DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
An electronic device, comprising:
a controller,
wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, and
derive velocity data based on the acceleration data and, also, derive an error of the velocity data based on an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, and
correct the velocity data using the error of the velocity data to generate corrected velocity data.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a controller, wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user. The limitation “a controller” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structure performing a generic computer function of acquiring information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Further, the claim limitation “acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a generic sensor and computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Sato et al. JP 2016034479 A (hereinafter, Sato), ([0144]-[0145]), and Wu et al. EP 3695783 A1 (hereinafter, Wu), ([0011], [0098]). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-9, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 3, recites the limitations “ a controller, wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, and derive position data based on the acceleration data and, also, derive an error of the position data based on an average value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an average value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, and correct the position data using the error of the position data to generate corrected position data.”
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a controller, wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user. The limitation “a controller” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structure performing a generic computer function of acquiring information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further, the claim limitation “acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a generic sensor and computer component). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Sato, ([0144]-[0145]), and Wu, ([0011], [0098]). Therefore, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claim 10, recites addition element of “an attacher that is affixed to a waist of the user”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic hardware). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Sato, ([0111]), and Wu, ([0040]). Therefore, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 11, recites addition element of “acceleration sensor”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a commonly known generic sensor. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Sato, ([0144]-[0145]), and Wu, ([0011]). Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 14, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Independent claims 13 and 15, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1, 3, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. JP 2016034479 A (cited in IDS), (hereinafter, Sato), in view of Wu et al. EP 3695783 A1 (hereinafter, Wu).
7. Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a controller, wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user ([0144]-[0145]), and
derive velocity data based on the acceleration data ([0144], [0175]), and, also,
derive an error of the velocity data based on an average value of the velocity data of a period ([0147]-[0148], [0162]), and
correct the velocity data using the error of the velocity data to generate corrected velocity data ([0146]-[0148]).
Sato discloses average value of the velocity data ([0131], [0162]).
Sato does not disclose:
data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and [a] value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle.
However, Wu discloses:
data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and [a] value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle ([0193]-[0197], Figs. 8-9: the average walking speed is simply taken as the mean value of instantaneous estimates of a user’s walking speed. As shown in FIG. 8, the disclosed measurements demonstrate that different users have different habitual speeds, and a user’s walking speed varies over time….the gait cycle time is computed as the mean duration of every two consecutive steps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and a value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a velocity data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
8. Regarding claims 12 and 14, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
9. Regarding claim 3, Sato discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a controller, wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from an acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user ([0144]-[0145]), and
derive position data based on the acceleration data ([0144]), and also,
derive an error of the position data based on an value of the position data ([0146]-[0148]), and
correct the position data using the error of the position data to generate corrected position data ([0146]-[0148]).
Sato discloses average value of the velocity data ([0131], [0162]). Sato does not disclose deriving an average value of position data. However, deriving an average value of position data would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Sato as disclosed above.
Sato does not disclose:
data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and [a] value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle.
However, Wu discloses:
“the gait cycle time is computed as the mean duration of every two consecutive steps…the true position of the target moving, one can denote the peak distance between two adjacent positions” (see, [0193]-[0197], [0295]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a position data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
10. Regarding claims 13 and 15, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
11. Regarding claim 9, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Sato does not disclose:
wherein the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle are set so as not to overlap each other on a time axis and, also, to be continuous with each other without a spacing.
However, Wu discloses:
wherein the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle are set so as not to overlap each other on a time axis and, also, to be continuous with each other without a spacing ([0194], [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use wherein the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle are set so as not to overlap each other on a time axis and, also, to be continuous with each other without a spacing as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a velocity data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
12. Regarding claim 10, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Sato further discloses an attacher that is affixed to a waist of the user ([0111]).
13. Regarding claim 11, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Sato further discloses the acceleration sensor ([0111]).
14. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Wu, in further view of Ohashi et al. US 2022/0409991 (hereinafter, Ohashi).
15. Regarding claim 2, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Sato further discloses wherein the controller is configured to derive an error of the position data based on [a] value of the position data of a period ([0147]-[0148]), and
correct the position data using the error of the position data to generate corrected position data ([0146]-[0148]).
Sato discloses average value of the velocity data ([0131], [0162]). Sato does not disclose deriving an average value of position data. However, deriving an average value of position data would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Sato as disclosed above.
Sato does not disclose:
derive position data based on the corrected velocity data and, data of a period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and [a] value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle.
However, Wu discloses:
“the gait cycle time is computed as the mean duration of every two consecutive steps…the true position of the target moving, one can denote the peak distance between two adjacent positions” (see, [0193]-[0197], [0295]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use data of a period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and [a] value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a velocity data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
Sato in view of Wu does not disclose:
derive position data based on the corrected velocity data.
However, Ohashi discloses:
derive position data based on the corrected velocity data ([0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato in view of Wu to use derive position data based on the corrected velocity data as taught by Ohashi. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a position data accurately (Ohashi, [0096]).
16. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Wu, in further view of Fasel US 2018/0292429 (hereinafter, Fasel).
17. Regarding claim 4, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Sato further discloses wherein the controller is configured to derive the error of the velocity data by interpolating the average value of the velocity data ([0147]-[0148], [0162]).
Sato does not disclose:
derive the error of the velocity data by linearly interpolating the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle.
However, Wu discloses:
data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle ([0193]-[0197], Figs. 8-9: the average walking speed is simply taken as the mean value of instantaneous estimates of a user’s walking speed. As shown in FIG. 8, the disclosed measurements demonstrate that different users have different habitual speeds, and a user’s walking speed varies over time….the gait cycle time is computed as the mean duration of every two consecutive steps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a velocity data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
Sato in view of Wu does not disclose:
derive the error of the velocity data by linearly interpolating the value of the velocity.
However, Fasel discloses:
derive the error of the velocity data by linearly interpolating the value of the velocity ([0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato in view of Wu to use derive the error of the velocity data by linearly interpolating the value of the velocity as taught by Fasel. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the drift of velocity data at each sample (Fasel, [0094]).
18. Regarding claim 5, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Sato further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: obtain the average value of the velocity data ([0162]).
Sato does not disclose:
data of a period that is a multiple of a third two-step cycle continuous with the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and derive the error of the velocity data by quadratically interpolating the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the third two-step cycle.
However, Wu discloses:
“ the average walking speed is simply taken as the mean value of instantaneous estimates of a user’s walking speed. As shown in FIG. 8, the disclosed measurements demonstrate that different users have different habitual speeds, and a user’s walking speed varies over time….the gait cycle time is computed as the mean duration of every two consecutive steps” (see, ([0193]-[0197], Figs. 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use data of a period that is a multiple of a third two-step cycle continuous with the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and the value of the velocity data of the period that is a multiple of the third two-step cycle as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a velocity data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
Sato in view of Wu does not disclose:
derive the error of the velocity data by quadratically interpolating the value of velocity data.
However, Fasel discloses:
derive the error of the velocity data by [linearly] interpolating the value of the velocity data ([0094]: acceleration is integrated along each axis. Because of small measurement errors drift accumulates and affects the speed estimation 171 is an example illustration of the norm of the speed obtained after integrating the acceleration. Gate passages are detected 172 and for each passage the true speed is estimated 173 as explained previously. By comparing this speed 173 to the speed obtained from integration 174 the speed error 175 is obtained. This speed error is defined to match the drift. Next, linear or non-linear interpolation (such as spline interpolation) is used to compute the drift at each sample….Thus, the speed 177 equals the speed error 178 and is added to the drift correction). Fasel discloses linearly interpolating as disclosed above. Fasel discloses not disclose quadratically interpolating. However, quadratically interpolating would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Sato in view of Wu in view of Fasel as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato in view of Wu to use derive the error of the velocity data by quadratically interpolating the value of the velocity as taught by Fasel. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the drift of velocity data at each sample (Fasel, [0094]).
19. Regarding claim 6, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 3, as disclosed above.
Sato further discloses wherein the controller is configured to derive the error of the position data by interpolating the value of the position data ([0147]-[0148]).
Sato discloses average value of the velocity data ([0131], [0162]). Sato does not disclose deriving an average value of position data. However, deriving an average value of position data would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Sato as disclosed above.
Sato does not disclose:
derive the error of the position data by linearly interpolating the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle.
However, Wu discloses:
“the gait cycle time is computed as the mean duration of every two consecutive steps…the true position of the target moving, one can denote the peak distance between two adjacent positions” (see, [0193]-[0197], [0295]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a position data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
Sato in view of Wu does not disclose:
derive the error of the position data by linearly interpolating the value of the position.
However, Fasel discloses:
derive the error of the position data by linearly interpolating the value of the position ([0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato in view of Wu to use derive the error of the position data by linearly interpolating the value of the position as taught by Fasel. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the drift of position data at each sample (Fasel, [0092], [0094]).
20. Regarding claim 7, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 3, as disclosed above.
Sato further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: obtain the value of the position data ([0144]).
Sato discloses average value of the velocity data ([0131], [0162]). Sato does not disclose deriving an average value of position data. However, deriving an average value of position data would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Sato as disclosed above.
Sato does not disclose:
data of a period that is a multiple of a third two-step cycle continuous with the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and derive the error of the position data by quadratically interpolating the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the third two-step cycle.
However, Wu discloses:
“ the average walking speed is simply taken as the mean value of instantaneous estimates of a user’s walking speed. As shown in FIG. 8, the disclosed measurements demonstrate that different users have different habitual speeds, and a user’s walking speed varies over time….the gait cycle time is computed as the mean duration of every two consecutive steps” (see, ([0193]-[0197], Figs. 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use data of a period that is a multiple of a third two-step cycle continuous with the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle, and the value of the position data of the period that is a multiple of the third two-step cycle as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a position data accurately (Wu, [0198]).
Sato in view of Wu does not disclose:
derive the error of the position data by quadratically interpolating the value of position data.
However, Fasel discloses:
derive the error of the position data by [linearly] interpolating the value of the position data ([0092]: the skiing slope 23 with magnets 22 placed at each gate (not shown in this figure for clarity). The true skiing trajectory (i.e. athlete center of mass trajectory) 25 is indicated by the dashed line. The solid line marks the estimated skiing trajectory 150 which is offset with respect to the true skiing trajectory 25. The detected gate passages are marked with perpendicular black lines 161. Estimating gate passage distance 40 at each gate allows reconstructing the permanent magnet's position 162 and finding the magnet position error 163. At each gate passage this error 163 is used to define the trajectory shifting vector 164. … interpolated trajectory shifting vectors 165 are computed by linear or non-linear interpolation between each trajectory shifting vector 164. The final skiing trajectory is computed by shifting each position sample by its corresponding shifting vector). Fasel discloses linearly interpolating as disclosed above. Fasel discloses not disclose quadratically interpolating. However, quadratically interpolating would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Sato in view of Wu in view of Fasel as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato in view of Wu to use derive the error of the position data by quadratically interpolating the value of the position as taught by Fasel. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the drift of position data at each sample (Fasel, [0092], [0094]).
21. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Wu, in further view of Hauenstein et al. US 2017/0095181 (hereinafter, Hauenstein).
22. Regarding claim 8, Sato in view of Wu disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Sato does not disclose:
wherein the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle are set so as to partially overlap each other on a time axis.
However, Wu discloses:
wherein the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle are set so as to [consecutive] each other on a time axis ([0194], [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato to use wherein the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle and the period that is a multiple of the second two-step cycle are set so as to [consecutive] each other on a time axis as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to analyze gait cycle between consecutive step cycle (Wu, [0194]).
Sato in view of Wu does not disclose:
the period that is set so as to partially overlap each other on a time axis.
However, Hauenstein discloses:
the period that is set so as to partially overlap each other on a time axis ([0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sato in view of Wu to use the period that is set so as to partially overlap each other on a time axis as taught by Hauenstein. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to verify accurate classification of step cycle (Hauenstein, [0088]).
Conclusion
23. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857