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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 and 11 in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 19, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In claim 1 Line 14, ‘associated to the’ should read ‘associated with the’
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11 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 1 recites the limitation "the acquired feature amount data" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the feature amount data’.
Claim 1 recites ‘an input of the feature amount’ after reciting ‘input the feature amount’ making it unclear if ‘an input of the feature amount’ is meant to refer to ‘input the feature amount’ or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 1 recites ‘a harmonic index’ multiple times in the claim making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 2 recites ‘an estimation value’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 2 recites ‘an input’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first feature amount" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites ‘a gait waveform’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 2 recites ‘each gait phase cluster’ and is it unclear exactly how many are meant to be claimed as ‘gait phase cluster’ was not previously recited. For examination purposes it will be treated as ‘at least one gait phase cluster’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the acquired feature amount data" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites ‘a first feature amount’ after reciting ‘the first feature amount’ making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 3 recites ‘an estimation value’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 3 recites ‘an input’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second feature amount" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites ‘a second feature amount’ after reciting ‘the second feature amount’ making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first feature amounts" in Lines 5-6 and 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the first feature amount’.
Claim 3 recites ‘estimation’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the calculated second feature amount data" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites ‘an input’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the odd components" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites ‘an input’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the even components" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites ‘odd components’ after reciting ‘the odd components’ making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 5 recites ‘even components’ after reciting ‘the even components’ making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 5 recites ‘a waist’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 5 recites ‘an element’ multiple times in the claim making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as different elements.
Claim 5 recites ‘one gait cycle’ after reciting ‘a gait cycle’ making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the estimated odd components and even components" in Lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the harmonic indices" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes it appears this ‘at least one of the harmonic indices’ should read ‘the harmonic index’.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the acquired feature amount data" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites ‘a subject’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites ‘a waist’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites ‘a spatial acceleration’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites ‘a spatial angular velocity’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites ‘sensor data’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites ‘a foot’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity" in Lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the spatial acceleration and the spatial angular velocity’.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the generated sensor data" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the sensor data’.
Claim 7 recites ‘a memory’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites ‘at least one memory’, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites ‘a processor’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites ‘at least one processor’, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the extracted gait waveform data" in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the gait waveform data’.
Claim 7 recites ‘a feature amount’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the normalized gait waveform data" in Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the gait waveform data’.
Claim 7 recites ‘feature amount data’ and incorporates all of claim 1 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the extracted feature amount" in Line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the feature amount’.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the generated feature amount data" in Line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the feature amount data’.
Claim 8 recites ‘a foot’ and is dependent back to claim 7 which recites the same, making it unclear if each recitation is meant to refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-8 and 11 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite an apparatus (claims 1-8 and 11).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1-8 and 11, the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically, from claim 1:
acquire feature amount data including a feature amount to be used for estimation of a harmonic index related to smoothness of movement of a waist, the feature amount being extracted from a gait waveform of a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular velocity included in sensor data related to movement of a foot of a subject;
input the feature amount included in the acquired feature amount data to an estimation model that outputs an estimation value related to the harmonic index according to an input of the feature amount included in the feature amount data;
estimate a harmonic index of the subject according to the estimation value related to the harmonic index output from the estimation model; and
output information associated to the harmonic index of the subject.
Specifically, from claim 7:
acquire time-series data of the sensor data including features of a gait, extract gait waveform data for one gait cycle from the time-series data of the sensor data,
normalize the extracted gait waveform data,
extract a feature amount to be used for estimation of the harmonic index from the normalized gait waveform data from a gait phase cluster including at least one temporally consecutive gait phase,
generate feature amount data including the extracted feature amount, and
output the generated feature amount data to the harmonic index estimation device
These limitations (bolded above) describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 1-8 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for performing the abstract ideas merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering step do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for performing the abstract ideas.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer to perform the abstract ideas. The claims do not apply the obtained response measurement to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows: ‘at least one memory storing instructions’ in claim 1, ‘at least one processor’ in claim 1, ‘an estimation model’ in claim 1, ‘a measurement device’ in claim 7, ‘a sensor’ in claim 7, ‘a memory’ in claim 7, ‘a processor’ in claim 7, ‘a terminal device’ in claim 8, ‘a screen’ in claim 8, ‘machine learning’ in claim 11.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant's specification (Pages 9-10, 13, 41 and 53-55) which discloses that the sensor, processor, and memory comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 8 and 11 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art
Claims 2-6 and 11 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (Reference U on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a harmonic index estimation device (Abstract) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Section B: Experimental Setup: “Matlab R2017b on a PC”); and
at least one processor connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions (Section B: Experimental Setup: “Matlab R2017b on a PC”) to:
acquire feature amount data including a feature amount to be used for estimation of a harmonic index related to smoothness of movement of a waist, the feature amount being extracted from a gait waveform of a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular velocity included in sensor data related to movement of a foot of a subject (Section B: Experimental Setup; “HuGaDB gait database, collected by Chereshnev and Kertesz-Farkas, consists of many human activity recordings. In our experiment, only the walking dataset, which has 192 minutes gait signals collected from 18 subjects with 6 IMUs (placed on the right and left thighs, shins, and feet) during walking on a flat surface, was used.”; Figure 2)
input the feature amount included in the acquired feature amount data to an estimation model that outputs an estimation value related to the harmonic index according to an input of the feature amount included in the feature amount data (Section III. Results and Evaluation; “As aforementioned, the ANN s can have either single output, SONN or multiple outputs, MONN. In general, one MONN or N SONNs are required for the estimation of a complete set of gait signals, including a 3-axis accelerometer (N = 3), a 3-axis gyroscope (N = 6), and potentially a 3-axis magnetometer (N = 9), of an IMU.”; Figure 2);
estimate a harmonic index of the subject according to the estimation value related to the harmonic index output from the estimation model (Section III. Results and Evaluation; “Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b are the averaged CC against sliding window size W for the estimated acceleration a at shin, thigh, and waist positions, using MONN and SONN respectively.”; Figure 2; tracks the smoothness of the users waist movement which is the harmonic index); and
output information associated to the harmonic index of the subject (Figure 4; Experimental Results showing the output).
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches wherein the estimation model is configured to output an estimation value related to the harmonic index, according to an input of the first feature amount included in the feature amount data (Section III. Results and Evaluation; “Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b are the averaged CC against sliding window size W for the estimated acceleration a at shin, thigh, and waist positions, using MONN and SONN respectively.”; Figure 2);, and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (Section B: Experimental Setup: “Matlab R2017b on a PC”) to
acquire the feature amount data including a first feature amount including at least one of gait parameters extracted from a gait waveform of the spatial acceleration and the spatial angular velocity included in the sensor data and a cluster feature amount for each gait phase cluster (Section III. Results and Evaluation; “As aforementioned, the ANN s can have either single output, SONN or multiple outputs, MONN. In general, one MONN or N SONNs are required for the estimation of a complete set of gait signals, including a 3-axis accelerometer (N = 3), a 3-axis gyroscope (N = 6), and potentially a 3-axis magnetometer (N = 9), of an IMU.”; Figure 2);
input the first feature amount included in the acquired feature amount data to the estimation model (Section III. Results and Evaluation; “As aforementioned, the ANN s can have either single output, SONN or multiple outputs, MONN. In general, one MONN or N SONNs are required for the estimation of a complete set of gait signals, including a 3-axis accelerometer (N = 3), a 3-axis gyroscope (N = 6), and potentially a 3-axis magnetometer (N = 9), of an IMU.”; Figure 2);
estimate the harmonic index of the subject according to the estimation value related to the harmonic index output from the estimation model (Section III. Results and Evaluation; “Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b are the averaged CC against sliding window size W for the estimated acceleration a at shin, thigh, and waist positions, using MONN and SONN respectively.”; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Sun teaches wherein the estimation model is constructed by machine learning, and the information is used for decision making to address the harmonic index (Section III. Results and Evaluation; “As aforementioned, the ANN s can have either single output, SONN or multiple outputs, MONN. In general, one MONN or N SONNs are required for the estimation of a complete set of gait signals, including a 3-axis accelerometer (N = 3), a 3-axis gyroscope (N = 6), and potentially a 3-axis magnetometer (N = 9), of an IMU.”; Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Reference U on PTO-892) in view of Yack et al. (Reference V on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 3, Sun is silent on multiple feature amount. Yack teaches wherein the estimation model is configured to output an estimation value related to the harmonic index, according to an input of the second feature amount (Theory. Section Page M226; “Harmonic coefficients for the first 20 harmonics can be calculated using a finite Fourier series as described by Gage (16). Using this method, the parts of the movement that are "in phase" can be compared with the parts of the movement that are "out of phase" by looking at the relative magnitudes of the harmonic coefficients. The VT acceleration discussed above is normally a biphasic signal that has in phase components, which consist of the even harmonics (i.e., multiples of two) and out of phase components consisting of the odd harmonics (Figure 2).”), and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to
calculate, as a second feature amount, an average value and a difference of the first feature amounts to be used for estimation of the harmonic index among the first feature amounts for both feet of the subject, input the calculated second feature amount to the estimation model, and estimate the harmonic index of the subject according to the estimation value related to the harmonic index output from the estimation model (Theory. Section Page M226; “Harmonic coefficients for the first 20 harmonics can be calculated using a finite Fourier series as described by Gage (16). Using this method, the parts of the movement that are "in phase" can be compared with the parts of the movement that are "out of phase" by looking at the relative magnitudes of the harmonic coefficients. The VT acceleration discussed above is normally a biphasic signal that has in phase components, which consist of the even harmonics (i.e., multiples of two) and out of phase components consisting of the odd harmonics (Figure 2).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun with Yack because it allows for a more objective measurement of dynamic stability (Theory section and Discussion section of Yack).
Regarding claim 4, Sun is silent on multiple feature amount. Yack teaches wherein the estimation model is configured to output an estimation value related to the harmonic index, according to an input of an attribute of the subject and the second feature amount, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to input the attribute of the subject and the second feature amount to the estimation model, and estimate the harmonic index of the subject according to the estimation value related to the harmonic index output from the estimation model (Theory. Section Page M226; “Harmonic coefficients for the first 20 harmonics can be calculated using a finite Fourier series as described by Gage (16). Using this method, the parts of the movement that are "in phase" can be compared with the parts of the movement that are "out of phase" by looking at the relative magnitudes of the harmonic coefficients. The VT acceleration discussed above is normally a biphasic signal that has in phase components, which consist of the even harmonics (i.e., multiples of two) and out of phase components consisting of the odd harmonics (Figure 2).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun with Yack because it allows for a more objective measurement of dynamic stability (Theory section and Discussion section of Yack).
Regarding claim 5, Sun is silent on multiple feature amount. Yack teaches wherein the estimation model is configured to include a first estimation model that outputs the odd components according to an input of the second feature amount and a second estimation model that outputs the even components according to an input of the second feature amount (Theory. Section Page M226),
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to
calculate the harmonic index using even components corresponding to an element during a gait cycle and odd components not corresponding to an element during the gait cycle among frequency components obtained by performing Fourier transform on time- series data of spatial acceleration of a waist (Theory. Section Page M226; “Harmonic coefficients for the first 20 harmonics can be calculated using a finite Fourier series as described by Gage (16). Using this method, the parts of the movement that are "in phase" can be compared with the parts of the movement that are "out of phase" by looking at the relative magnitudes of the harmonic coefficients. The VT acceleration discussed above is normally a biphasic signal that has in phase components, which consist of the even harmonics (i.e., multiples of two) and out of phase components consisting of the odd harmonics (Figure 2).”),
input the second feature amount to the first estimation model to estimate the odd components (Theory. Section Page M226); and
input the second feature amount to the second estimation model to estimate the even components (Theory. Section Page M226), and
estimate the harmonic index of the subject using a power sum of the estimated odd components and even components for one gait cycle (Theory. Section Page M226; “Harmonic coefficients for the first 20 harmonics can be calculated using a finite Fourier series as described by Gage (16). Using this method, the parts of the movement that are "in phase" can be compared with the parts of the movement that are "out of phase" by looking at the relative magnitudes of the harmonic coefficients. The VT acceleration discussed above is normally a biphasic signal that has in phase components, which consist of the even harmonics (i.e., multiples of two) and out of phase components consisting of the odd harmonics (Figure 2).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun with Yack because it allows for a more objective measurement of dynamic stability (Theory section and Discussion section of Yack).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Reference U on PTO-892) in view of Roche et al. (Reference W on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 6, Sun is silent on the three directions. Roche teaches wherein the estimation model is configured to output at least one of the harmonic indices in three directions of a traveling direction, a left-right direction, and a vertical direction in one gait cycle as the estimation value related to the harmonic index, according to the input of the first feature amount included in the feature amount data (Table 1), and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to
input the first feature amount included in the acquired feature amount data to the estimation model (Section 2.1 Harmonic theory and Section 2.2 Sinusoid example), and
estimate the harmonic index of the subject according to at least one of the harmonic indices in the three directions of the traveling direction, the left-right direction, and the vertical direction output from the estimation model (Section 4. Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun with Roche because Roche teaches these techniques as being known in the art (Abstract; Section 1. Introduction of Roche) and aids in investigating changes in gait patterns (Section 4. Discussion).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Reference U on PTO-892) in view of Unuma et al. (US Patent No. 6571193).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches an estimation system (Abstract) comprising:
the harmonic index estimation device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and
a measurement device (IMUs) installed on footwear of a subject who is an estimation target of a harmonic index related to smoothness of movement of a waist (Section B. Experimental Setup; “6 IMUs (placed on the right and left thighs, shins, and feet)”), wherein the measurement device includes:
a sensor (IMU) configured to measure a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular velocity (Table I),
generate sensor data related to movement of a foot using the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity (Section C. Gait Parameter Estimation), and
output the generated sensor data (Section C. Gait Parameter Estimation); and
a memory storing instructions (Section B: Experimental Setup: “Matlab R2017b on a PC”); and
a processor connected to the at least one memory (Section B: Experimental Setup: “Matlab R2017b on a PC”); and configured to execute the instructions to
Sun is silent on the gait cycle, and waveform data being normalized for the feature amount extraction.
Unuma teaches acquire time-series data of the sensor data including features of a gait, extract gait waveform data for one gait cycle from the time-series data of the sensor data (Column 3, Line 51-Column 4, Line 2; “A previously measured waveform representing a single motion”),
normalize the extracted gait waveform data ((Column 3, Line 51-Column 4, Line 2; “A previously measured waveform representing a single motion is normalized for duration from the time the motion is started until it ends.”),
extract a feature amount to be used for estimation of the harmonic index from the normalized gait waveform data from a gait phase cluster including at least one temporally consecutive gait phase (Column 3, Line 51-Column 4, Line 2; “Illustratively, two steps of a walk constitute one cycle when normalized. Thereafter, characteristic components of each motion are extracted through functionalization, Fourier transformation or wavelet transformation.”),
generate feature amount data including the extracted feature amount (Column 3, Line 51-Column 4, Line 2; “Coefficients used in the normalization or the extracted components from the transformation (Fourier, etc.) are established as characteristic quantities of the motions to be referenced.“), and
output the generated feature amount data to the harmonic index estimation device (Column 3, Line 51-Column 4, Line 2; “Thereafter, coefficients or characteristic components are extracted through the above-mentioned functionalization or Fourier/wavelet transformation. The extracted coefficients or components are compared with the previously stored characteristic quantities for motion recognition.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun with Unuma because it allows for gait motion recognition that is more precise (Column 2, Lines 45-50 of Unuma) and it would be using conventional techniques (normalization) using routine experimentation to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Reference U on PTO-892) in view of Unuma et al. (US Patent No. 6571193) and in further view of Kitamura et al. (US 2016/0045140).
Regarding claim 8, Sun is silent on the terminal device. Kitamura teaches wherein the harmonic index estimation device is mounted on a terminal device having a screen visually recognizable by the subject and the at least one processor of the harmonic index estimation device is configured to display information related to the harmonic index estimated according to the movement of a foot of the subject on the screen of the terminal device (Paragraphs 0069-0081 and 0137-0138). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun with Kitamura because to allow the system to be a small-sized compact unit (Paragraph 0138 of Kitamura).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/411,154 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending Application recites the same claim language as the claimed invention, the only difference is that the instant application claims a generic output “output information associated to the harmonic index of the subject” and “output the generated feature amount data to the harmonic index estimation device.”, whereas the copending application recites “display a video containing recommended training according to the estimation result of the harmonic index of the user on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user.” This output from the copending application is therefore more specific than the claimed invention generic output. Thus, the invention of patented claims is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of rejected claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since instant application claims are anticipated by copending application claims, it is not patentably distinct from copending application claim, and therefore anticipates the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/410,260 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending Application recites the same claim language as the claimed invention, the only difference is that the instant application claims a generic output “output information associated to the harmonic index of the subject” and “output the generated feature amount data to the harmonic index estimation device.“, whereas the copending application recites “display information regarding a hospital at which the user can seek medical advice according to the estimation result of the harmonic index of the user on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user.” This output from the copending application is therefore more specific than the claimed invention generic output. Thus, the invention of patented claims is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of rejected claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since instant application claims are anticipated by copending application claims, it is not patentably distinct from copending application claim, and therefore anticipates the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM 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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791