DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment in Reply to Action of July 11, 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-2, 7, and 10-11, the cancellation of claims 3-4 and 19-20, and the addition of new claims 21-24. Claims 1-2, 5-18, and 21-24 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2, 21, and 23-24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 23 recite “meandered antenna” and “meandering antenna”. The claims should be amended to only recite one or the other.
Claim 2 should read “data including the [[the]] predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” [line 3].
Claim 21 should read “the selectable link [[that]] navigates the user to a webpage” [line 2].
Claim 24 should read “5.8 GHz[[)]]” [lines 1-2, the Examiner notes a parenthesis next to “GHz”].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner’s Note Regarding Machine Learning: The Examiner’s § 112(a) analysis regarding the recitation of machine learning in claims 6-7 as noted in the Non-Final Rejection dated 11 July 2025 p. 2-3 is maintained.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2, 24, and those dependent therefrom is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the indication of the biomechanical characteristics” [lines 1-2], which is considered to lack antecedent basis, as claims 1 and 2 fail to previously define an “indication of the biomechanical characteristics”, such that claim 2 is rendered indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited limitation is actually meant to refer to the previously recited “indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” of claim 1 [lines 16-17, wherein the Examiner notes that the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies are considered to be based on the biomechanical characteristics]; or whether the recited limitation is meant to refer to a new and separate indication. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the recited limitation to refer to the previously recited “indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” of claim 1, such that claim 2 would read “wherein providing the indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies to the user comprises transmitting, by the controller, data including the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies and corrective actions to a user device”.
Claim 24 recites in the preamble ”The system of claim 24” [line 1], which is considered indefinite, as claim 24 cannot be dependent upon itself, such that it is unclear which claim claim 24 is meant to be dependent from. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted claim 24 to be dependent from claim 23.
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) 1-2, 5-18, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Representative claim(s) 1 [representing all independent claims] recite(s):
A system for detecting human motion and body balance, the system comprising:
a flexible substrate configured to be positioned in a shoe of a user;
a sensor array comprising one or more force sensors positioned on the flexible substrate;
a meandered antenna positioned on the flexible substrate; and
a controller communicably coupled to the sensor array, the controller configured to:
receive force data from the sensor array;
detect a gait pattern of the user, wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of a foot of the user during a gait cycle using the meandering antenna;
determine biomechanical characteristics for the user based on the force data received from the sensor array, the biomechanical characteristics including at least one of a center-of-pressure (CoP), a center-of- mass (CoM), or lower extremity angles for the user; and
predict abnormalities or inefficiencies in the user using both the detected gait pattern and the biomechanical characteristics;
provide an indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies to the user, wherein the indication includes corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies.
(Emphasis added: abstract idea, additional element)
Step 2A Prong 1
Representative claim(s) 1 recites the following abstract ideas, which may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper:
“receive force data from the sensor array” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected information [Applicant’s Specification ¶0048]
“determine biomechanical characteristics for the user based on the force data received from the sensor array, the biomechanical characteristics including at least one of a center-of-pressure (CoP), a center-of- mass (CoM), or lower extremity angles for the user” – may be performed by merely performing known or derived mathematical equations or formulas with at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraint [Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0059, 0062-0063]
“predict abnormalities or inefficiencies in the user using both the detected gait pattern and the biomechanical characteristics” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom [¶0060]
“provide an indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies to the user, wherein the indication includes corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” – may be considered a method of organizing human activity by managing personal behavior or relations or interactions between people, in the form of communicating a notification to a user [MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)]
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extra-solutionary activity (and otherwise generic computer elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) [i.e., “determine biomechanical characteristics for the user based on the force data received from the sensor array, the biomechanical characteristics including at least one of a center-of-pressure (CoP), a center-of- mass (CoM), or lower extremity angles for the user”] to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts [Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea [e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process] and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations].
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Representative claim 1 only recites additional elements of extra-solutionary activity – in particular, extra-solution activity of generic computer function and data gathering [“detect a gait pattern of the user, wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of the user’s foot during a gait cycle using the meandering antenna] – without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 – the instant claim, for example does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection – via the claimed generic computer function, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 5, 12 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application/integration [the dependent claim(s) recite generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea].
Dependent claim(s) 2, 13, 17, 19 encounter substantially the same issues as the independent claim(s) from which they depend in that they encompass further generic extra-solutionary activity [generic data gathering] and/or generic computer elements [storage, memory per se].
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 as individual wholes fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extra-solutionary activity [i.e., generic computer function(s), data gathering] and generic computer elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea [MPEP § 2106.05(f)] and is further considered to merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer [MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality].
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extra-solutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more. The extra-solutionary activity of processor steps of transmitting, receiving, processing, and outputting data or information as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and functions [controller, graphical user interface of a user device, each recited at a high level of generality], MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the generic computer elements and functions therein, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s).
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 recites “a flexible substrate configured to be positioned in a shoe of a user; a sensor array comprising one or more force sensors positioned on the flexible substrate” [claim 1], “the one or more force sensors comprising force sensing resistors (FSRs), piezoresistive (PZR) sensors, capacitive force sensors, or fabric-based strain sensors” [claim 8], “wherein the flexible substrate is an insole of the shoe or wherein the flexible substrate is configured to be positioned under an insole of the shoe” [claim 9], and “the one or more force sensors comprising at least three sensors, wherein: a first subset of the one or more force sensors is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a heel of the user's foot; a second subset of the one or more force sensors is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a ball of the user's foot; and a third subset of the one or more force sensors is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a toe of the user's foot” [claim 10]. Such a flexible substrate and sensor array is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed flexible substrate and sensor array, and recites the flexible substrate and sensor array at a high level of generality [Example types of force sensors 202-212 include, but are not limited to, force sensing resistors (FSRs), piezoresistive (PZR) sensors, capacitive force sensors, and fabric-based strain sensors. However, it will be appreciated that force sensors 202-212 may be any suitable type of sensors for measuring force or pressure (Applicant’s Specification ¶0070); Accordingly, flexible substrate 214 may be formed of any flexible material, preferably suitable for handling the repeated friction of a user's foot moving in the shoe (e.g., when walking). Example flexible materials for flexible substrate 214, but are not limited to, foam rubber, cellular polymers, latex, cork, any flexible plastic (e.g., acrylic, polycarbonate, polyethylene, ABS, etc.), etc. In some embodiments, flexible substrate is a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) material, such as a polyimide double sided copper clad laminate (e.g., DuPontTM Pyralux®). In some embodiments, flexible substrate 214 reinforced with a flexible polymer, such as polycarbonate or polyethylene (Applicant’s Specification ¶0071)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the shoe-based sensor systems. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Schneider (US-20160351771-A1) [may comprise footwear which may include one or more sensors, including but not limited to those disclosed herein and/or known in the art. FIG. 3 illustrates one example embodiment of a sensor system 302 providing one or more sensor assemblies 304. Assembly 304 may comprise one or more sensors, such as for example, an accelerometer, gyroscope, location-determining components, force sensors and/or or any other sensor disclosed herein or known in the art. In the illustrated embodiment, assembly 304 incorporates a plurality of sensors, which may include force-sensitive resistor (FSR) sensors 306; however, other sensor(s) may be utilized (Schneider ¶0076)]
Esposito (US-20160367191-A1) [In some embodiments, FSR (Force Sensitive Resistor) and/or piezo-resistive sensors may be used. One type of piezoresistive force sensor that has been used previously in footwear pressure sensing applications, known as the FLEXIFORCE® sensor, can be made in a variety of shapes and sizes, and measures resistance, which is inversely proportional to applied force (Esposito ¶0015)]
Bamberg (US-20090235739-A1) [More specifically, the insole can include a plurality of force sensitive resistors in the heel and toe of the insole, and a tri-axial accelerometer in an arch section of the insole (Bamberg ¶0023)]
Claims 1 and 23-24 recites “a meandered antenna positioned on the flexible substrate… wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of the user’s foot during a gait cycle using the meandering antenna” [claim 1], “wherein the meandering antenna comprises a radiating element configured to resonate at an operating frequency” [claim 23], “wherein the operating frequency is one of 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz” [claim 24]. Such a meandered antenna is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed antenna, and recites the antenna at a high level of generality [resonance data may be received from an antenna of sensor array 132. For example, the antenna may measure a resonant frequency of the user's foot/feet during a gait cycle (e.g., over the course of one or two steps) to detect variations (i.e., changes) in the foot's resonant frequency (Applicant’s Specification ¶0066); a radiating element of each of the antenna configurations shown in FIGS. 11E and 11F is meandered to resonate at the operating frequency. (e.g., 2.4GHz or 5.8 GHz) (¶0101)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of gait monitoring. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Claim 6-7 recite “a machine learning model”. Such a machine learning model is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Hu (“Intelligent Sensor Networks”, NPL attached) [In supervised learning, the learner is provided with labeled input data. This data contains a sequence of input/output pairs of the form xi, yi, where xi is a possible input and yi is the correctly labeled output associated with it. The aim of the learner in supervised learning is to learn the mapping from inputs to outputs. The learning program is expected to learn a function f that accounts for the input/output pairs seen so far, f (xi) = yi, for all i. This function f is called a classifier if the output is discrete and a regression function if the output is continuous. The job of the classifier/regression function is to correctly predict the outputs of inputs it has not seen before (Hu, Page 5)]
Huang (“Kernel Based Algorithms for Mining Huge Data Sets”, NPL attached) [In supervised learning, the learner is provided with labeled input data. This data contains a sequence of input/output pairs of the form xi, yi, where xi is a possible input and yi is the correctly labeled output associated with it. The aim of the learner in supervised learning is to learn the mapping from inputs to outputs. The learning program is expected to learn a function f that accounts for the input/output pairs seen so far, f (xi) = yi, for all i. This function f is called a classifier if the output is discrete and a regression function if the output is continuous. The job of the classifier/regression function is to correctly predict the outputs of inputs it has not seen before (Huang, Page 1)]
Mitchell (“The Discipline of Machine Learning”, NPL attached) [For example, we now have a variety of algorithms for supervised learning of classification and regression functions; that is, for learning some initially unknown function f : X [Calibri font/0xE0] Y given a set of labeled training examples {xi; yi} of inputs xi and outputs yi = f(xi) (Mitchell, Pages 3-4)]
Claim 11 recites “inertial measurement unit (IMU) positioned on the flexible substrate”. Such an IMU is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed IMU, and recites the IMU at a high level of generality [Specifically, the IMUs may provide angular rate and/or specific force data (Applicant’s Specification ¶0062)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of monitoring user movement. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Schneider ¶0076
Esposito [Other types of sensors may also be integrated in or associated with various substrate or carrier materials (e.g., garments, sheet materials and the like), including sensors providing data relating to temperature, moisture, humidity, stress, strain, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation, blood flow, local gas content, bacterial content, multi-axis acceleration, positioning (GPS) and the like. A variety of such sensors is known in the art and may be adapted for use in sensing systems described herein (Esposito ¶0015)]
Bamberg ¶0023
Claim 13-15 recite “at least one additional sensor positioned on the flexible substrate for measuring one or more biometric characteristics of the user” [claim 13],“wherein the one or more biometric characteristics of the user include at least a heart rate and an oxygen saturation of the user” [claim 14], “wherein the at least one additional sensor is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a lateral portion of the user’s foot” [claim 15]. Such an at least one additional sensor is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed sensor for measuring one or more biometric characteristics, and recites the sensor for measuring one or more biometric characteristics at a high level of generality [sensors for measuring various biometric characteristics of the user, such as heartrate and oxygen (02) saturation (Applicant’s Specification ¶0050]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the biometric monitoring. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Schneider [One or more I/O devices may be configured to sense, detect, and/or measure an athletic parameter from a user, such as user 124. Examples include, but are not limited to: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a location-determining device (e.g., GPS), light (including non-visible light) sensor, temperature sensor (including ambient temperature and/or body temperature), sleep pattern sensors, heart rate monitor, image-capturing sensor, moisture sensor, force sensor, compass, angular rate sensor, and/or combinations thereof among others (Schneider ¶0061)]
Esposito ¶0015
Rangel (US-20100324455-A1) [The term "sensor array" as used herein refers to one or more sensors, including pressure, proximity, temperature, humidity, heart rate and other sensors, that are used to detect and collect data about the patient while the orthotic is worn (Rangel ¶0029)]
Claims 16-18 recite “at least one of a temperature sensor or a moisture sensor positioned on the flexible substrate” [claim 16], “wherein the temperature sensor is configured to measure a temperature of an interior of the shoe and the moisture sensor is configured to measure a humidity level in the shoe” [claim 17], and “wherein the moisture sensor is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a toe of the user’s foot” [claim 18]. Such an at least one of a temperature or a moisture sensor is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed temperature sensor or moisture sensor, and recites the temperature sensor or moisture sensor at a high level of generality [sensors for measuring various environmental characteristics (e.g., in the user's shoe). For example, sensor array 132 may include one or more temperature sensors for measuring a temperature in the user's shoe and/or may include one or more moisture sensors for measuring a humidity or moisture level in the user's shoe (Applicant’s Specification ¶0050)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the measuring environmental characteristics. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Schneider ¶0061
Esposito ¶0015
Rangel ¶0029
Claims 21-22 recite “a selectable link is displayed on the GUI, wherein once selected the selectable link that navigates the user to a webpage or software application for providing additional information about the corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” [claim 21] and “wherein the selectable link causes a video to be displayed on the GUI, said video demonstrating proper form for various movements to correct the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” [claim 22]. Such a selectable link is considered conventional, as the claim fails to provide any claim language that would allow the link as recited to differ from conventional operation of any internet hyperlink protocol [MPEP § 2106.05(d)].
Examiner’s Note Regarding a Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim 1 recites the limitation “provide an indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies to the user, wherein the indication includes corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies”, wherein claims 21-22 further limit the information displayed on the GUI [“a selectable link is displayed on the GUI, wherein once selected the selectable link that navigates the user to a webpage or software application for providing additional information about the corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” in claim 21; “wherein the selectable link causes a video to be displayed on the GUI, said video demonstrating proper form for various movements to correct the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies” in claim 22] which the Examiner notes IS NOT considered to recite a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as the recited limitation is not particular regarding what the actual corrective actions is and as the limitation does not positively recite applying the recited corrective action to the user, such that the limitation is not considered to apply a treatment or prophylaxis.
Accordingly, the claim(s) as whole(s) fail amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik (US-20210315485-A1, previously presented) in view of Huang (US-20170115171-A1, previously presented) and Benchirouf (EP-3818591-B1, foreign reference attached).
Regarding claim 1, Matusik teaches
A system for detecting human motion and body balance, the system comprising:
a flexible substrate configured to be positioned in a shoe of a user [The textile can include, or otherwise be, a wearable garment. Some non-limiting examples of wearable garments that can be the textile include… a sock (Matusik ¶0014); It should be noted that while various aspects are described with reference to the use of a tactile sensing floor covering, the same or similar concepts (e.g., recording pressure and/or other tactile information and training a neural information processing system based on synchronized video or other training data) can be used with sensor systems that can be placed on the subject in order to record the subject's interactions with the ground, such as, for example and without limitation, “wearable” devices incorporating sensor systems (e.g., socks, footwear, footwear insoles/inserts (Matusik ¶0089, Figs. 17B-C)];
a sensor array comprising one or more force sensors positioned on the flexible substrate [The tactile sensing carpet 10 of the prototype system was composed of a piezoresistive pressure sensing matrix fabricated by aligning a network of orthogonal conductive threads as electrodes on each side of the commercial piezoresistive films. Each sensor locates at the overlap of orthogonal electrodes and can measure pressure up to about 14 kPa with the highest sensitivity of about 0.3 kPa… It should be noted that the configuration of this exemplary tactile sensing carpet can be used to form sensor systems for other embodiments such as wearable sensor systems of the types described below (Matusik ¶0065)];
a controller communicably coupled to the sensor array [The disclosed systems and methods (e.g., as in any flow charts or logic flows described above) may be implemented using computer technology and may be embodied as a computer program product for use with a computer system (Matusik ¶0139)], the controller configured to:
receive force data from the sensor array [The processing system then can compare tactile information received from a sensor system to the information in the database in order to identify an activity of the human based on the comparison (Matusik ¶0066)];
detect a gait pattern of the user [For example, human action identification can be achieved based on tactile information obtained from a pair of socks integrated with functional fibers. The dataset can be collected by the user wearing the sock and performing various daily activities, including walking forward, walking backward, side-walking, walking upstairs/hill, walking downstairs/hill… The resulting hidden layers can be passed through a linear layer followed by a softmax to predict associated class of the task type. As discussed above, human action identification can also be achieved by way of a carpet or the like, in addition to or in lieu of socks or other footwear (Matusik ¶0119)];
determine biomechanical characteristics for the user based on the force data received from the sensor array, the biomechanical characteristics including at least one of a center-of-pressure (CoP), a center-of-mass (CoM), or lower extremity angles for the user [Employing the visual information as reference, a processing system comprising a deep neural network was implemented to infer the corresponding 3D human pose using only the tactile information. Resulting from this implementation is a database that correlates tactile information to particular human activities such as, for example, standing, sitting, transitioning from sitting to standing or vice versa, movements of the body, or other activities... For example, the identified activity can include an identified movement or an identified position of at least one body part (Matusik ¶0066); For keypoint detection using tactile signals, the goal of the model is to take the tactile frames as input and predict the corresponding 3D human pose. The ground truth human pose estimated from the multi-camera setup is used as the supervision and to train the model to predict the 3D confidence map of each of 21 keypoints, including head (nose), neck, shoulders, elbows, waists, hips (left, right and middle), knees, ankles, heels, small toes, and big toes (Matusik ¶0073), wherein identifying the position of each of the waist, hips, knees, and ankles are considered to read on predicting lower extremity angles for the user]; and
predict abnormalities or inefficiencies in the user using both the detected gait pattern and the biomechanical characteristics [The instructions may further cause the system to trigger a notification based on the identified activity, such as, for example, an alarm, a warning, and/or an indication of an early disease detection (Matusik ¶0008); the activity is a human activity and it includes various actions related to movement. The identified human activity can include, for example, an identified movement and/or identified position of body parts of a human. The method can also include triggering a notification in view of the identified activity. For example, the notification can include at least one of an alarm, a warning, or an indication of an early disease detection (Matusik ¶0030), wherein the indication is considered to be based off of identified movement (gait pattern) and identified position of body parts (predicted biomechanical characteristics of lower extremity angles), wherein as the biomechanical characteristics of lower extremity angles are predicted, the abnormality/inefficiency is considered to be predicted];
provide an indication of the predicted abnormalities of inefficiencies to the user, wherein the indication includes corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies [Matusik ¶0008, 0030, wherein a warning of an activity of being indicative of early disease is considered to read on a “corrective action” based on the broad recitation of the claimed “corrective action”].
However, Matusik fails to explicitly disclose a meandered antenna positioned on the flexible substrate; and wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of a foot of the user during a gait cycle using the meandered antenna.
Huang discloses systems for monitoring user foot pressure, wherein Huang discloses an antenna for positioned on a flexible substrate for detecting pressure applied by the foot of the user, wherein the pressure is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of the user’s foot during a gait cycle using the antenna [a loop antenna for pressure sensing (Huang ¶0078); FIG. 4A illustrates a pressure detection antenna sensor including a loop antenna according to an illustrative embodiment. The pressure detection antenna sensor includes a dielectric substrate 42, a loop antenna 46 printed on one side of the substrate, and a reflector 44 on the other side of the dielectric substrate. The loop antenna 46 on one side of the substrate 42 is separated from the reflector 44 on the other side of the substrate 42 by a distance d. As shown in FIG. 4B, when a pressure force is applied to the substrate, the loop antenna 46 is brought closer to the reflector 44. That is, the distance d between the sides of the substrate 42 decreases. This increases the capacitance of the resonant circuit and pushes the resonant frequency of the loop antenna towards a lower frequency, as shown in 4C which illustrates return loss as a function of resonant frequency (Huang ¶¶0089-0090)].
Matusik does disclose that the detected gait pattern is based off of tactile information [Matusik ¶0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Matusik to employ an antenna positioned on the flexible substrate; and wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of a foot of the user during a gait cycle using the antenna, as the use of an antenna is considered to amount to mere simple substitution of one known sensor for measuring user foot pressure/force for another [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)] and the measuring of a resonant frequency of a user’s foot to determine a gait pattern is considered to amount to merely applying a known technique [Matusik ¶0119] to a known device [Huang ¶¶0089-0090] ready for improvement to yield predictable results [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
However, Matusik in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antenna is a meandered antenna.
Benchirouf discloses systems for measuring applied pressure by detecting a resonant frequency of a meandered antenna [The shape of the antenna can be, for example, a meander antenna (Benchirouf p. 15 of combined original/translated foreign reference); The microstrip patch antenna preferably resonates at a resonant frequency of 5.6 GHz, with a change in loading causing a change in frequency (Benchirouf p. 17); The object of the invention is to develop a sensor with a hybrid nanocomposite material and a method for producing it and a method for detecting stress, wherein the sensor has small dimensions and a simple structural design and wherein a high accuracy can be recognized, for example in the case of load changes, wherein in particular a small-sized antenna is to be provided which has an excellent response characteristic in the high frequency range, and to provide a communication device which includes an antenna which has such an excellent response characteristic that a miniaturization of the device as a whole is possible while ensuring the sensitivity required for a stress sensor (Benchirouf p. 14)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Matusik in view of Huang to employ wherein the antenna is a meandered antenna, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element for another, with similar expected results [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 2, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1.
However, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein providing the indication of the biomechanical characteristics to the user comprises transmitting, by the controller, data including the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies and corrective actions to a user device separate from the controller, said user device associated with the user to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface (GUI).
Huang discloses transmitting sensor data from a computer to a user device associated with the user, wherein the user device displays a GUI [As a rehabilitation device, only a few sensors distributed at the strategic locations are needed. In this case, the wireless sensor data can be acquired and processed using a single board computer (e.g. Digi SBC LP3500 Series). Other devices, such as a wireless watch (e.g. Texas Instrument eZ430-Chronos) can be used to provide the user interface (Huang ¶0144)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf to employ wherein providing the indication of the biomechanical characteristics to the user comprises transmitting, by the controller, data including the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies and corrective actions to a user device separate from the controller, said user device associated with the user to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface (GUI), so as to allow for user visualization of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies.
Regarding claim 5, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the lower extremity angles include a predicted angle for each of an ankle, a knee, a hip, and a lower back of the user [Matusik ¶0073].
Regarding claim 6, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the biomechanical characteristics for the user comprises calculating the lower extremity angles using a machine learning model [As provided for herein, the present systems and methods, and the wearables and other object (e.g., carpets) that are produced using the same, can be coupled with machine learning techniques, self-supervised sensing correction (Matusik ¶0102)].
Regarding claim 7, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 6, wherein the force data is provided as an input to the machine learning model, the machine learning model configured to predict an angle for each of an ankle, a knee, a hip, and a lower back of the user [Matusik ¶0102].
Regarding claim 8, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1, the one or more force sensors comprising force sensing resistors (FSRs), piezoresistive (PZR) sensors [Matusik ¶0065], capacitive force sensors, or fabric-based strain sensors.
Regarding claim 9, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the flexible substrate is an insole of the shoe [Matusik ¶0089] or wherein the flexible substrate is configured to be positioned under an insole of the shoe.
Regarding claim 10, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 9, the one or more force sensors comprising at least three sensors, wherein:
a first subset of the one or more force sensors is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a heel of the user's foot;
a second subset of the one or more force sensors is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a ball of the user's foot; and
a third subset of the one or more force sensors is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a toe of the user's foot [wherein as depicted in Matusik Figs. 17B-C, subsets of sensors are considered to be positioned as claimed].
Regarding claim 23, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the meandering antenna comprises a radiating element configured to resonate at an operating frequency [That is, the present invention is directed to an antenna characterized by including a radiator made of an intrinsically conductive polymer, a carbon nanotube, and graphene oxide as a rectangular antenna, and functioning as both a communication device and a highly sensitive strain sensor (Benchirouf p. 16)].
Regarding claim 24, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 24.
However, while Benchirouf discloses wherein the operating frequency is 5.6 GHz, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operating frequency is one of 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz.
Benchirouf discloses that the operating frequency changes based on the amount of pressure applied to the antenna. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 456, 105 USPQ 233 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the operating frequency of the antenna based on the amount of pressure applied.
“The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims… [I]n such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Criticality is shown by some noticeable difference in the qualities. In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924 (CCPA 1933). Nothing in the specification leads one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the range(s) recites in claim 24 is/are somehow ‘critical’ or lead to unexpected results.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Refai (“Gait and Dynamic Balance Sensing Using Wearable Foot Sensors”, NPL previously presented).
Regarding claim 12 [written in longhand format to incorporate the subject matter of claim 11 therein], Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1, the controller configured to: receive at least one of angular rate data or specific force data from the at least one IMU [Matusik ¶0066].
However, while Matusik indicates how the user’s center of mass affects dynamic balance of the body [Humans maintain the dynamic balance of the body by redirecting the center of mass and exerting forces on the ground, which results in distinct force distributions on the feet (Matusik ¶0122)], Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf fails to explicitly disclose the system further comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) positioned on the flexible substrate; and wherein the controller is configured to calculate the CoM for the user based further on the at least one of angular rate data or specific force data.
Refai discloses systems for monitoring a user using force sensors and inertial measurement units positioned below a user’s foot [Refai Figs. 1a-b], wherein Refai discloses calculating the user’s center of mass based on inertial measurement data and force data [see section “D. Objective Evaluation of Gait and Dynamic Balance” (Refai p. 220), which is considered to disclose methodology for determining a user’s CoM using at least one of inertial measurement data and force data].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf to employ further comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) positioned on the flexible substrate; and wherein the controller is configured to calculate the CoM for the user based further on the at least one of angular rate data or specific force data, as the user’s CoM is indicative of dynamic balance [Refai p. 220].
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim (US-20160324445-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 13, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 1.
However, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf fail to explicitly disclose further comprising at least one additional sensor positioned on the flexible substrate for measuring one or more biometric characteristics of the user.
Kim discloses systems for detecting human motion and body balance, wherein Kim discloses a flexible substrate configured to be positioned in a shoe of a user [flexible substrate 403 (Kim Fig. 4)] and a sensor array comprising one or more force sensors positioned on the flexible substrate [The pressure sensors 430a, 430b, 430c, and 430d may be mounted onto the flexible substrate 403… The pressure sensors 430a, 430b, 430c, and 430d correspond to sensors for measuring changes in resistance and capacitance to calculate the pressure (Kim ¶0119, Fig. 4), wherein the Examiner notes that measuring pressure is considered to be equivalent to measuring force across an area]; and wherein the flexible substrate further comprises at least one additional sensor positioned on the flexible substrate for measuring one or more biometric characteristics of the user [The sensor module 240 may include, for example, at least one of… a temperature/humidity sensor 240J (Kim ¶0080); According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, in addition to the first sensor 520 and the second sensors 530a, 530b, 530c, and 530d, various sensors that may detect user's body information (for example, a user's blood pressure, blood flow, heart rate, body temperature, respiration rate, heart and lung sound, electromyogram, ECG, and the like) may be further included. The various sensors may include at least one of a heart rate variability (HRV) sensor, a heart rate monitor (HRM) sensor… it is preferable that the first sensor 520, the second sensors 530a, 530b, 530c, and 530d, and the various sensors are located around the user's feet, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto (Kim ¶0124)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf to employ further comprising at least one additional sensor positioned on the flexible substrate for measuring one or more biometric characteristics of the user, so as to provide additional contextual body information of the user indicative of the state of the user.
Regarding claim 14, Matusik in view of Huang, Benchirouf, and Kim teaches
The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more biometric characteristics of the user include at least a heart rate and an oxygen saturation of the user [Kim ¶0124].
Regarding claim 15, Matusik in view of Huang, Benchirouf, and Kim teaches
The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one additional sensor is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a lateral portion of the user's foot [Kim ¶0124, wherein as Kim discloses that the at least one additional sensor may be positioned anywhere around the user’s foot is considered to encompass under a lateral portion of the user’s foot].
Regarding claim 16, Matusik in view of Huang, Benchirouf, and Kim teaches
The system of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a temperature sensor or a moisture sensor positioned on the flexible substrate [Kim ¶0080].
Regarding claim 17, Matusik in view of Huang, Benchirouf, and Kim teaches
The system of claim 16, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to measure a temperature of an interior of the shoe and the moisture sensor is configured to measure a humidity level in the shoe [Kim ¶0080].
Regarding claim 18, Matusik in view of Huang, Benchirouf, and Kim teaches
The system of claim 16, wherein the moisture sensor is positioned on the flexible substrate to be under a toe of the user's foot Kim ¶0124, wherein being positioned anywhere around the user’s foot is considered to encompass under a toe of the user’s foot].
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Stephenson (US-20130223707-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf teaches
The system of claim 2.
However, Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf fails to explicitly disclose wherein a selectable link is displayed on the GUI, wherein once selected the selectable link that navigates the user to a webpage or software application for providing additional information about the corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies.
Stephenson discloses systems for evaluating physical performance, wherein Stephenson discloses a user device that displays a selectable link on a GUI of the device, wherein once selected the selectable link navigates the user to a webpage or software application for providing additional information about the corrective actions for correcting abnormalities or inefficiencies of a measured movement of the user [The movement training application may be launched from a desktop icon, and run locally from the portable device 114, the user's computer, tablet, smart phone, or other electronic device (Stephenson ¶0071); Another application of evaluating technique is in providing specific corrections to a user in order to improve their technique. In one embodiment, a user that receives a low score in technique for a particular activity may receive a message with a tip on how to correct the technique and improve their technique score. The message may include a hyperlink to a picture or video which demonstrates a proper technique, or even a hyperlink to the user's own video of their performance along with annotations that show why the user's technique is poor and how to correct it (Stephenson ¶0122)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf to employ wherein a selectable link is displayed on the GUI, wherein once selected the selectable link that navigates the user to a webpage or software application for providing additional information about the corrective actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies, so as to allow for easy user visualization of corrective actions.
Regarding claim 22, Matusik in view of Huang, Benchirouf, and Stephenson teaches
The system of claim 21, wherein the selectable link causes a video to be displayed on the GUI, said video demonstrating proper form for various movements to correct the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies [Stephenson ¶0122].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 11 December 2025, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 10-11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 6, with respect to the previously applied claim rejection under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 7 under § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 6-7, with respect to the previously applied claim rejections under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that 1) the claims are directed to a system comprised of multiple non-abstract elements, which in and of itself is not an abstract idea; and 2) the amended limitation “wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of a foot of the user during a gait cycle using the meandered antenna”, which the Applicant notes cannot be performed by pen and paper. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, as the Examiner notes that Step 2A Prong 1 of the § 101 analysis merely asks “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim” [MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)], and not whether the entire claim is considered to be abstract or not. The Examiner notes that the identified limitations above are considered to refer to abstract ideas, while other identified limitations are not considered abstract ideas and instead refer to additional elements. The argued limitation of “wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring a resonant frequency of a foot of the user during a gait cycle using the meandered antenna” is considered to be an additional element, and based on the analysis at Step 2A Prong 2, is considered to refer to an extra-solution activity of data gathering.
The Applicant further asserts that any processor based determination uses mathematical-based computations to make determined based on received data, which is implicit in the use of a processor and not particular to the claimed elements, such that the recited claim steps are not abstract ideas merely because they require a processor/controller to execute mathematical functions to determine biomechanical characteristics. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis regarding the recitation of implicit mathematical formulas is not the sole analysis at Step 2A Prong 1 and is noted as being in addition to the identified of limitations that are considered abstract ideas.
The Applicant also asserts that the claims recites non-abstract elements and concepts, including at least a meandering antenna where the gait pattern of the user is determined by measuring a resonant frequency of a foot of the user during a gait cycle using the meandered antenna. While the Examiner acknowledges that the recitation of a meandering antenna and using the meandering antenna is not considered to be an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong 1, the meandering antenna and measuring are further analyzed at Step 2A Prong 2, wherein the measuring using the meandering antenna is identified as an extra-solution activity of data gathering, and at Step 2B, wherein the meandering antenna itself is considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional. As such, the mere recitation of a meandering antenna and measuring data using the meandering antenna fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and allow the claims as wholes to amount to significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 8-9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and those dependent therefrom under § 102 and § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matusik (US-20210315485-A1, previously presented) in view of Huang (US-20170115171-A1, previously presented) and Benchirouf (EP-3818591-B1).
The Applicant asserts that the amended limitations regarding a meandered antenna positioned on the flexible substrate, where gait patterns of the user are detected by measuring a resonant frequency of a foot of the user during a gait cycle using the meandering antenna fails to be taught by the previously applied Kim and Huang references. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. The Examiner has applied Matusik (US-20210315485-A1, previously presented) in view of Huang (US-20170115171-A1, previously presented) and Benchirouf (EP-3818591-B1) to teach the claimed invention, wherein the Examiner notes that Benchirouf discloses systems for measuring applied pressure by detecting a resonant frequency of a meandered antenna [The shape of the antenna can be, for example, a meander antenna (Benchirouf p. 15 of combined original/translated foreign reference); The microstrip patch antenna preferably resonates at a resonant frequency of 5.6 GHz, with a change in loading causing a change in frequency (Benchirouf p. 17); The object of the invention is to develop a sensor with a hybrid nanocomposite material and a method for producing it and a method for detecting stress, wherein the sensor has small dimensions and a simple structural design and wherein a high accuracy can be recognized, for example in the case of load changes, wherein in particular a small-sized antenna is to be provided which has an excellent response characteristic in the high frequency range, and to provide a communication device which includes an antenna which has such an excellent response characteristic that a miniaturization of the device as a whole is possible while ensuring the sensitivity required for a stress sensor (Benchirouf p. 14)].
Conclusion
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 SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/S.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791