DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, drawn to a computer-readable medium and a method for capturing a user’s bodily movements in the reply filed on 10/23/25 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/23/25.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a wearable item … [that] … positions the IMU proximate to a body part of the user,” in claims 8 and 15, which corresponds to “clothes” or “straps” (see para [0031]-[0032] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 8, the claim term “the sensor data” (lines 8-9) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 15, the claim term “the sensor data” (line 9) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 15, the indentation of claim 15 makes it appear that the method step of “generating a kinematic chain model…” is part of the “wherein the wearable system includes:” because the generating step is indented the same extent as the “wearable item” and the “processor.” Additionally, there is no conjunction (such as “and”) that delineates the structure of the wearable system from any additional method steps of the method. The claim is examined as meaning that the “generating…” is part of the method and not part of the claimed “wearable system.”
Dependent claim(s) 9-14 and 16-20 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim(s) 8 and 15, thus claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 8 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 8 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receiving movement data from a wearable system,” “receive the sensor data from the IMU, generate the movement data based on the sensor data, and transmit the movement data,” and “generating a kinematic chain model of the user, the model representing positions and orientations of one or more joints of the user at a given time,” “modifying the kinematic chain model based on the movement data, determining a force experienced at a joint of the user using the kinematic chain model,” and “recording the kinematic chain model and the force over a period of time.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “wherein the wearable system includes: a wearable item mechanically coupled to an inertial measurement unit” “wherein the wearable item, when worn by a user, positions the IMU proximate to a body part of the user,” and “a processor communicatively coupled to the IMU.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by the fourth full paragraph of the English machine translation of RU 106 831 U1. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 8 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 15 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter for similar, if not the exact same, reasoning as that of independent claim 8. Dependent claim(s) 9-14 and 16-20 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim(s) 8 and 15 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Thus, claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 8-12 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0343460 to Evans et al. (hereinafter “Evans”).
For claim 8, Evans discloses a computer-readable medium (“memory,” para [0049]) storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause it to perform a method for capturing a user's bodily movements (Abstract) (para [0049]), the method comprising:
receiving movement data from a wearable system (para [0057] and [0078]) (also see para [0012]), wherein the wearable system includes: a wearable item mechanically coupled to an inertial measurement unit (106) (Fig. 1) (para [0057] and [0066]),
wherein the wearable item, when worn by a user, positions the IMU proximate to a body part of the user (as can be seen in Fig. 1) (para [0066]); and
a processor (“processor,” para [0012]) communicatively coupled to the IMU (para [0012]) and configured to receive the sensor data from the IMU (i.e., via 3380) (Fig. 33) (para [0012] and [0144]) (also see Fig. 1), generate the movement data based on the sensor data (para [0012], but also see [0078], [0080], and [0083]), and transmit the movement data (i.e., via 3380) (Fig. 33) (para [0012] and [0144]) (also see Fig. 1);
generating a kinematic chain model of the user (see “Kinematic Model,” at 1608 in Fig. 16) (also see 1508 in Fig. 15) (see para [0009], [0110], [0108], and [0120]), the model representing positions and orientations of one or more joints of the user at a given time (see Figs. 18-25, which are graphs of the kinematic data) (also see para [0009], [0108]), modifying the kinematic chain model based on the movement data (1514 in Fig. 15, “MGAS” being the data from the IMU) (also see para [0086], which discloses that the “covariances” for the kinematic model may be “adjusted in real time based on the IMU data”), determining a force experienced at a joint of the user using the kinematic chain model (“ground reaction forces,” para [0140]), and recording the kinematic chain model and the force over a period of time (Fig. 14 and para [0107]) (also see para [0055], [0115], and [0132]).
For claim 9, Evans further discloses initializing an orientation of the IMU by instructing the user to perform a pre-determined action (para [0094]).
For claim 10, Evans further discloses determining, based on the recorded model, a moment experienced at a joint of the user (para [0130]) (also see para [0067]).
For claim 11, Evans further discloses determining, based on the recorded model, a ground reaction force (para [0140]).
For claim 12, Evans further discloses comparing the recorded model with a previously recorded model (para [0120]).
For claim 15, Evans discloses a method for capturing a user's bodily movements (Abstract) (para [0049]), the method comprising:
receiving movement data from a wearable system (para [0057] and [0078]) (also see para [0012]), wherein the wearable system includes:
a wearable item mechanically coupled to an inertial measurement unit (106) (Fig. 1) (para [0057] and [0066]), wherein the wearable item, when worn by a user, positions the IMU proximate to a body part of the user (as can be seen in Fig. 1) (para [0066]); and
a processor (“processor,” para [0012]) communicatively coupled to the IMU (para [0012]) and configured to receive the sensor data from the IMU (i.e., via 3380) (Fig. 33) (para [0012] and [0144]) (also see Fig. 1), generate the movement data based on the sensor data (para [0012], but also see [0078], [0080], and [0083]), and transmit the movement data (i.e., via 3380) (Fig. 33) (para [0012] and [0144]) (also see Fig. 1);
generating a kinematic chain model of the user (see “Kinematic Model,” at 1608 in Fig. 16) (also see 1508 in Fig. 15) (see para [0009], [0110], [0108], and [0120]), the model representing positions and orientations of one or more joints of the user at a given time (see Figs. 18-25, which are graphs of the kinematic data) (also see para [0009], [0108]), modifying the kinematic chain model based on the movement data (1514 in Fig. 15, “MGAS” being the data from the IMU) (also see para [0086], which discloses that the “covariances” for the kinematic model may be “adjusted in real time based on the IMU data”), determining a force experienced at a joint of the user using the kinematic chain model (“ground reaction forces,” para [0140]), and recording the kinematic chain model and the force over a period of time (Fig. 14 and para [0107]) (also see para [0055], [0115], and [0132]).
For claim 16, Evans further discloses initializing an orientation of the IMU by instructing the user to perform a pre-determined action (para [0094]).
For claim 17, Evans further discloses determining, based on the recorded model, a moment experienced at a joint of the user (para [0130]) (also see para [0067]).
For claim 18, Evans further discloses determining, based on the recorded model, a ground reaction force (para [0140]).
For claim 19, Evans further discloses comparing the recorded model with previously recorded model (para [0120]).
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.
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) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0100481 to Abdel-Malek et al. (hereinafter “Abdel-Malek”).
For claim 13, Evans further discloses a region-of-interest indicating a site of an on-going injury or a site of an increased likelihood of future injury (para [0009]).
Evans does not expressly disclose identifying a region-of-interest based on an analysis of a previously recorded kinematic chain model.
However, Abdel-Malek teaches identifying a region-of-interest based on an analysis of a previously recorded kinematic chain model (820) (Fig. 8) (para [0085]), the region-of-interest indicating a site of an on-going injury or a site of an increased likelihood of future injury (para [0003 and [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Evans to include identifying a region-of-interest based on an analysis of a previously recorded kinematic chain model, in view of the teachings of Evans, for the obvious advantage of being able to focus rehabilitation of the user to a particular site or joint of the body, which is what Evans wants to do (see para [0009] of Evans).
For claim 20, Evans further discloses a region-of-interest indicating a site of an on-going injury or a site of an increased likelihood of future injury (para [0009]).
Evans does not expressly disclose identifying a region-of-interest based on an analysis of a previously recorded kinematic chain model.
However, Abdel-Malek teaches identifying a region-of-interest based on an analysis of a previously recorded kinematic chain model (820) (Fig. 8) (para [0085]), the region-of-interest indicating a site of an on-going injury or a site of an increased likelihood of future injury (para [0003 and [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Evans to include identifying a region-of-interest based on an analysis of a previously recorded kinematic chain model, in view of the teachings of Evans, for the obvious advantage of being able to focus rehabilitation of the user to a particular site or joint of the body, which is what Evans wants to do (see para [0009] of Evans).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0311655 to Karkanias et al. (hereinafter “Karkanias”).
For claim 14, Evans does not expressly disclose replaying a previously recorded model using a three-dimensional representation of a human body.
However, Karkanis teaches replaying a previously recorded model using a three-dimensional representation of a human body (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Evans to include replaying a previously recorded model using a three-dimensional representation of a human body, in view of the teachings of Karkanis, for the obvious advantage of training a healthcare provider with the up-to-date information of the wearer’s mobility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791