DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed on 09/11/2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21-25, and 27-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 5, 11-20, 26, and 31 are cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim that this application is a continuation of application no. 14/579,226 filed 12/22/2014 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 of remarks filed 09/11/2025, that Balakrishnan does not teach the currently amended independent claim, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Balakrishnan is not applied as prior art to the currently amended claims.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 of remarks filed 09/11/2025 that Esposito and Coza do not teach the amended claims 1 and 6 and all dependent claims 2-4, 7-10, 24-25, and 29-30 are allowable based on their dependency and Cook does not teach dependent claims 21-23 and 27-28, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of remarks filed 09/11/2025 that the claims not directed to an abstract idea because sensor modules that are interchangeable and configured to determine which foot is placed on through motion recognition is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because the claim is directed to recommending footwear which is directed to a commercial interaction such as sales activities. Item recommendations are considered as a commercial interaction regarding recommending items based on certain criteria.
Sensor modules that are interchangeable and configured to determine which foot is placed on through motion recognition are not analyzed as being directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A (Prong 1). The sensor modules are analyzed as additional elements under Step 2A (Prong 2). Therefore, the sensor modules are not directed to towards the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on page 11 of remarks filed 09/11/2025 that the claims improve gait analysis technology because paragraph [0073] of applicant’s specification describes the retailer using sensor modules interchangeably by selecting a plurality of sensor modules to use that determine which foot they have been placed on through motion recognition which solves the problem of placing the wrong sensor on the wrong foot and reduces the burden of the user correctly identifying the sensor module, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
It is not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how using a plurality of sensor modules to determine data (e.g. which foot is being used) solves a problem rooted in technology. Reducing the burden of figuring out which foot is right or wrong may help a user identify the foot, however it is not apparent how exactly technology or the computer is being improved. What technical problem is being solved by determining which is the right or wrong foot? Using sensor data collected from a plurality of sensors to determine which foot is right or left does not necessarily solve a problem rooted in technology. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not appear to provide an improvement to technology.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s remarks on page 12 of filed 09/11/2025 to consider filing a terminal disclaimer until the claimed subject matter is deemed allowable.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 21-25 as well as 6-10 and 27-30 are directed to systems which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the abstract idea includes:
collect personal information about the individual comprising at least one of height, weight, an athletic goal, an intended athletic environment or terrain, an intended athletic activity duration, an intended athletic activity frequency, an intended athletic activity distance, or a location of a prior injury;
receive the data about the individual…;
determine a characteristic about a gait of the individual based on a change in spatial orientation of the first article of footwear, the characteristic about the gait of the individual comprising at least one of foot strike type, rate of pronation, or degree of pronation, the change in spatial orientation determined with reference to at least one of a gravity vector using data from the accelerometer or a magnetic field vector using data from the magnetometer; and
provide a recommendation about a second article of footwear to be worn by the individual to the individual based on the characteristic about the gait of the individual and the personal information of the individual.
This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions involving item recommendation by collecting sensor data and personal data, determining gait characteristics based on the sensor data, and recommending footwear based on gait characteristics and personal information. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A retail enhancement system, comprising: a plurality of interchangeable sensor modules each configured to obtain a data about an individual during an athletic activity, each of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules comprising at least one of a magnetometer or an accelerometer, wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules is configured to be removably attached to a first article of footwear to be worn by the individual during the athletic activity and is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data; and an electronic device that is separate from the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules, wherein the electronic device is a dedicated device configured for use in the retail enhancement system and is configured to:… associate a sensor module of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules with the individual;… from the sensor module; (Claim 1);
A retail enhancement system, comprising: a sensor module configured to obtain a data about an individual during an athletic activity, the sensor module comprising at least one of a magnetometer or an accelerometer, wherein the sensor module is configured to be removably attached to a first article of footwear to be worn by the individual during the athletic activity, …, wherein the sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data; and an electronic device that is separate from the sensor module, wherein the electronic device is a mobile device and is configured to:…;associate the sensor module with the individual;… from the sensor module (Claim 6);
the electronic device… (Claims 2, 8, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29);
wherein the electronic device is further configured to pair the sensor module to the electronic device (Claims 3 and 9);
wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display configured to display an update as to a status of the pairing of the sensor module to the electronic device (Claims 4 & 10);
wherein the sensor module is a first sensor module …, the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules comprising a second sensor module configured to be removably attached to a second article of footwear to be worn by a second individual, wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display and is further configured to: associate the second sensor module with the second individual; and display, via the graphical display, the association of the first sensor module with the first individual and the association of the second sensor module with the second individual (Claim 25);
wherein the sensor module is a first sensor module and the individual is a first individual, the retail enhancement system further comprising a second sensor module interchangeable with the first sensor module and configured to be removably attached to a second article of footwear to be worn by a second individual,…, wherein the second sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data, wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display and is further configured to: associate the second sensor module with the second individual; and display, via the graphical display, the association of the first sensor module with the first individual and the association of the second sensor module with the second individual (Claim 30).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A retail enhancement system, comprising: a plurality of interchangeable sensor modules each configured to obtain a data about an individual during an athletic activity, each of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules comprising at least one of a magnetometer or an accelerometer, wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules is configured to be removably attached to a first article of footwear to be worn by the individual during the athletic activity and is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data; and an electronic device that is separate from the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules, wherein the electronic device is a dedicated device configured for use in the retail enhancement system and is configured to:… associate a sensor module of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules with the individual;… from the sensor module; (Claim 1);
A retail enhancement system, comprising: a sensor module configured to obtain a data about an individual during an athletic activity, the sensor module comprising at least one of a magnetometer or an accelerometer, wherein the sensor module is configured to be removably attached to a first article of footwear to be worn by the individual during the athletic activity, …, wherein the sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data; and an electronic device that is separate from the sensor module, wherein the electronic device is a mobile device and is configured to:…;associate the sensor module with the individual;… from the sensor module (Claim 6);
the electronic device… (Claims 2, 8, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29);
wherein the electronic device is further configured to pair the sensor module to the electronic device (Claims 3 and 9);
wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display configured to display an update as to a status of the pairing of the sensor module to the electronic device (Claims 4 & 10);
wherein the sensor module is a first sensor module …, the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules comprising a second sensor module configured to be removably attached to a second article of footwear to be worn by a second individual, wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display and is further configured to: associate the second sensor module with the second individual; and display, via the graphical display, the association of the first sensor module with the first individual and the association of the second sensor module with the second individual (Claim 25);
wherein the sensor module is a first sensor module and the individual is a first individual, the retail enhancement system further comprising a second sensor module interchangeable with the first sensor module and configured to be removably attached to a second article of footwear to be worn by a second individual,…, wherein the second sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data, wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display and is further configured to: associate the second sensor module with the second individual; and display, via the graphical display, the association of the first sensor module with the first individual and the association of the second sensor module with the second individual (Claim 30).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Non-Statutory 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 1-4, 6-10, and 21-25, and 27-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,562,417 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are a broader version of the patented claims. Instant claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21-31 are anticipated by reference claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,562,417 B2. This is a non-statutory, obviousness-type Double Patenting rejection with an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 24-25, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esposito et al. (US Pub. No. 20160206242 A1, hereinafter “Esposito”) in view of Coza et al. (US Pub. No. 20130274040A1, hereinafter “Coza”) in further view of Aibara et al. (US Pub. No. 20150081061 A1, hereinafter “Aibara”).
Regarding claim 1
Esposito discloses a retail enhancement system, comprising:
a plurality of interchangeable sensor modules each configured to obtain a data about an individual during an athletic activity, each of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules comprising at least one of a magnetometer or an accelerometer, wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules is configured to be removably attached to a first article of footwear to be worn by the individual during the athletic activity…; and an electronic device that is separate from the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules, wherein the electronic device is a dedicated device configured for use in the retail enhancement system (Esposito, FIG. 1, [0053]: a plurality of sensors (e.g. temperature, accelerometers, heart rate monitors, etc.…) used in footwear to detect one or more areas of the foot; [0055]: sensors and detachable; FIG. 14, [0039]: data collection device and illustrating its interface with sensors provided in a substrate, an external computing device, and a centralized host system; [0125]: sensors and system to assist in footwear fitting for ordering footwear for purchase; [0109]: sensors in garments worn during running and sensors separate from system; [0013]: sensors attached to garment; [0017]: dedicated electronic device (DED); [0018]: DED communicates with sensors; [0006]: one or more sensor(s)):
collect personal information about the individual comprising at least one of height, weight, an athletic goal, an intended athletic environment or terrain, an intended athletic activity duration, an intended athletic activity frequency, an intended athletic activity distance or a location of a prior injury (Esposito, [0109]: use pressure sensors to detect how well user’s perform fitness activities (e.g. velocity, terrain, frequency); [0110]: an athlete engaging in activity wearing sensor; [0111]: Data gathered from pressure sensors may be combined with data collected using one or more other device);
associate a sensor module plurality of interchangeable sensor modules with the individual; receive the data about the individual from the sensor module (Esposito, [0024]: link use information when user identification matches associated collection of sensor [0006]: sensor systems with one or more sensors and sensing devices may be comfortably worn by users under many conditions, providing real time monitoring of conditions at or near body surfaces to the user; [0016]: sensor; FIG. 1, [0053]: a plurality of sensors (e.g. temperature, accelerometers, heart rate monitors, etc.…) used in footwear to detect one or more areas of the foot);
determine a characteristic about a gait of the individual…, the characteristic about the gait of the individual comprising at least one of foot strike type, rate of pronation, or degree of pronation,… (Esposito, [0106]: sensors detect gait analysis such as sitting or “foot off the ground” conditions; [0109]: detect running and gait characteristics include foot landing (e.g. heel striking, forefoot striking, pronation); [0053]: sensors used in footwear; and
provide a recommendation about a second article of footwear to be worn by the individual to the individual based on the characteristic about the gait of the individual and the personal information of the individual (Esposito, [0126]: display recommended fit options for shoes, insoles and/or orthotics for specific individuals based on data collected from pressure sensors and the individual may be alerted in real-time as to recommended fit option; [0127]: user provided input about shoe type, model, or other search criteria used to output recommendations; [0128]: Once wearer's anatomical foot data is processed and compared to footwear data maintained in one or more databases, footwear recommendations may be displayed to the wearer, ranked according to projected fit, or other user preference(s); [0106]: sensors detect gait analysis such as gait patterns; [0109]: collect data on fitness activities (e.g. velocity, terrain, frequency) and gait characteristics include foot landing (e.g. heel striking, forefoot striking, pronation).
Esposito does not teach:
…sensor modules…and is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data (emphasis added).
….based on a change in spatial orientation of the first article of footwear; ….the change in spatial orientation determined with reference to at least one of a gravity vector using data from the accelerometer or a magnetic field vector using data from the magnetometer (emphasis added);
However, Coza teaches:
….based on a change in spatial orientation of the first article of footwear; the change in spatial orientation determined with reference to at least one of a gravity vector using data from the accelerometer or a magnetic field vector using data from the magnetometer (Coza, FIG. 12, [0143]: determine a change in spatial orientation of the object; [0144]: detect acceleration data from acceleration sensor and magnetic field data from magnetic field sensor; [0145]: magnetic field sensor measures magnetic vector; [0155]: determination of the change in the spatial orientation of the object factoring in gravity vector and/or magnetic field vector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the accelerometer and magnetometer of Esposito with the change in spatial orientation determined with reference to at least one of a gravity vector using data from the accelerometer or a magnetic field vector using data from the magnetometer as taught by Coza because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Esposito would continue to teach the accelerometer and magnetometer except that now the change in spatial orientation is determined with reference to at least one of a gravity vector using data from the accelerometer or a magnetic field vector using data from the magnetometer according to the teachings of Coza in order to determine an activity metric using data sensed by sensors and monitor athletic activity. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Coza, [0006] and [0009]).
The combination of Esposito and Coza does not teach:
…sensor modules…and is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data (emphasis added).
However, Aibara teaches:
…sensor modules…and is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data (emphasis added) (Aibara, [0015]: sensor section obtains motion data used to identify whether the motion is related to the user swinging the right foot or the left foot towards a traveling direction; [0125]: identifying whether the landing foot is the right foot or the left foot; [0092]: collected motion data; left/right motion identification processing for identifying motion data for each cycle so as to judge which of left and right foot motions in the running motions the motion data are related to; [0050]: sensor section (e.g. acceleration sensor)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sensor modules of Esposito and Coza with sensor modules configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data as taught by Aibara because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Esposito and Coza would continue to teach the sensor modules except that now sensor modules are configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data according to the teachings of Aibara in order to determine which foot is moving. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Aibara, [0015-0016]).
Regarding claims 2 and 8
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further configured to register the individual (Esposito, [0094]: load user data/profile information to system; [0059]: device to download data; [0060]: systems are hosted on the external computing device).
Regarding claims 3 and 9
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further configured to pair the sensor module to the electronic device (Esposito, [0017]: dedicated electronic device (DED); [0018]: The DED provides receiving terminals that mate with the transfer terminals connected to the sensor(s) for conveying data from the sensors to the dedicated electronic device).
Regarding claims 4 and 10
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 3, wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display configured to display an update as to a status of the pairing of the sensor module to the electronic device (Esposito, [0022] In some embodiments, the DED communicates with and transfers data to one or more external computing and/or display system(s)) to display notifications or alerts; FIG. 22C, [0098]: alerting notifications when sensor activated; [0079]: indicators on screens that DEDis activated; [0110]: The sensors may be activated by connection to (via appropriate leads, traces and/or terminals) or activation of one or more DED(s)).
Regarding claim 6
Esposito discloses a retail enhancement system, comprising: a sensor module configured to obtain a data about an individual during an athletic activity, the sensor module comprising at least one of a magnetometer or an accelerometer, wherein the sensor module is configured to be removably attached to a first article of footwear to be worn by the individual during the athletic activity, the first article of footwear comprising …article of footwear,…; and an electronic device that is separate from the sensor module, wherein the electronic device is a mobile device and is configured to (Esposito, FIG. 1, [0053]: a plurality of sensors (e.g. temperature, accelerometers, heart rate monitors, etc.…) used in footwear to detect one or more areas of the foot; [0055]: sensors and detachable; FIG. 14, [0039]: data collection device and illustrating its interface with sensors provided in a substrate, an external computing device, and a centralized host system; [0125]: sensors and system to assist in footwear fitting for ordering footwear for purchase; [0109]: sensors in garments worn during running and sensors separate from system; [0013]: sensors attached to garment; [0017]: dedicated electronic device (DED); [0018]: DED communicates with sensors; [0006]: one or more sensor(s)):
collect personal information about the individual comprising at least one of height, weight, an athletic goal, an intended athletic environment or terrain, an intended athletic activity duration, an intended athletic activity frequency, an intended athletic activity distance, or a location of a prior injury (Esposito, [0109]: use pressure sensors to detect how well user’s perform fitness activities (e.g. velocity, terrain, frequency); [0110]: an athlete engaging in activity wearing sensor; [0111]: Data gathered from pressure sensors may be combined with data collected using one or more other device);
associate the sensor module with the individual; receive the data about the individual from the sensor module (Esposito, [0024]: link use information when user identification matches associated collection of sensor [0006]: sensor systems with one or more sensors and sensing devices may be comfortably worn by users under many conditions, providing real time monitoring of conditions at or near body surfaces to the user; [0016]: sensor; FIG. 1, [0053]: a plurality of sensors (e.g. temperature, accelerometers, heart rate monitors, etc.…) used in footwear to detect one or more areas of the foot);
determine a characteristic about a gait of the individual …, the characteristic about the gait of the individual comprising at least one of foot strike type, rate of pronation, or degree of pronation,…; and
provide a recommendation about a second article of footwear to be worn by the individual to the individual based on the characteristic about the gait of the individual and the personal information of the individual.
Esposito does not teach:
either a left- or a right-foot…, wherein the sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data;
… based on a change in spatial orientation of the first article of footwear, …, the change in spatial orientation determined with reference to at least one of a gravity vector using data from the accelerometer or a magnetic field vector using data from the magnetometer.
However, Coza teaches:
… based on a change in spatial orientation of the first article of footwear, …, the change in spatial orientation determined with reference to at least one of a gravity vector using data from the accelerometer or a magnetic field vector using data from the magnetometer (Coza, FIG. 12, [0143]: determine a change in spatial orientation of the object; [0144]: detect acceleration data from acceleration sensor and magnetic field data from magnetic field sensor; [0145]: magnetic field sensor measures magnetic vector; [0155]: determination of the change in the spatial orientation of the object factoring in gravity vector and/or magnetic field vector).
The motivation to combine Esposito and Coza is the same as set forth above in claim 1.
However, Aibara teaches:
either a left- or a right-foot…, wherein the sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data (Aibara, [0015]: sensor section obtains motion data used to identify whether the motion is related to the user swinging the right foot or the left foot towards a traveling direction; [0125]: identifying whether the landing foot is the right foot or the left foot; [0092]: collected motion data; left/right motion identification processing for identifying motion data for each cycle so as to judge which of left and right foot motions in the running motions the motion data are related to; [0050]: sensor section (e.g. acceleration sensor)).
The motivation to combine Esposito, Coza, and Aibara is the same as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 6, wherein the mobile device is a mobile phone or a tablet computer (Esposito, [0060]: mobile device such as a tablet or smartphone).
Regarding claims 24 and 29
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further configured to prompt a retailer or the individual to attach the sensor module to the first article of footwear (Coza, [0104]: individual insert sensor in item; [0216]: sensor mounted in footwear).
Regarding claim 25
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 1, wherein the sensor module is a first sensor module and the individual is a first individual, the plurality of interchangeable sensor modules comprising a second sensor module configured to be removably attached to a second article of footwear to be worn by a second individual, wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display and is further configured to: associate the second sensor module with the second individual; and display, via the graphical display, the association of the first sensor module with the first individual and the association of the second sensor module with the second individual (Esposito, [0024]: link use information when user identification matches associated collection of sensor [0006]: one or more sensors and sensor systems and sensing devices may be comfortably worn by users under many conditions, providing real time monitoring of conditions at or near body surfaces to the user; [0016]: sensor; FIG. 22J, [0047]: present dashboard with plurality of users using a sensing device and sensor data for each person; FIG. 22J, [0101]: display plurality of users based on name and monitoring sensor device and real-time monitoring information; [0125-0126]: sensor data used to purchase footwear; [0058]: display device; FIG. 1, [0053]: a plurality of sensors used to detect one or more areas of the foot).
Regarding claim 30
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara the retail enhancement system of claim 6, wherein the sensor module is a first sensor module and the individual is a first individual, the retail enhancement system further comprising a second sensor module interchangeable with the first sensor module and configured to be removably attached to a second article of footwear to be worn by a second individual, the second article of footwear comprising …article of footwear, …, wherein the electronic device comprises a graphical display and is further configured to: associate the second sensor module with the second individual; and display, via the graphical display, the association of the first sensor module with the first individual and the association of the second sensor module with the second individual (Esposito, [0024]: link use information when user identification matches associated collection of sensor [0006]: one or more sensors with sensor systems and sensing devices may be comfortably worn by users under many conditions, providing real time monitoring of conditions at or near body surfaces to the user; [0016]: sensor; FIG. 22J, [0047]: present dashboard with plurality of users using a sensing device and sensor data for each person; FIG. 22J, [0101]: display plurality of users based on name and monitoring sensor device and real-time monitoring information; [0125-0126]: sensor data used to purchase footwear; [0058]: display device; FIG. 1, [0053]: a plurality of sensors).
Esposito and Coza do not teach:
either a left- or a right-foot…, wherein the second sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data.
However, Aibara teaches:
either a left- or a right-foot…, wherein the second sensor module is configured to automatically determine which foot it is placed on through motion recognition according to captured data (Aibara, [0015]: sensor section obtains motion data used to identify whether the motion is related to the user swinging the right foot or the left foot towards a traveling direction; [0125]: identifying whether the landing foot is the right foot or the left foot; [0092]: collected motion data; left/right motion identification processing for identifying motion data for each cycle so as to judge which of left and right foot motions in the running motions the motion data are related to; [0050]: sensor section (e.g. acceleration sensor)).
The motivation to combine Esposito, Coza, and Aibara is the same as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esposito, Coza, and Aibara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0288938 A1, hereinafter “Cook”).
Regarding claim 21
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches retail enhancement system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further configured to alert…(Esposito, [0007]: device alerts users).
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara does not teach:
…alert a retailer if the individual fails to return the sensor module within an expected time (emphasis added).
However, Cook teaches:
… alert a retailer if the individual fails to return the sensor module within an expected time (Cook, [0116]: generate alert if products with sensors moved within a certain time frame; [0163]: the item may be expected to be returned within a predetermined period of time (e.g., 15 seconds). However, a customer may request to briefly wear the item, in which case the item may not be returned to the display case within the predetermined period of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the alert of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara with alerting a retailer if the individual fails to return the sensor module within an expected time as taught by Cook because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Esposito, Coza, and Aibara would continue to teach an alert except that now alerting a retailer if the individual fails to return the sensor module within an expected time is taught according to the teachings of Cook in order to monitor and prevent product theft in-store. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Cook, [0008-0010] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 22
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further configured to alert (Esposito, [0007]: device alerts users).
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara does not teach:
alert a retailer if the individual travels too far from a retail environment.
However, Cook teaches:
alert a retailer if the individual travels too far from a retail environment (Cook, [0115]: alert sale associate that product with sensor is taken out of an acceptable proximity; [0116]: if shopper walks away with product with sensor (e.g. 5 feet) an alert is generated; [0019]: retailer monitors entire store; [0120]: tracking products with sensors).
The motivation to combine Esposito, Coza, Aibara, and Cook is the same as set forth above in claim 21.
Regarding claims 23 and 28
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 1, …information about the individual related to the athletic activity (Esposito, [0115]: collect data for user based on sport).
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara does not teach:
wherein the electronic device is further configured to prompt a retailer to enter information…(emphasis added).
However, Cook teaches:
wherein the electronic device is further configured to prompt a retailer to enter information…(emphasis added) (Cook, [0115]: sales associate is altered via message; [0117]: sales associate is alerted and enters information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the information about the individual related to the athletic activity of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara with wherein the electronic device is further configured to prompt a retailer to enter information as taught by Cook because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Esposito, Coza, and Aibara would continue to teach the information about the individual related to the athletic activity except that now wherein the electronic device is further configured to prompt a retailer to enter information is taught according to the teachings of Cook in order to alert or prompt a specific person. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Cook, [0008-0010] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 27
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara teaches the retail enhancement system of claim 6, wherein the electronic device is further configured to alert…(Esposito, [0007])…
The combination of Esposito, Coza, and Aibara does not teach:
alert a retailer if the individual fails to return the sensor module within an expected time or travels too far from a retail environment.
However, Cook teaches:
alert a retailer if the individual fails to return the sensor module within an expected time or travels too far from a retail environment (Cook, [0116]: generate alert if products with sensors moved within a certain time frame; [0163]: the item may be expected to be returned within a predetermined period of time (e.g., 15 seconds). However, a customer may request to briefly wear the item, in which case the item may not be returned to the display case within the predetermined period of time; [0115]: alert sale associate that product with sensor is taken out of an acceptable proximity; [0019]: retailer monitors entire store; [0120]: tracking products with sensors).
The motivation to combine Esposito, Coza, and Aibara, and Cook is the same as set forth above in claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as patent publication Coza et al. (US 20130274904 A1) related to monitoring an individual engaged in athletic activity using sensors coupled to the individual, Bhardwaj et al. (US 20140052567 A1) related to providing contextual recommendations based on user state and sensor data from sensor included in an item worn by the user, as well as non-patent literature, A Wireless Flexible Sensorized Insole for Gait Analysis, related to a foot insole for real-time monitoring of plantar pressure distribution during walking.
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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached on 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688 /Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights