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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 February 2026 has been entered.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 8-9, 11-12, and 15, as well as the cancelation of claim 3, and the addition of new claim 16. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “t1”, “t2”, “tn” [Figs. 7-8]; “t3” [Fig. 8].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “wherein the 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” [lines 24-25], as the Examiner notes that the sensors themselves are separated by the conductive material layer such that the sensors themselves don’t intersect, but the way that the sensors are arranged are to form a matrix.
Claim 4 should read “wherein [[the]] each of the plurality of unit mat sensors comprises a floor sheet[[,]] and a finishing sheet” [lines 5-6].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 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 § 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 (lines 3-6); the particularity of each of the unit mat sensors (lines 7-17, 24-25); a depth camera (lines 18-19)] 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, 5, and 12-13 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).
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, Figure 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 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 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 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)].
Regarding claim 5, Zets in view of Shim 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 12, Zets in view of Shim 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 personal information and a fall test history information of the subject [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 (Zets Col 22:62-Col23:1)]; and
an app management module providing an application that allows a terminal device of the subject to access the integrated database and receive a test result [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, Figure 13), wherein while disclosed as being accessed by the therapist, it is understood that the subject may also interact with the disclosed interface 41].
Regarding claim 13, Zets in view of Shim 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) 2, 9-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Morgenthau (US-20170270463-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zets in view of Shim teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim 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 discloses systems for tracking user movement, wherein Morgenthau discloses an automatic user recognizer that automatically 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 [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)].
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 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 the walking analyzer [Morgenthau ¶¶0208, 0210].
Regarding claim 9, Zets in view of Shim teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim fail 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 mat identifier is transmitted as a data packet corresponding to a communication protocol that is receivable by an automatic user recognizer [Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 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 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 the walking analyzer [Morgenthau ¶¶0208, 0210].
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 ¶¶0116, 0210], and
wherein the walking data analyzer reflects the array of the plurality of unit mat sensors read from the relative position information and analyzes the walking state of the subject [Morgenthau ¶¶0116, 0210].
Regarding claim 11, Zets in view of Shim teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim fail 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 a subject may travel, wherein [Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0116, 0208, 0210], 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 [Some nodes repeat information received by sensors to other nodes, and other types (e.g., gateway nodes) are connectable to other types of data networks (e.g., a conventional data network) and communicate the sensor data to computer systems using standard protocols (e.g., TCP/IP) (Morgenthau ¶0013); According to another embodiment, the sensor is adapted to determine the location of the sensor based on detection of one or more of the plurality of communication nodes in the wireless mesh network. According to another embodiment, the determination of the location is determined responsive to detected signal strength of the one or more of the plurality of communication nodes in the wireless mesh network (Morgenthau ¶0017); a sensor is provided comprising an element that is adapted to attach the sensor to a monitored subject, a wireless network interface adapted to communicate with a network of communication nodes, a processor adapted to detect a plurality of workplace events occurring to the monitored subject and wherein the processor is further adapted to communicate an event message over the network to a managing computer system, wherein the event message comprises a location of the event (Morgenthau ¶0030)].
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 to employ 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, so as to facilitate monitoring of the location of the user and provide additional context with respect to specific user location relative to the walking analyzer [Morgenthau ¶¶0208, 0210], 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 [installing a mat side recognizer at a particular location (Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0116, 0208, 0210)] to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [allow for increased accuracy in determining a subject’s location using RSSI] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)]. Furthermore, as Zets already discloses continuous monitoring a walking test progress position of the subject [Zets Col 23:63-67, Figure 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.
Regarding claim 15, Zets in view of Shim teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the walking data analyzer matches an identification information of the subject with a unique identification information of each of the plurality of unit mat sensors and thereby reads a walking test progress position of the subject, wherein the identification information of the subject is collected from a terminal device of the subject.
Morgenthau discloses a managing computing system configured to match an identification information of a subject with a unique identification information of each of a plurality of node sensors and thereby read a traveling path of the subject, wherein the identification information of the subject is collected from a terminal device of the subject [Morgenthau ¶¶0013, 0017, 0030, 0074, 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 to employ wherein the walking data analyzer matches an identification information of the subject with a unique identification information of each of the plurality of unit mat sensors and thereby reads a walking test progress position of the subject, wherein the identification information of the subject is collected from a terminal device of the subject, so as to facilitate monitoring of the location of the user and provide additional context with respect to specific user location relative to the walking analyzer [Morgenthau ¶¶0208, 0210].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Smith (US-20180125413-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 4, Zets in view of Shim 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 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the 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 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, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Koppal (US-20150023563-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 6, Zets in view of Shim teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 5.
However, Zets in view of Shim 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 perform 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 hybrid walking analysis apparatus of Zets in view of Shim 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 perform 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 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 29].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Mao (US-20180024641-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 7, Zets in view of Shim teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1, wherein the walking data analyzer extracts a plurality of 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 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 analysis module of Zets in view of Shim 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, 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 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 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the walking analysis module 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 uses the image frame from which the walking aid is excluded.
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 detect a pressure value generated by the walking aid from 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 to employ wherein the walking analysis module 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 uses the image frame from which the walking aid is excluded, so as to accurately detect and isolate the foot position of a subject using a walking aid [Utsunomiya ¶0480; Cole ¶0098].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Shim, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee (US-20190021650-A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zets in view of Shim teaches
The hybrid walking analysis apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zets in view of Shim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the matrix is formed at a predetermined interval of at least 1.27 cm.
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)]. “[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).
“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. 7, filed 27 February 2026, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claim 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7-8, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 112(b) rejections of claims 11 and 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 8-17, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and those dependent therefrom under § 103 as being obvious over Zets (US-9149222-B1, previously presented) in view of Smith (US-20180125413-A1, previously presented) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zets (US-9149222-B1, previously presented) in view of Shim (US-20190145817-A1).
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant asserts that the previously applied Smith reference merely discloses conductive layers [layers 8, 9 (Smith Fig. 3)] that act as broad, continuous planes, and as such fails to teach or suggest the specific geometrical structure of distinct first and second sensor sheets, each having a plurality of first axis sensors and second axis sensors, respectively, that are linearly arranged along mutually orthogonal directions and intersect to form a matrix pattern. However, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Zets is presently modified by Shim (US-20190145817-A1), wherein Shim discloses 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 the plurality of first axis pressure sensors and the plurality of second axis pressure sensors intersect to form a matrix [Shim ¶0042, Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 8, the Applicant asserts that the previously applied references of Cole and Utsunomiya fail, either alone or in combination, to teach the dual removal of walking aid interference from both image frames and pressure sensing data, wherein the Applicant notes that Cole describes distinguishing the shape of walking aid devices and Utsunomiya removes the walking supportive device from binary images, the fail to teach or suggest removing from a pressure sensing data, a detected pressure value generated by the walking aid, in addition to excluding the walking aid from image frames. 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 notes that Cole is cited as disclosing relevant subject matter with respect to distinguishing between pressure data of a user versus the user’s walking aid for the purposes of identifying footsteps to extract measurements of footstep properties [Cole ¶0098], wherein the extraction of footstep properties from data that is recited as possibly including data indicative of walkers, canes, or other supportive devices is considered to be similar to the claimed language of “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”. Furthermore, Utsunomiya is similarly cited for the explicit removal of an extracted walking aid from an image frame to be analyzed [Utsunomiya ¶0480, Figure 46]. As such, in combination, the modification in light of the subject matter of Utsunomiya and Cole is considered to render the argued claim language obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant asserts that Orellano describes using RSSI solely to indicate general proximity for locating a patient, whereas the claimed apparatus uses the RSSI together with unique identification signals from each of the plurality of unit mat sensors, to calculate the relative position information between the automatic user recognizer and each individual mat, thereby determining the actual sequential arrangement order (C1 to Cn) of the plurality of unit mat sensors along the walking path. However, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 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. Zets in view of Shim is further modified by Morgenthau (US-20170270463-A1), wherein Morgenthau discloses RSSI and unique identification signals from each of a plurality of node sensors to calculate the relative position information between an automatic user recognizer and each individual node sensor, thus identifying a path traveled by a subject [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)].
Regarding claim 11, the Applicant asserts that while Zets mentions turning as a training task, Zets fails to disclose or suggest installing physical sensors, let alone a dedicated mat-side recognizer, specifically at turning points, or any specific mechanism to generate signals during a turn; and wherein Staton’s sensors are coarse sensors that detect presence “at or near a pad” in hospital beds or chair environment and do not address sequential passage detection across a plurality of unit mat sensors, nor do they transmit signals to reflect direction changes along a walking path, and Staton’s proximity sensors provide only general location information and do not distinguish or prioritize transitions in walking direction; whereas, in amended claim 11, the mat-side recognizer is installed specifically at a direction change point to facilitate nuanced analysis of the subject’s walking state during specific transitions that standard force plate arrays (as implied in Zets) do not capture. However, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 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. Zets in view of Shim is further modified by Morgenthau, as Morgenthau does address sequential passage detection across a plurality of node sensors [Morgenthau ¶¶0074, 0116, 0208, 0210, wherein determining location over time based on RSSI patterns is considered to read on determining sequential passage detection]. The Examiner further notes that the argument that Zets and Staton fail to address “the mat-side recognizer is installed specifically at a direction change point to facilitate nuanced analysis of the subject’s walking state during specific transitions that standard force plate arrays (as implied in Zets) do not capture” [emphasis applied] is 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). The argued “nuanced analysis of the subject’s walking state during specific transitions” is not specifically recited, such that as modified, Zets in view of Shim and Morgenthau teaches a mat-side recognizer is installed specifically at a direction change point.
Regarding claim 16, the Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose the claimed limitations of newly added claim 16. However, the Examiner notes that Zets in view of Shim is further modified by Lee, wherein Lee discloses a pressure-sensitive mat comprising a matrix formed from intersecting pressure sensors, wherein the matrix is formed at an interval in the range of 0.5-10.0 cm 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)].
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights