DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 June 2026 has been entered.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 8, 10, 21, and 23-24, the cancelation of claim 2, and the addition of new claim 25. Claims 1, 5-18, and 21-25 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “208” [Figs. 2A-E, 3A, wherein the Examiner notes that reference to “force sensors 206-210” in ¶0072 of the Applicant’s Specification is not considered acceptable disclosure of reference character “208”, as it may become unclear whether reference characters 207, 209 may be missing from the Applicant’s Drawings]; “ST” [Fig. 2D].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “moisture sensor 226” [Applicant’s Specification ¶0075]; “line 502” [Applicant’s Specification ¶0084, wherein the Examiner notes that Replacement Drawings filed 16 March 2023 omit reference character “502” from Fig. 5].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “during a gait cycle [line 19].
Claim 8 should read “The system of claim 1, further comprising” [line 1].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
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, 5-18, and 21-25 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;
one or more antenna positioned on the flexible substrate, wherein conductors of the one or more antenna are configured to be positioned at one or more pressure points of a foot of the user; and
a controller communicably coupled to the one or more antenna, the controller configured to:
determine changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna, wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user;
determine force data from the determined changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna;
detect a gait pattern of the user, wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring the changes in the force data and/or changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more during a gait cycle antenna;
determine biomechanical characteristics for the user based on the force data received from the one or more antenna, 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; and
a user device, wherein the controller provides an indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies to the user through the user device, wherein the indication includes corrective and/or preventative actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies, said user device associated with the user to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface (GUI).
(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:
“determine changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna, wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user” – may be performed in the mind or by hand by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom [Applicant’s Specification ¶0066]; wherein the Examiner notes that the language “wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user” is considered to merely define the type of data and is thus not further analyzed at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B
“determine force data from the determined changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna” – may be performed in the mind or by hand by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom
“detect a gait pattern of the user, wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring the changes in the force data and/or changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more during a gait cycle antenna” – may be performed in the mind or by hand by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom
“determine biomechanical characteristics for the user based on the force data received from the one or more antenna, 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 in the mind or by hand by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom using known or derived mathematical formulas 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 at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom [¶0060]
“provides an indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies… wherein the indication includes corrective and/or preventative 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 one or more antenna, 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 [generic computer function, pre-solution data gathering] – 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 extra-solution activity identified above, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 5 and 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) 13 and 17 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, 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 [transmitting, receiving, outputting signals, etc.] 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, and corresponding generic functions therein], 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 1 recites “a flexible substrate configured to be positioned in a shoe of a user; one or more antenna positioned on the flexible substrate, wherein conductors of the one or more antenna are configured to be positioned at one or more pressure points of a foot of the user”; wherein claim(s) 23-24 further recite “wherein the antenna comprises a radiating element configured to resonate at an operating frequency prior to any pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by a foot of the user” [claim 23] and “wherein the operating frequency is one of 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz” [claim 24]. Such a flexible substrate and one or more 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 analysis. 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 8 recites “a sensor array comprising one or more force sensors positioned on the flexible substrate, the one or more force sensors comprising force sensing resistors (FSRs), piezoresistive (PZR) sensors, capacitive force sensors, or fabric-based strain sensors”; claim 9 recites “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”; and claim 10 recites “wherein the one or more force sensors comprise at least three force 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”. Such a flexible substrate comprising a sensor array in combination with the previously claimed structure of claim 1 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, previously presented) [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, previously presented) [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, previously presented) [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)]
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 previously presented) [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 previously presented) [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 previously presented) [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 in combination with the previously claimed structure of claim 1 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 recites “at least one additional sensor positioned on the flexible substrate for measuring one or more biometric characteristics”, wherein claims 14-15 provide additional functionality and structure to the at least one additional sensor. Such an at least one additional sensor as positioned on the flexible substrate in combination with the previously claimed structure of claim 1 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, previously presented) [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” and corresponding functionality therein. Such an at least one of a temperature sensor or a moisture sensor in combination with the previously claimed structure of claim 1 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 Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim 1 recites the limitation “provides an indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies to the user through the user device, wherein the indication includes corrective and/or preventative actions for correcting the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies”, wherein claims 21-22 further limit the information displayed on the GUI 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, 5-10, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik (US-20210315485-A1, previously presented) in view of Nie et al. (“Textile-Based Wireless Pressure Sensor Array for Human-Interactive Sensing”, NPL attached), hereinafter Nie, and Huang (US-20170115171-A1, previously presented).
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)]; and
a controller communicably coupled to the flexible substrate [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:
detect a gait pattern of the user, wherein the gait pattern of the user is detected by measuring the changes in force data [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); 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 one or more antenna, 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]; and
wherein the controller provides an indication of the predicted abnormalities or inefficiencies to the user, wherein the indication includes corrective and/or preventative 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 one or more antenna positioned on the flexible substrate, wherein conductors of the one or more antenna are configured to be positioned at one or more pressure points of a foot of the user; and wherein the controller is coupled to the one or more antenna and is configured to determine changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna, wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user; determine force data from the determined changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna; wherein the gait pattern of the user may be detected by measuring the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more during a gait cycle antenna [the Examiner notes that the emphasis applied is to identify the following limitation as being optional as presently recited].
Nie discloses systems and methods of using the system therein for detecting human motion and body balance, wherein the system of Nie comprises: a flexible substrate configured to be positioned in a shoe of a user [Here, we have developed a smart wireless insole by implementing our WiPSA technology to resolve pressure distributions between the plantar surfaces and shoes (Nie p. 6)]; one or more antenna positioned on the flexible substrate, wherein conductors of the one or more antenna are configured to be positioned at one or more pressure points of a foot of the user [As schemed in Figure 6a, the pressure-sensitive insole has integrated eight of single sensing units, which are located in the positions corresponding to the areas of toe (#1), metatarsal (#2, #3), midfoot (#4 to #7), and heal (#8) (Nie p. 6, Fig. 6a)]; and wherein Nie further discloses determining changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna, wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user [After a pair of smart insoles are fitted into the dancing shoes, a person of 50 kg body mass takes the footwear and stands upright or on tiptoe (insets in Figure 6c). The pressures applied by the left foot are recorded for analysis. The corresponding values for stand-upright and tiptoe gestures have been illustrated as black and red bars in Figure 6c, respectively. As expected, the foot experienced the highest stress in the heel region (sensor #8) and the lowest stress around the arch area (sensor #6) for a stand-upright posture. In contrast, for the stand-on-toe posture, the pressure levels rise in the metatarsal and toe regions and drop in the mid-foot and heal areas. Furthermore, the plantar pressure mapping has been investigated as the volunteer practices four different yoga postures (Figure 6d). The results suggest several characteristic patterns of the plantar pressure distribution along with the changes of yoga postures (Nie p. 6-7, Fig. 6c-d); Figure 1a illustrates a textile-based flexible WiPSA of 1 × 8 units, of which each sensing unit comprises a layer of soft fabric spacer, sandwiched between an LC antenna and a piece of ferrite thin film. The external loads deform the flexible fabric spacer, leading to the decreases of the distance between the ferrite films and the antennas. Subsequently, the ferrite thin film promotes a dramatic change in the resonant frequencies of LC antennas (Nie p. 2, Fig. 1a), wherein Nie disclosing and depicting the WiPSA unit as comprising an antenna as a top layer is considered to read on the changes in the resonant frequency of the antenna being caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user]; and determining force data from the determined changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna [Nie p. 6-7, Fig. 6c-d].
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 one or more antenna positioned on the flexible substrate, wherein conductors of the one or more antenna are configured to be positioned at one or more pressure points of a foot of the user; and wherein the controller is coupled to the one or more antenna and is configured to determine changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna, wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user; determine force data from the determined changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna; wherein the gait pattern of the user may be detected by measuring the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more during a gait cycle antenna [the Examiner notes that the emphasis applied is to identify the following limitation as being optional as presently recited], as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [provide sensor elements on a flexible substrate for measuring force applied] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
However, Matusik fails to explicitly disclose a user device, wherein the controller provides the indication to the user through the user device, said user device associated with the user to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface (GUI).
Huang discloses systems for monitoring user foot pressure, wherein 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 Nie to employ a user device, wherein the controller provides the indication to the user through the user device, 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, as well as the modification amounting to mere application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [displaying a GUI to provide visual information] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 5, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang 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 Nie and Huang 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 Nie and Huang 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 Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 1 further comprising a sensor array comprising one or more force sensors positioned on the flexible substrate, the one or more force sensors comprising force sensing resistors (FSRs), piezoresistive (PZR) sensors [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)], capacitive force sensors, or fabric-based strain sensors.
Regarding claim 9, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the flexible substrate is an insole of the shoe [Matusik ¶0089; Nie p. 6] or wherein the flexible substrate is configured to be positioned under an insole of the shoe.
Regarding claim 10, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more force sensors comprise at least three force 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 Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the antenna comprises a radiating element configured to resonate at an operating frequency prior to any pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by a foot of the user [According to the theoretical RLC circuit analysis, the whole structure has a unique resonant frequency (fs) (Nie p. 2)].
Regarding claim 24, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 23.
However, while Nie discloses wherein the operating frequency is 0.04 GHz [The fphase-min of 44.13 MHz is determined by locating the maximum value of the phase change (Δθmax = −9.55°) from the spectrum… Therefore, the resonant frequency fs of WiPSA is approximately equal to the value of fphase-min, considering the terms of k2/4 and 1/(8Q2) are much smaller than 1 in Equation (4) (Nie p. 3-4)], Matusik in view of Nie and Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operating frequency is one of 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz.
Nie discloses that the operating frequency changes based on the design of the antenna itself [As a vital part of the sensor, the antenna design greatly influences the sensor performances, including the resonant frequency, the quality factor, the coupling coefficient, and the wireless detection distance… As the number of turns/the width of the line is varied (12–15/205–135 μm), the corresponding resonant frequency decreases from 43.69 to 35.91 MHz (Nie p. 4)]. “[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 design to affect sensor performance.
“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.
Regarding claim 25, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 23, wherein the antenna comprises one or more of a coupled antenna, a meandered antenna, or a spiral antenna [Nie Fig. 1c].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik in view of Nie and Huang, 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 Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 1.
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 Nie and Huang 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: receive at least one of angular rate data or specific force data from the at least one IMU; and 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 determing 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 Nie and Huang to employ the system further comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) positioned on the flexible substrate; and wherein the controller is configured to: receive at least one of angular rate data or specific force data from the at least one IMU; and 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 Nie and Huang, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim (US-20160324445-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 13, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 1.
However, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang fails 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 Nie and Huang 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 Nie, Huang, 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 Nie, Huang, 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 Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 1.
However, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang fails to explicitly disclose further comprising at least one of a temperature sensor or a moisture sensor positioned on the flexible substrate.
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 [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 of a temperature sensor or a moisture sensor positioned on the flexible substrate [Kim ¶¶0080, 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 Nie and Huang to employ further comprising at least one of a temperature sensor or a moisture sensor positioned on the flexible substrate, so as to provide additional contextual body information of the user indicative of the state of the user.
Regarding claim 17, Matusik in view of Nie, Huang, 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 Nie, Huang, 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 Nie and Huang, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Stephenson (US-20130223707-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 21, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang teaches
The system of claim 1.
However, Matusik in view of Nie and Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein a selectable link is displayed on the GUI, wherein once selected the selectable link navigates the user to a webpage or software application for providing additional information about the corrective and/or preventative 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 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 Nie and Huang to employ wherein a selectable link is displayed on the GUI, wherein once selected the selectable link navigates the user to a webpage or software application for providing additional information about the corrective and/or preventative 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 Nie, Huang, 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 p. 6-7, filed 17 June 2026, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1-2, 21, and 23-24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 2 and 24 under § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7-8, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a system, and the entire system is comprised of multiple non-abstract elements, which in and of itself is not an abstract idea. However, 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; wherein the Examiner further notes that claim 1 does recite a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong 1 [see analysis above], such that further analysis at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B is required.
The Applicant further asserts that non-abstract elements are used in non-conventional ways and are specifically configured for the claimed system, wherein the Applicant directs attention to the one or more antenna and corresponding conductors, as well as the controller communicably coupled to the one or more antenna. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the language directed towards the structure of the one or more antenna and corresponding conductors is considered to be recited at a high level of generality, such that the mere recitation of a flexible substrate comprising one or more antenna is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional; whereas the language directed towards the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna being caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user is merely considered to define the data analyzed by the controller in the determining changes function of the controller, as opposed to imparting a functional limitation onto the one or more antenna.
The Applicant also asserts that the amendments to claim 1 with respect to the functionality of the controller [see limitations of lines 10-19 of claim 1] cannot be performed by pen and paper. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that at Step 2A Prong 1, the functions configured to be performed by the controller are considered to be directed towards abstract ideas.
The Applicant additionally asserts that the claims do include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, wherein the Applicant directs attention to how force is determined by changes in resonant frequency of the antenna caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by a foot of the user, which cannot be done by pen and paper and also recites a novel and unexpected use of an antenna (and a controller) that is sufficiently more than the judicial exception. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that determining changes function of the controller is considered to not be an abstract idea, as based on the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis above, the changes may be determined by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the examination under 35 U.S.C. 101 is distinct and separate from the examination under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, as recited in the MPEP: As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.")…Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 9-11, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and those dependent therefrom under § 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 Nie et al. (“Textile-Based Wireless Pressure Sensor Array for Human-Interactive Sensing”, NPL attached), hereinafter Nie, and Huang (US-20170115171-A1, previously presented).
The Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 is not made obvious over Matusik in view of Huang and Benchirouf, as Huang discloses a dielectric between the path antenna and ground plane, wherein the dielectric is deformed by vertical pressure or shear stress by a foot, which the Applicant notes is different from the amended claimed limitation “determine changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna, wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more antenna by a foot of the user”. However, the Examiner notes that 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. Matusik (US-20210315485-A1, previously presented) is presently modified in view of Nie et al. (“Textile-Based Wireless Pressure Sensor Array for Human-Interactive Sensing”, NPL attached), hereinafter Nie, and Huang (US-20170115171-A1, previously presented), wherein the Examiner notes that Nie discloses a flexible substrate configured to be positioned in a shoe of a user [Nie p. 6, Fig. 6a]; and wherein Nie further discloses determining changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna, wherein the changes in the resonant frequency of the one or more antenna are caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user [Nie p. 2, 6-7, Figs. 1a, 6c-d, wherein Nie disclosing and depicting the WiPSA unit as comprising an antenna as a top layer is considered to read on the changes in the resonant frequency of the antenna being caused by pressure exerted on the one or more antenna by direct contact with the one or more conductors of the one or more antenna by the foot of the user]; and determining force data from the determined changes in a resonant frequency of the one or more antenna [Nie p. 6-7, Fig. 6c-d].
Conclusion
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.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights