DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 04/19/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170095181 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hauenstein”) in view of US 20180338710 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Tas”).
Regarding claim 1, Hauenstein, a system and method for characterizing biomechanical activity, teaches A system for quantifying bodily motion for diagnostics, progress tracking, and treatment (biomechanical diagnostic tool; paragraphs [0021]; Figures 1, 2A), the system comprising:
a multi-axis inertial measurement device (IMU) selectively attachable to a subject, said IMU comprising an accelerometer and a gyroscope and configured for detecting acceleration and rotation data of said subject (112; paragraph [0030]; Figure 1);
a system computing device in communication with said IMU and having a microprocessor (120; paragraph [0026]; Figure 1);
said microprocessor configured to process acceleration and rotation data of said subject through a series of standardized movements to create a digital representation of bodily motion of said subject through space and time (paragraphs [0023]; “biomechanics is a function of time”; paragraph [0024]; Figure 5);
a user interface in communication with said system computing device and viewable on a display (paragraph [0036]; Figure 1); and
said user interface configured for displaying said digital representation of bodily motion of said subject synchronized with time of completion of said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0099]).
Hauenstein does not explicitly teach the predefined movements are standardized movements.
However, Tas teaches said subject through a series of standardized movements (series of motor exercises; paragraph [0040]; Figure 4) and displaying the results as a digital representation (paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, to use standardized movements, as taught by Tas, because doing so provides a repeatable and consistent movement protocol.
Regarding claim 2, Hauenstein teaches a camera in communication with said system computing device (paragraph [0099]; Figure 16), but does not explicitly teach configured for recording video of said subject through said series of standardized movements; wherein said microprocessor is configured for processing video from said camera and identifying translation of body parts of said subject through space and time.
However, Tas teaches a camera configured for recording video of said subject through said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0043]; Figure 4); wherein said microprocessor is configured for processing video from said camera and identifying translation of body parts of said subject through space and time (paragraph [0044], [0054]; Figures 5-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein to include the camera based bodily motion analysis of Tas because doing so provides additional spatial information concerning movement of individual body portions.
Regarding claim 5, Hauenstein does not explicitly teach further comprising: a database with memory in communication with said system computing device; wherein said database is configured for storing historical bodily motion data for said subject.
However, Tas teaches a database with memory in communication with said system computing device (paragraph [0052]; Figure 6); wherein said database is configured for storing historical bodily motion data for said subject (paragraph [0052]; Figure 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, to store the quantified bodily motion information in the database of Tas, because retaining previous movement sessions would permit later retrieval and comparison with previous bodily motion.
Regarding claim 6, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches said database is further configured for storing global nominal model motion data (paragraph [0042], [0070]; as shown in Figure 4; as taught by Tas).
Regarding claim 9, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches wherein: said IMU sensor captures data at 30 to 100 Hz (paragraph [0093]; Figure 14; as taught by Hauenstein).
Regarding claim 10, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches wherein: said system computing device is self-contained within said IMU (paragraph [0034]; Figure 1; as taught by Hauenstein).
Regarding claim 12, Hauenstein teaches a method of detecting and treating a medical condition of a patient using a system for quantifying bodily motion (paragraph [0021]; Figures 1A, 2), the method comprising:
placing a multi-axis inertial measurement device (IMU) on said patient (paragraph [0025]; Figure 2A);
said IMU detecting acceleration and rotation data of said patient through said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0030]; Figure 1);
providing a system computing device having a microprocessor configured to process said acceleration and rotation data of said patient (paragraph [0026]);
said system computing device creating a baseline digital representation of bodily motion of said patient through space and time (paragraphs [0024], [0052]); and
a user interface displaying said baseline digital representation of bodily motion of said patient (paragraphs [0036], [0099]).
Hauenstein does not explicitly teach pointing a camera in position to record bodily motion of said patient;
said patient performing a series of standardized movements;
said camera recording video of said patient through said series of standardized movements; and to process video from said camera and identify translation of body parts of said patient through space and time.
However, Tas teaches pointing a camera in position to record bodily motion of said patient (paragraph [0043]);
said patient performing a series of standardized movements (paragraph [0040]);
said camera recording video of said patient through said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0053]); and to process video from said camera and identify translation of body parts of said patient through space and time (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, to use a camera, as taught by Tas, because doing so provides additional spatial information concerning movement of individual body portions.
Regarding claim 13, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches wherein said system for quantifying bodily motion further comprises database with memory in communication with said system computing device, the method further comprising the step of: said database storing said baseline digital representation of bodily motion of said patient (paragraph [0052]; as taught by Tas).
Regarding claim 14, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches further comprising the steps of:
applying a treatment to said medical condition (paragraph [0067]; Figure 4; as taught by Tas);
said patient performing a second repetition of said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0059]);
said IMU detecting acceleration and rotation data of said patient through said second repetition of said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0030]; as taught by Hauenstein);
said camera recording video of said patient through said second repetition of said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0053]; Figure 6; as taught by Taz);
said system computing device creating an active digital representation of bodily motion of said patient through space and time (paragraph [0024]; as taught by Hauenstein; paragraph [0044]; as taught by Tas); and
comparing said active digital representation of bodily motion of said patient to said baseline digital representation of bodily movement of said patient to determine efficacy of said treatment (paragraphs [0059], [0067]; as taught by Tas).
Regarding claim 15, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches further comprising the steps of:
said database storing historical digital representation of bodily motion data (paragraph [0052]; as taught by Tas); and
comparing said active digital representation of bodily motion of said patient to said historical digital representation of bodily motion data to determine efficacy of said treatment (paragraph [0059], [0067]; as taught by Tas).
Regarding claim 16, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches further comprising the steps of:
said database storing global nominal model motion data (paragraph [0052]; as taught by Tas); and
comparing said active digital representation of bodily motion of said patient to said global nominal model motion data (paragraph [0042]; as taught by Tas).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein, in view of Tas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20090252423 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 3, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, does not explicitly teach said microprocessor processing video from said camera comprises identifying key points on said subject, each key point associated with an anatomical landmark of said subject.
However, Zhu teaches said microprocessor processing video from said camera comprises identifying key points on said subject, each key point associated with an anatomical landmark of said subject (paragraph [0031]; Figure 5A). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, in view of Tas, to use anatomical key-point representation taught by Zhu because representing the tracked body locations as anatomical key points would provide a known means of defining and tracking specific anatomical locations.
Regarding claim 4, Hauenstein, in view of Tas and Zhu, teaches a data synchronization module configured for synchronizing acceleration, rotation, key point coordinate position in space and time (paragraph [0099], [0044], [0054]; as taught by Tas and paragraph [0031]; Figure 5A; as taught by Zhu).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein, in view of Tas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200021669 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Bikumala”).
Regarding claim 7, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, does not explicitly teach a data gateway and a message broker in communication with said system computing device and said IMU.
However, Bikumala teaches a data gateway and a message broker in communication with said system computing device and said IMU (paragraph [0023]-[0024]; Figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, in view of Tas, to have a message broker, as taught by Bikumala because doing so is a known manner of receiving data from sensor nodes and distributing the sensor data to one or more computing clients.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein, in view of Tas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190392934 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Tabakin”).
Regarding claim 8, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, does not explicitly teach said IMU comprises a 9-axis absolute orientation sensor combining a 3-axis solid-state acceleration sensor, a 3-axis gyroscope, and a 3-axis geomagnetic sensor.
However, Tabakin teaches said IMU comprises a 9-axis absolute orientation sensor combining a 3-axis solid-state acceleration sensor, a 3-axis gyroscope, and a 3-axis geomagnetic sensor (paragraph [0067]; Figure 3B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, in view of Tas, because doing so provides an integrated sensor configured to provide orientation information.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein, in view of Tas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170245785 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lobner”).
Regarding claim 11, Hauenstein, in view of Tas, teaches the IMU having a light indicator but does not explicitly teach said IMU further comprises an indicator light configured for illuminating when said digital representation of bodily motion of said subject shows a predetermined characteristic.
However, Lobner teaches said IMU further comprises an indicator light configured for illuminating when said digital representation of bodily motion of said subject shows a predetermined characteristic (paragraph [0044]-[0045]; Figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, in view of Tas, to provide the local alert, as taught by Lobner because doing so alerts to the user to an abnormality.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lobner in view of Hauenstein.
Regarding claim 17, Hauenstein teaches a method (paragraph [0021]; Figures 1A, 2) comprising:
placing a multi-axis inertial measurement device (IMU) on said subject (paragraph [0025]; Figure 2A);
said subject performing a series of movements (paragraphs [0023]; “biomechanics is a function of time”; paragraph [0024]; Figure 5);
said IMU detecting acceleration and rotation data of said subject through said series of standardized movements (paragraphs [0023]; “biomechanics is a function of time”; paragraph [0024]; Figure 5);
providing a microprocessor configured to process said acceleration and rotation data of said subject (paragraphs [0023]; “biomechanics is a function of time”; paragraph [0024]; Figure 5);
said microprocessor creating an active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject through space and time (paragraphs [0023]; “biomechanics is a function of time”; paragraph [0024]; Figure 5);
said microprocessor determining if said active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject shows a characteristic of impairment.
Hauenstein does not explicitly teach the predefined movements are standardized movements and said microprocessor determining if said active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject shows a characteristic of impairment.
However, Tas teaches said subject through a series of standardized movements (series of motor exercises; paragraph [0040]; Figure 4) and displaying the results as a digital representation (paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, to use standardized movements, as taught by Tas, because doing so provides a repeatable and consistent movement protocol.
Lobner teaches said IMU further determining if said active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject shows a characteristic of impairment (paragraph [0044]-[0045]; Figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, in view of Tas, to determine if there is impairement, as taught by Lobner because doing so alerts to the user to an abnormality.
Regarding claim 18, Hauenstein, in view of Tas and Lobner, teaches said microprocessor determining if said active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject shows a characteristic of impairment comprises comparing said active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject to a baseline digital representation of bodily motion of said subject (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]; Figure 3; as taught by Lobner).
Regarding claim 19, Hauenstein, in view of Tas and Lobner, teaches said microprocessor determining if said active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject shows a characteristic of impairment comprises comparing said active digital representation of bodily motion of said subject to a global nominal motion model (paragraph [0042], [0070]; Figure 4; as taught by Lobner).
Regarding claim 20, Hauenstein, in view of Tas and Lobner, teaches pointing a camera in position to record bodily motion of said subject (paragraph [0043]; as taught by Tas);
said camera recording video of said subject through said series of standardized movements (paragraph [0053]; as taught by Tas);
wherein said microprocessor is configured to process video from said camera and identify translation of body parts of said subject through space and time (paragraph [0044], [0054]; as taught by Tas).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hauenstein, to use a camera for measurements to determine a user’s movement, as taught by Tas, because doing so improves quantification of a user’s movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights