DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes as currently claimed the limitation “means for obtaining a calibration model for each of said plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, based on a plurality of respective model data obtained for said plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, wherein cross validation is applied to said plurality of respective model data” only requires a structure capable of performing this function to be taught by the prior art, 114 of Sarrafzadeh would be capable of performing this function as it is a processing unit which can acquire and analyze data thus being capable of performing the claimed limitation.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
-Claim 1 recites ‘means for obtaining’ which is interpreted to be computer or mobile device per the specification and equivalents thereof
-Claim 17 recites ‘auditory and/or vibro-tactile feedback means’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-17, and 20-23 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 1 recites ‘a computing unit’ and then later ‘means for’ which per the 112f interpretation above is interpreted to be a computer. It thus is unclear if the structure for the computing unit and the means for are different or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same structure/element.
Claim 1 recites “means for obtaining a calibration model for each of said plurality of pressure- sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, based on a plurality of respective model data obtained for said plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, wherein cross validation is applied to said plurality of respective model data.” and it is unclear what the intended effect on the scope of the claim “wherein cross validation is applied to said plurality of respective model data.” is mean to have. Does the means provide this functionality? Or is this done to the models prior to being obtained by the means? Or does it mean that cross validation can be applied at some time point? For examination purposes it will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim limitation ‘auditory and/or vibro-tactile feedback means’ in claim 17 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because no structure is discussed or disclosed in the Figures or Specification for this element. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466).
Regarding claim 1, Sarrafzadeh teaches a gait measurement system (Abstract; Paragraphs 0054 and 0060), comprising:
at least one insole module (Figure 2; 144) for placement in a shoe of a user (Figure 2; Paragraph 0056), each of said at least one insole module including at least one piezoresistive sensor (146 including 148/106; Paragraph 0057), at least one inertial sensor (108, 120; Paragraph 0054), a logic unit (124; Figure 1) communicatively coupled to said at least one piezoresistive sensor and to said at least one inertial sensor (Figure 1; Paragraph 0053), and a transmission unit (122), wherein each of said at least one piezoresistive sensor includes a plurality of pressure-sensing cells (Paragraphs 0056-0057; ‘The insole 144 comprises an array of pressure sensors 148’; In Figure 3, one can deem a row as a “piezoresistive sensor” and then each individual block in a row as a “cell”);
a computing unit (114) communicatively coupled to said at least one inertial sensor and to said at least one piezoresistive sensor via said transmission unit (Paragraph 0053), such that said gait measurement system is configured to measure gait parameters selected from the group consisting of stride length, foot-ground clearance, foot trajectory, cadence, double support time, single support time, walking speed, center of pressure, and margin of stability (Paragraph 0124; ‘ gait features such as stance, swing, stride, step time’); and
means for obtaining a calibration model for each of said plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, based on a plurality of respective model data obtained for said plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, wherein cross validation is applied to said plurality of respective model data (as currently claimed only a structure capable of performing this function is required to be taught by the prior art, 114 of Sarrafzadeh would be capable of performing this function as it is a processing unit which can acquire and analyze data thus being capable of doing the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Sarrafzadeh teaches wherein said plurality of pressure-sensing cells includes eight of said pressure-sensing cells (Paragraph 0059; Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Sarrafzadeh teaches wherein at least some of said plurality of pressure-sensing cells are located beneath the user’s calcaneous, the user’s lateral arch, a head of the user’s first metatarsal, a head of the user’s third metatarsal, a head of the user’s fifth metatarsal, the user’s hallux and a user’s toes Figure 2; Paragraphs 0056-0057; within insole and thus would be beneath each of these elements).
Regarding claim 7, Sarrafzadeh teaches wherein said at least one inertial sensor is located along a portion of said at least one insole module corresponding to a midline of the user’s foot (Paragraph 0054; sensor disposed with the array would thus be in a portion that is along the midline).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Redtel (DE 102015007106 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system be retrofitted to a shoe of the user. Redtel teaches wherein each of said at least one insole module is adapted to be retrofitted to the user’s shoe (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Redtel because it can be provided with little technical effort and be used in conventional shoes (Abstract of Redtel).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Huang et al. (WO 2017/058913 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the degrees of freedom of the inertial sensor. Huang teaches wherein said at least one inertial sensor has nine-degrees of freedom (Paragraph 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Huang because it allows for accurate and ubiquitous testing related to gait, balance or posture in real time (Paragraph 0014 of Huang).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Avni et al. (US 2006/0282017).
Regarding claim 8, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system having vibro-tactile feedback. Avni teaches wherein each of said at least one insole module further comprises feedback means for providing vibro-tactile feedback to the user (Paragraph 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Avni because it allows the user to adjust their gait/balance/posture accordingly (Paragraph 0051 of Avni).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Pease et al. (US 2013/0041617).
Regarding claim 9, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system sampling rate. Pease teaches wherein said logic unit is configured to sample data at 500 Hertz (Paragraph 0093). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Pease because it provides a sample rate that is sufficient to obtain accurate information without sampling at a rate that would draw too much power and/or take up too much storage space (Paragraph 0093 of Pease).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Morris Bamberg et al. (US 2009/0240171).
Regarding claim 11, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system measuring inter-limb parameters. Morris Bamberg teaches wherein said gait measurement system is adapted to measure inter-limb parameters (Paragraphs 0007-0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Morris Bamberg because it is advantageous to measure asymmetrical gait to allow for better therapy or treatment (Paragraphs 0006-0008 of Morris Bamberg).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Son et al. (US 2010/0004566).
Regarding claim 13, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system providing pressure maps or center of pressure trajectories. Son teaches wherein said computing unit is further adapted to generate dynamic plantar pressure maps and/or center of pressure trajectories (Paragraphs 0004, 0019, and 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Son because providing dynamic pressure maps helps to improve athletic performance and improve therapy and rehabilitation progress (Paragraphs 0006-0019 of Son).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Sazonov et al. (US 2011/0054359)
Regarding claim 14, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system classifying activities of daily living. Sazonov teaches wherein said computing unit is adapted to classify activities of daily living (Paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Sazonov because it helps to detect asymmetries in the gait pattern indicating fatigue or potential development of injury and provide feedback to the user (Paragraph 0040 of Sazonov).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2012/0116550).
Regarding claim 15, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system using a GPS. Hoffman teaches wherein said gait measurement system is adapted to cooperate with a mobile device having GPS in order to realize a portable navigation system (Paragraph 0136). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Hoffman because it provides alternative/additional activity information (Paragraph 0136 of Hoffman).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Esposito et al. (US 2015/0182843).
Regarding claim 16, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system providing remote walking/balance exercises. Esposito teaches wherein said gait measurement system is adapted to remotely monitor and administer walking and/or balance exercises (Paragraph 0003-0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Esposito because it allows for more user-specific analysis and feedback for therapy/rehabilitation (Paragraphs 0002-0004 of Esposito).
Regarding claim 17, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the system providing gait/balance rehabilitation. Esposito teaches further comprising auditory and/or vibro-tactile feedback means that can be utilized by the user for gait and/or balance rehabilitation (Paragraph 0003-0004 and 0013; “to deliver feedback and notifications to end users, from audio cues and audio (e.g., spoken) recommendations”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Esposito because it allows for more user-specific analysis and feedback for therapy/rehabilitation (Paragraphs 0002-0004 of Esposito).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Mohrman et al. (US 2017/0189752).
Regarding claim 20, Sarrafzadeh is silent on a proximity sensor. Sarrafzadeh and Mohrman teach wherein said gait parameters are measured by said at least one piezoresistive sensor, said at least one inertial sensor, and at least one proximity sensor (‘piezoresistive sensor’, 146 including 148/106; Paragraph 0057; and ‘inertial sensor’ 108, 120; Paragraph 0054 of Sarrafzadeh and Paragraph 0034 and 0088 of Mohrman). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Mohrman because it allows for various types of data collection to more accurately identify user activities to better provide feedback (Paragraph 0029 of Mohrman).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Esposito et al. (US 2013/0192071)
Regarding claim 21, Sarrafzadeh is silent on using the system to facilitate injury prevention. Esposito teaches wherein said gait measurement system is adapted to facilitate injury prevention in professional athletes (Paragraph 0083 and 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Esposito in order to provide real-time feedback to promote healing and to make changes to the patient/athletes behavior/activity to help prevent injuries (Paragraph 0082-0083 of Esposito).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Yuk et al. (US 2009/0135001).
Regarding claim 22, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the retrofitting of the system. Yuk teaches wherein said gait measurement system is retrofitted to athletic footwear (Paragraphs 0006-0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Yuk because it would reduce cost and help provide better customization to a user yielding predictable results and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466) in view of Son et al. (US 2010/0004566) and Redtel (DE 102015007106 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Sarrafzadeh is silent on the retrofitting of the system. Son and Redtel teach wherein said gait measurement system is retrofitted to therapeutic footwear (Paragraphs 0020-0022 and 0040 of Son and Abstract of Redtel; Redtel teaches being able to retrofit and Son teaches being able to transfer between therapeutic footwear). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Son because it allows for real-time feedback in a way that is transferrable between shoes (Paragraphs 0039-0040 of Son) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sarrafzadeh with Redtel because it can be provided with little technical effort and be used in conventional shoes (Abstract of Redtel).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-17, and 20-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11439325 in view of Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent is merely the method version of the apparatus of the instant application. Should the claimed method be found to not teach each of the claimed structures of the instant application, Examiner notes Sarrafzadeh teaches a gait measurement system (Abstract; Paragraphs 0054 and 0060), comprising: at least one insole module (Figure 2; 144) for placement in a shoe of a user (Figure 2; Paragraph 0056), each of said at least one insole module including at least one piezoresistive sensor (146 including 148/106; Paragraph 0057), at least one inertial sensor (108, 120; Paragraph 0054), a logic unit (124; Figure 1) communicatively coupled to said at least one piezoresistive sensor and to said at least one inertial sensor (Figure 1; Paragraph 0053), and a transmission unit (122), wherein each of said at least one piezoresistive sensor includes a plurality of pressure-sensing cells (Paragraphs 0056-0057; ‘The insole 144 comprises an array of pressure sensors 148’; In Figure 3, one can deem a row as a “piezoresistive sensor” and then each individual block in a row as a “cell”); a computing unit (114) communicatively coupled to said at least one inertial sensor and to said at least one piezoresistive sensor via said transmission unit (Paragraph 0053), such that said gait measurement system is configured to measure gait parameters selected from the group consisting of stride length, foot-ground clearance, foot trajectory, cadence, double support time, single support time, walking speed, center of pressure, and margin of stability (Paragraph 0124; ‘ gait features such as stance, swing, stride, step time’); and means for obtaining a calibration model for each of said plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, based on a plurality of respective model data obtained for said plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said at least one inertial sensor, wherein cross validation is applied to said plurality of respective model data (as currently claimed only a structure capable of performing this function is required to be taught by the prior art, 114 of Sarrafzadeh would be capable of performing this function as it is a processing unit which can acquire and analyze data thus being capable of doing the claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Patent ‘325 with Sarrafzadeh because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the insole module, shoe, computing unit, and means of the Patent ‘325 with that of Sarrafzadeh.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791