth image and configured to exclude the extracted walking aid from the image frame to be analyzed [an example of a binary image 92 of an object person using a stick as a walking supporting device is illustrated. As illustrated in FIG. 46, the extracting circuitry 1409 extracts the object region 93 by the above-described processing. Then, the extracting circuitry 1409 acquires a z coordinate corresponding to the highest point in the object region 93 from the depth image 90… the extracting circuitry 1409 removes the walking supporting device from the binary image 92. That is, since the calculating circuitry 1410 calculates a position of a foot of the object person by using the binary image 92 from which the walking supporting device is removed by the extracting circuitry 1409, it is possible to accurately calculate the position of the foot without erroneously recognizing the lowest point of the walking supporting device as the position of the foot (Utsunomiya ¶0480, Figure 46)].
Cole discloses systems for monitoring movement of a human subject, wherein Cole discloses processing data to distinguish a pressure value generated by the walking aid from footsteps based a plurality of pressure sensors [the input data can be analyzed to find footsteps and extract measurements of footstep properties and the gait of the person. Use of walkers, canes and other supportive devices can be identified and distinguished by their relatively consistent shapes and/or pressure patterns along with a path trace that coheres with the paths of the footsteps, for example one expects the path of the support device contact points to be roughly parallel to those of the footsteps (Cole ¶0098)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ wherein the walking data analyzer comprises: an object extractor extracting a walking aid used by the subject during walking from the 3D depth image; a noise remover excluding the extracted walking aid from a plurality of image frames to be analyzed and detecting a pressure value generated by the walking aid from a plurality of pressure sensors of the walking analyzer and removing the detected pressure value from a pressure sensing data; and wherein the analysis by the walking state analyzer using the image frame from which the walking aid is excluded and the pressure sensing data from which the walking aid pressure is removed, so as to accurately detect and distinguish foot position of a subject using a walking aid.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tran (US-20120053472-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
A fall prevention management system comprising:
the hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1 [see § 103 analysis of claim 1 above];
an integrated database recording a personal information and a fall test history information of the subject, wherein the database is in communication with the walking data analyzer via a wireless network protocol [A database 361 is pre-programmed to contain subject data and subject specific parameters, such as timing data, subject needs, specific cueing information, adaptation and vibrotactile thresholds. The database 361 may also contain a set of gesture recognition parameters that are associated with a particular subject's movement parameters during previous motional activities… Analysis of the database can be performed in real time by the therapist, or stored for subsequent downloading. Downloading and analysis may also be completed remotely using the internet and related approaches (Zets Col 22:62-Col 23:1, 23:18-22)]; and
an app management module providing an application [The therapist 707 may also operate aspects of the motional training system 700 via a remote interface 41 as shown in FIG. 13. The remote interface could be a touch screen, keypad or the like, connected via a wireless interface to the intelligent controller 20 (Zets Col 33:8-12, Fig. 13)].
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau fails to explicitly disclose wherein the terminal device of the subject is allowed to access the integrated database and receive a test result.
Tran discloses systems for determining a position of a terminal device of a subject relative to a node using received signal strength, wherein the terminal device is a phone of the subject [The patient 30 may have a telephone 12 that includes a three dimensional accelerometer and WiFi capability. The WiFi can be used to communicate with a WiFi unit 14 that can transmit a beacon signal that can be mapped by the telephone 12 to estimate where the phone is in the house. The location algorithm used in the Location Engine is based on Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) values. The RSSI value will decrease when the distance increases. The WiFi unit 14 is a reference static node placed at a known position. For simplicity this node knows its own position and can tell other nodes where it is on request. The reference node does not need to implement the hardware needed for location detection, it will not perform any calculation at all. A "Blind node" can be the phone 12's WiFi receiver. This node will collect signals from all reference nodes responding to a request, read out the respective RSSI values, feed the collected values into the hardware engine, and afterwards it reads out the calculated position and sends the position information to the server (Tran ¶0022)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau to employ wherein the terminal device is a phone of the subject, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [use of a terminal device to employ RSSI with a node to determine a location of the terminal device] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)]; wherein it would have been further obvious to modify the system of Zets in view of Shim, Morgenthau, and Tran to employ wherein the terminal device of the subject is allowed to access the integrated database and receive a test result, as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [use of a phone to access an application and utilize a wireless network protocol] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 13, Zets in view of Shim, Morgenthau, and Tran teaches
The fall prevention management system of claim 12, wherein the integrated database provides the subject with a customized fall prevention program suitable for the subject [the screen display 785 may be used to monitor activity by the subject 704, and to provide visual feedback to complement the information provided by the vibrotactile feedback mechanism 16. In addition, the screen display 785 may be employed to set parameters or thresholds for operation of the vibrotactile feedback mechanism 16 (Zets Col 37:43-49); the variances and scores may be stored in the system and used and a session by session measure of the subjects performance during motional training (Zets Col 41:67-42:3), wherein storing subject performance to affect future parameters and visualizing subject performance over time is considered to read on the claimed limitation].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee (US-20190021650-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 16, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau fails to explicitly disclose wherein the matrix is formed at a predetermined interval of at least 1.27 cm, representing a preset threshold for real-time boundary resolution and microcontroller processing overhead optimization.
Lee discloses a unit mat sensor comprising a first sensor sheet having a plurality of first axis pressure sensors linearly arranged along a first direction, a second sensor sheet having a plurality of second axis pressure sensors arranged along a second direction different from the first direction, wherein the plurality of first axis pressure sensors and the plurality of second axis pressure sensors intersect to form a matrix [The conductive elements on the first and second conductive layers are aligned across the pressure-sensitive polymer layer such that each pair of first and second conductive elements and the intervening pressure-sensitive polymer layer define a pressure-sensitive element. The array of interconnected conductive elements may be arranged as a grid, such that interconnections of the conductive elements of the first conductive layer define one or more columns (FIGS. 3A and 6), interconnections of the conductive elements of the second conductive layer define one or more rows (FIGS. 3B and 5), and such that the location of any given pressure-sensitive element formed by aligning conductive elements of the first and second conductive layers (as shown in FIG. 3C) is defined by the column in which the conductive element of the first conductive layer belongs and the row in which the conductive element of the second conductive layer belongs (Lee ¶0091, Figs. 3A-C)], wherein the matrix is formed at a predetermined interval within a range of 0.5 to 10.0 cm [In any embodiment, the distance between adjacent pressure sensitive elements may be in the range of 0.5 to 10.0 cm (Lee ¶0020); The distance between adjacent pressure sensitive elements (i.e., distance from the center of one pressure sensitive element to the center of another pressure sensitive element in a row or column immediately adjacent to the first pressure sensitive element) may be any suitable length. In some cases, the distance between adjacent pressure sensitive elements is 0.5 cm or more, e.g., 0.75 cm or more, 1.0 cm or more, 1.5 cm or more, including 2.0 cm or more, and is 10.0 cm or less, 7.5 cm or less, 5.0 cm or less, 4.0 cm or less, 3.0 cm or less, 2.5 cm or less, including 2.0 cm or less. In some embodiments, the spacing between adjacent pressure sensitive elements is in the range of 0.5 to 10.0 cm, e.g., 0.75 to 7.5 cm, 1.0 to 5.0 cm, 1.0 to 3.0 cm, including 1.5 to 2.5 cm (Lee ¶0109), wherein the distance between adjacent pressure sensitive elements being “any suitable length” is considered to read on the predetermined interval being “representative” of boundary resolution, and wherein ¶0084 of Lee disclosing that the pressure data is processed by a processor is considered to be indicative that the interval is “representative” of microcontroller processing overhead optimization]. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 456, 105 USPQ 233 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the interval of the matrix.
“The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims… [I]n such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Criticality is shown by some noticeable difference in the qualities. In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924 (CCPA 1933). Nothing in the specification leads one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the range(s) of the predetermined interval is/are somehow ‘critical’ or lead to unexpected results [In the above-described mat-type walking analyzer 11, as an embodiment, the matrix is set to have a minimum interval of 0.5” (1.27 cm) so that areas of the foot pressure during walking are precisely divided and detected (Applicant’s Specification ¶70)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 8-9, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the previously presented drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously presented drawing objections for reference characters depicted in the Drawings, but not mentioned in the Specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 9, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1 and 4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 9-15, with respect to the previously applied rejections of claims 1 and those dependent therefrom [particularly claim 15, as similar subject matter to the previously presented and presently canceled claim 15 has been incorporated into presently amended claim 1] under § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 and those dependent therefrom under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 12 under § 103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tran (US-20120053472-A1).
Regarding amended claim 1, the Applicant asserts that the combined references of Zets, Shim, and Morgenthau fail to teach or suggest at least the features of “wherein the walking data analyzer is further configured to match identification information of the subject, collected from a terminal device of a the subject, with unique identification information of each of the plurality of unit mat sensors and thereby read a walking test progress position of the subject in real-time” [which the Applicant notes as being similar to the previously presented and presently canceled dependent claim 15], as the Applicant asserts that the previously cited portions of Morgenthau [¶¶0013, 0017, 0030, 0074, 0116, 0208, 0210] are not directed towards collecting information from a terminal device of the subject, as well as other portions of Morgenthau [¶¶0071-0075, 0214-0216] referring to the use of scanning standard physical ID cards, passive RFID access cards, tokens, key chain fobs, or stickers placed on hardhats or other gear for collecting user identification not being a “terminal device” as claimed [Applicant asserts that “terminal device” (such as a smartphone, personal digital assistant, or active handheld terminal) is an active computing device capable of independent communication (based at least one claim 12 defining a function of the terminal device to access the integrated database)]. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, as the Examiner notes that the argued portions of Morgenthau are considered to be directed towards collecting information from a terminal device of a subject, as Morgenthau explicitly discloses collecting information from a terminal device of a subject [sensor data including events, indications of the location of an event, the time at which an event occurred, and any parameters associated with that event may be communicated through a communication network to the distributed computer system (e.g. computer system 103). In one embodiment, a logical location (e.g., a specific room on a specific floor of a building) may be inferred by the system, responsive to an altitude of the sensor, and determined location of the user (e.g., based on relative position of the sensor to one or more fixed locations) (Morgenthau ¶0074); each sensor is associated with a particular monitored subject, and this association may be used to identify the subject that experiences the workplace condition and/or generally monitor the subject. As indicated earlier, a secondary function of the system may include performing compliance and identification functions. For instance, it may be helpful to have a system that can verify whether the subject being monitored is actually at the jobsite, during the time that the subject is expected there. The system may also be helpful in performing a geofence function with certain areas of the jobsite. For example, there may be locations that have a certain level of security, have a dangerous condition, need a certain level of training, etc. and having a system that can track the location of users and alert on entry of the monitored subject to such locations would be advantageous (Morgenthau ¶0096)]. The Examiner further acknowledges that while Morgenthau does disclose use of scanning standard physical ID cards, passive RFID access cards, tokens, key chain fobs, or stickers placed on hardhats or other gear for collecting user identification, the Examiner notes that the use of such scannable items is to associate identification information of a subject with a sensor [considered to read on the claimed terminal device] prior to use of the sensor in association with a plurality of node sensors [At block 503, the system assigns the sensor to a monitored subject. The worker may have some identification information (e.g., an ID badge) that can be scanned at the check-in site, and that can be associated with an assigned sensor (Morgenthau ¶0099)], wherein the identification information of the subject stored on the sensor is collected from the sensor by the plurality of node sensors [Morgenthau ¶0074, 0116, 0210], separate from the use of the scannable item [ID badge, etc.]. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein the terminal device comprises a smartphone, personal digital assistant) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to claim 1, as the terminal device fails to be further limited by any particular structure or functionality beyond providing identification information of a subject, the terminal device of Morgenthau [sensor] is considered to read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “terminal device”. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau is further modified in view of Tran (US-20120053472-A1), wherein Tran discloses a terminal device/sensor configured to utilize received signal strength indicator in conjunction with a node to enable determination of a location of a user of the terminal device, wherein the terminal device is a phone [Tran ¶0022], which is understood to be able to access an application and utilize a wireless network protocol.
Regarding amended claim 8, the Applicant asserts that neither Utsunomiya nor Cole teaches or suggests a hybrid walking analysis apparatus that performs a dual, synchronized, real-time subtraction of the walking aid from BOTH 3D depth images and physical sensor pressure data, as the Applicant notes that the co-dependent [image frames and pressure data], hybrid feedback loop of the walking data analyzer provides a substantial increase in accuracy that cannot be achieved by applying Cole’s pressure analysis or Utsunomiya’s image subtraction alone [Applicant cites MPEP § 2143, “a combination of references is not obvious if it represents a synergistic result that is significantly greater than the sum of its parts]. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner acknowledges that while Utsunomiya and Cole individually fail to teach a hybrid walking analysis apparatus that performs a dual, synchronized, real-time subtraction of the walking aid from BOTH 3D depth images and physical sensor pressure data, as Utsunomiya explicitly discloses removal of an extracted walking aid from an image frame to be analyzed [Utsunomiya ¶0480, Fig. 46], and Cole discloses relevant subject matter with respect to distinguishing between pressure data of a user from pressure data of the user’s walking aid to identify footsteps [Cole ¶0098], the combination of Utsunomiya and Cole is considered to render the argued limitation obvious.
Regarding claim 10, while the Applicant acknowledges that Morgenthau calculates a worker’s position relative to fixed routers based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), the Applicant assets that Morgenthau operates in an entirely different technical field and does not teach or suggest the feature of claim 10, namely “wherein the automatic user recognizer is configured to analyze signals transmitted from each of the plurality of unit mat sensors to provide relative position information… using a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), and wherein the walking data analyzer reflects the array of the plurality of unit mat sensors read from the relative position information”, as the RSSI signals are not used to track a person’s movement across a room, but are instead transmitted from the individual floor-mounted unit mat sensors themselves to the automatic user recognizer. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in response to Applicant’s argument that Morgenthau is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Morgenthau is considered to be in a similar field of endeavor of using RSSI to determine a subject’s relative position between a terminal device of the subject and a node/recognizer [Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0116, 0208, 0210]. The Examiner further notes that Morgenthau discloses that the automatic user recognizer [coordinator/gateway node (Morgenthau ¶0114)] is configured to analyze signals transmitted from each of the mobile nodes [previously mapped to be equivalent to the unit mat sensors (See Morgenthau ¶0116)] to provide relative position information between the coordinator/gateway node and each of the mobile nodes using RSSI [The nearest router or gateway node may be determined, for example, by comparing values of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) as measured from the perspective of each sensor. The nearest router or gateway node may be selected as the entity with the highest value of RSSI (Morgenthau ¶0116), such that determining a nearest coordinator /gateway node based on a RSSI between the sensor and the mobile nodes is considered to read on the claimed limitation], wherein the Examiner notes that the claim language merely requires “relative” position information between the automatic user recognizer and each of the plurality of unit mat sensors using a non-specific RSSI [the RSSI is not specifically described as being an RSSI that is specifically measured between the automatic user recognizer and each unit mat sensor], such that the Applicant’s argument presents a narrower interpretation of the claim language than what is specifically claimed.
Regarding claim 16, the Applicant asserts that in accordance with MPEP § 2144.05(II) and established Federal Circuit precedent [In re Woodruff, In re Aller], a specific claimed range or value is patentable over a broad prior art range if the Applicant demonstrates that the claimed value is critical and produces unexpectedly superior results compared to the rest of the prior art range, wherein the Applicant asserts that the selection of exactly 1.27 cm (0.5 inches) spacing represents a highly critical threshold that solves a fundamental technical conflict in clinical walking analysis, as: (1) spacing wider than 1.27 cm is too coarse to extract the precise anatomical boundaries of the toe and heel during walking to enable calculation of true foot angles and center of pressure (COP), and further enable determination of fall prediction scores; and (2) spacing narrower than 1.27 quadratically increase the number of pressure sensors embedded in the walkway, which would create a data bottleneck and cause high processing latencies that exceed standard microcontroller clock cycles, making real-time gait calculation impossible. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s analysis regarding the selection of exactly 1.27 cm (0.5 inches) does not appear to have sufficient written description support in the Applicant’s Specification to substantiate the argument that the specific claimed range or value is critical and produces unexpectedly superior results compared to the rest of the prior art range [Applicant’s Specification ¶70 appears to be the only recitation of the claimed range and provides only conclusory statements as to why the range was selected].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
