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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-4, 7-18 in the reply filed on 8/25/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The claim encompasses the foot of a user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following 112(b) rejections were made with assistance from USPTO Scout LLM.
Claims 1, 10 and associated dependent claims 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10:
The term “void locations” is indefinite because it fails to provide clear boundaries for what constitutes a “void location” – e.g., whether “void locations” refers to any space between sensors, specific predetermined gaps, or inclusive of overlapping spaces with sensors; have specific geometric constraints or can be arbitrary points; and relationship between void locations and the sensor array’s physical structure. This creates uncertainty about the scope of the claimed invention. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) (claims must inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty).
The term “aggregate force value” is indefinite because it fails to specify how multiple sensor readings are combined into a single aggregate value. The claims provide no indication whether the aggregation involves summation of all force values, weighted averaging of sensor readings, root mean square calculations, vector summation considering directional forces, or other mathematical operations. Without knowing the aggregation method, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claimed invention or implement the method with reasonable certainty.
The limitation “modifying the initial estimation weights based on the at least one aggregate force value” is indefinite because it fails to establish any specific relationship or algorithm for how the aggregate force value(s) are used to modify the weights. The claim language is purely functional without providing structure or method steps. The limitation does not specify: whether modification involves mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, optimization algorithms); how the aggregate force value relates to weight adjustments; what criteria determine the direction or magnitude of modifications; whether modifications are iterative or single-step processes. This renders the claim scope unclear and prevents a person of ordinary skill from understanding the bounds of the invention. See Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation "the at least one training sensor set". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of initial estimation weights". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “KR470”, Korean Publication 1002260470 [translation in IDS 3/14/23].
Regarding claims 1 and 10, KR470 discloses a method and associated system of determining user-specific weights usable to synthesize sensor data at void locations of a sensor array, the method comprising:
determining a plurality of initial estimation weights for the void [e.g., N-M] locations [0017+, 0042+: neural network layers would have initial weights for the links based on collected samples];
obtaining a plurality of measured sensor readings from a corresponding plurality [M] of sensors [e.g., 110-1] in the sensor array, wherein the plurality of sensors is arranged in a first predetermined pattern [e.g., fig. 2], wherein the first predetermined pattern maps each of the plurality of sensors to respective locations on a carrier device [e.g., fig. 3], wherein the plurality of measured sensor readings includes at least one measured sensor set, and wherein each measured sensor set is collected while a user performs a corresponding predefined action [0013+];
determining a training sensor set for each measured sensor set by:
estimating a plurality of synthesized sensor readings [e.g., 51 unit areas adjacent to the 9 measured sensors] for a corresponding plurality of synthesized sensors based on the plurality of measured sensor readings [i.e., 9 sensor readings such as 8, 10, 22… which corresponds to measured sensor set 110-1, 110-2…] from that measured sensor set and the plurality of initial estimation weights, wherein the plurality of synthesized sensors is arranged in a second predetermined pattern [e.g., middle of fig.6: sole with darkened unit areas], and wherein the second predetermined pattern maps each of the plurality of synthesized sensors to respective void locations of the sensor array [0059-0060+]; and
determining the training sensor set [set of 60 inputs include 9 sensor readings and 51 adjacent unit areas] to include the measured sensor readings from that measured sensor set and the corresponding plurality of synthesized sensor readings [fig.6; 0061+];
determining the user-specific weights by:
determining at least one aggregate force value [outputs to remaining 29 units from aggregated input of 9 sensor readings and 51 adjacent units] based on the at least one training sensor set [0041+, 0060+]; and
modifying the initial estimation weights based on the at least one aggregate force value [0048-0052+; weight links are modified in neural networks to reduce error]; and
outputting the user-specific weights [0001, 0041+].
Regarding claims 2 and 11, KR470 discloses determining the user-specific weights comprises: determining at least one error value based on the at least one aggregate force value; and modifying the initial estimation weights to reduce the at least one error value [0048-0052+].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, KR470 discloses the at least one measured sensor set comprises a plurality of measured sensor sets, each measured sensor set corresponds to a different predefined action [0002+; e.g., different gait action or stance cycle during walking as shown in fig. 7], and determining the user-specific weights comprises: determining a plurality of aggregate force values based on the training sensor sets corresponding to the plurality of measured sensor sets [0060+; fig.7; continuous 9 sensor measurements and weight corrections through the stance cycle]; and determining the at least one error value by comparing pairs of aggregate force values from the plurality of aggregate force values [0048-0052+; e.g., errors corrected based on pair of current outputs vs sample outputs].
Regarding claims 9 and 16, KR470 discloses the carrier device is a wearable device worn by a foot of a user [0028+].
Regarding claim 17, KR470 discloses the sensors are force sensors, and the force sensors are positioned underfoot [0029+].
Regarding claim 18, KR470 discloses the carrier device is a wearable device and the one or more processors is configured to output the user-specific weights by storing the user-specific weights in a non-transitory storage module of the wearable device [0037+].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “KR470”, Korean Publication 1002260470 [translation in IDS 3/14/23], in view of “Morris”, US Patent 9591993.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, KR470 did not disclose details of the error value. However, Morris teaches a similar foot sensor system that comprises a plurality of measured sensor [e.g., 40] sets correspond to different predefined action [e.g., gait motion], and determining at least one error value that includes at least one relative error value [e.g., difference between left and right], each relative error value determined based on a difference in the total force magnitude of the aggregate force values in a corresponding pair [e.g., left foot/gait corresponds to right foot/gait] of aggregate force values [col.6, ll.6-28, ll.34-42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Morris’ error calculations involving corresponding pair of aggregate force values into KR470’s system so that loading asymmetry can be determined for applicable diagnosis and remedy [Morris: col.1, ll.17-44].
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “KR470”, Korean Publication 1002260470 [translation in IDS 3/14/23], in view of “Neural Networks for Pathological Gait Classification Using Wearable Motion Sensors”, hereinafter “Yin”.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, KR470 did not disclose the details of a cost function [widely used in training neural networks]. Yin teaches a similar artificial neural network with multiple layers [e.g., fig.3] for determining a cost function based on the at least one error value; and adjusting the initial estimation weights using an optimization algorithm to optimize the cost function [third page: BPNN cost function and optimization/regularization; LSTM may be used to enhance/optimize gradient].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Yin’s teachings of cost function and optimization algorithm into KR470’s artificial neural network to at least prevent overfitting [i.e., desirable to have KR470 be adaptable to new untrained data].
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “KR470”, Korean Publication 1002260470 [translation in IDS 3/14/23], in view of “Yuge”, US Publication 20190314185.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, KR470 did not disclose the details of distinguishing different stances that is captured, including a static standing position. Yuge teaches a similar foot sensor system that comprises a plurality of measured sensor [e.g., 51, 52] sets correspond to different predefined action [e.g., gait cycle], each predefined action corresponds to a user standing in a static standing position, and each measured sensor set corresponds to a particular static standing position [0013, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Yuge’s teachings of particular sensors detection into KR470’s system to distinguish static standing position from other stances for particular analysis/solution such as walking motion assist [Yuge: 0007] and load asymmetry adjustment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following summaries were made with assistance from USPTO Scout LLM.
“Horst”, US Publication 20100211355, discloses a foot pad device that collects force data using fewer sensors and calculates weight by adjusting scaling parameters based on comparison with entered patient weight.
“Karapetyan”, US Publication 20190304331, discloses a wearable system such as a shoe insert that uses built-in sensors to collect peak pressure points to estimate weight – even while the user is moving.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tse Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-3672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791