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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 1/7/26, amended claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 7-8, canceled claim(s) 2-3 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transmit transmits” (line 11) appears that it should be “transmit.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 data transmitter configured to transmit the generated sensor data to the detection device,” in claim 8, which corresponds to “a wire such as a cable,” “Bluetooth,” and/or “WiFi” (see para [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 § 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) 1 and 4-8 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 1 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 1 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 “receive sensor data via wireless communication from a data acquisition device installed in footwear worn by a user, the data acquisition device including an acceleration sensor and an angular velocity sensor,” “generate a gait waveform using the sensor data related to a motion of a foot of the user,” “detect a gait event from the gait waveform based on a condition set for each of an angle, an angular velocity, and an acceleration in a sagittal plane,” “transmit information relating the detected gait event to a display device via a communication network for displaying the information on a screen of the display device,” “set a window for a predetermined time for a gait waveform represented by each of an angle, an angular velocity, and an acceleration in the sagittal plane,” “detect the gait event by sliding the window in a time direction,” “detect the peak from the gait waveform, wherein the gait waveform is represented by an angle in the sagittal plane, based on a first detection condition and a first determination condition,” “the first detection condition is for detecting a peak candidate based on a magnitude relationship between an angle value at times at both ends of the window and a maximum angle inside the window in the gait waveform,” and “the first determination condition is for determining whether the peak candidate is a peak.” 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 “at least one memory storing instructions,” and “at least one processor connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are generic computer structure and it has been held that generic computer structure does not transform an otherwise patent-ineligible claim into an eligible one according to Alice v. CLS Bank. 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 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 4-7 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Dependent claim 8 fails to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 because the acceleration sensor and angular velocity sensor are not “significantly more” since they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0005] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0204112 to Shigeta et al. (hereinafter “Shigeta”) and the controller and data transmitter are generic computer structures that have been held to not add significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Thus, claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the claim interpretation, the previous interpretation has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, the amendments necessitated a new interpretation.
With respect to the 112 rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 101 rejection(s), the claim(s) still recite language that encompasses abstract ideas because language is broad enough to include subject matter that can be practiced in a human mind or with pen and paper. Additionally, the claims are not integrated into a practical application because there is no treatment or prophylaxis, improvement in a technology, particular machine, or transformation of an element from one physical state to another. The technical solution for detecting gait events even for a person with disabilities is still within the realm of an abstract solution detecting gait events is broad enough to encompass an abstract idea. It is also noted, that for independent claim 1, the structure of the claim is limited to a memory and a processor and the rest of the structural elements recited in the claim are claimed relationally and/or functionally to the memory and/or processor and not as part of the “detection device” that is recited in the preamble.
With respect to the 102/103 rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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