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 .
35 USC 112(a) Rejection
Claims 3,4,8,11-14,18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 3, the application does not suggest what the low pass filter is filtering. There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claims 4,8, the application does not provide a way to determine an actual “predicted value” (line 2). Para 133 (Pub) refers to algorithm, (recursive estimation) filter, and finding coefficients to provide a prediction of a value, and then nothing. There are no examples, no reference provides for how to obtain a predicted value with such a collection, and no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claims 11,14, Para 198 (Pub) refers to employing a recursive estimation filter to provide a predicted value, that is ultimately utilized to identify status of footwear. However, the algorithm within the filter (i.e. what the filter actually does to incoming data), what the input to the filter is, what the output to the filter is, are all unexpressed. Thus, nothing provides for how the status may be obtained. There are no examples, no reference provides for how to obtain a status, and no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 18, Para 205 refers to using recursive estimation algorithm to provide a predicted value, and comparison to provide a result. However, the algorithm (i.e. what the filter actually does), how such algorithm predicts a value, and how such provides a (useful) result are all unexpressed. Thus, nothing provides for how the characteristic may be determined. There are no examples, no reference provides for how to obtain the ultimate characteristic, and no manner of experimentation is apparent.
35 USC 112(b) Rejection
Claim 13 is 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.
As to claim 13, the last 3 lines merely repeats the step of claim 12. As such, the same step is twice claimed.
Double Patent Rejection
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/230,319 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is merely broader than claim 6 of SN ‘319. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
35 USC 102 Rejection
Claim(s) 1,2,5,9,10,15,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Walker WO 2020186171.
As to claim 1,2,5,9,10,16,17, Walker et al WO 2020186171 teaches a sensor signal processing method comprising: sampling values of a sensor signal from a foot presence sensor in an article of footwear (Figure 24); identifying an ambulatory status of the article of footwear using the sampled values of the sensor signal
(“A count difference between sit and stand intervals under saturated conditions, such as at the indication of 70 mL on the chart 2400, is observed to be about 75 counts, or only about 15 counts different than is observed under dry or non-saturated conditions. Thus in the presence of changing baseline or reference capacitance conditions, information about footwear usage can be determined from the sensor, including information about a presence or absence of a foot, or information about a force exerted on the sensor such as a foot strike force, which information can be used to discriminate between sitting and standing postures”);
updating a sensor signal threshold in response to identifying the ambulatory status
(“FIG. 25 illustrates generally an example of the chart from FIG. 24 that shows a relationship between sensor responses and simulated perspiration with an averaged signal. In the example of FIG. 25, an average curve 2410, calculated as a slow-moving average of the sensor count, is imposed on the chart 2400 from the example of FIG. 24. The average curve 2410 can correspond to a changing reference capacitance value over time, and can be used as a reference in identifying foot presence in or absence from the footwear. For example, if a wearer removes his or her foot from the footwear, then a subsequent sensor output comparison can be performed using the absolute reference indicated by the average curve 2410, such as instead of relying on or using relative sensor information, such as from a prior footwear occupancy by the same or different wearer. That is, information about a changing reference condition for a capacitive sensor, such as corresponding to changes in moisture in or around the sensor or its target, can be used to adjust a threshold for use in determining, among other things, whether a foot is present in, or absent from, footwear.”);
and determining a foot ingress to, or egress from, the article of footwear based on the updated sensor signal threshold and a subsequent value of the sensor signal
(“That is, information about a changing reference condition for a capacitive sensor, such as corresponding to changes in moisture in or around the sensor or its target, can be used to adjust a threshold for use in determining, among other things, whether a foot is present in, or absent from, footwear”).
As to claim 15, method so distinguishes per:
PNG
media_image1.png
390
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
35 USC 102 Rejection
Claim(s) 10,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Darley et al 2007/0061105.
As to claims 10,16,17, Darley teaches a sensor signal processing method comprising: sampling values of a sensor signal from a foot presence sensor in an article of footwear (output of force sensor in a shoe is sensed); identifying an ambulatory status of the article of footwear using the sampled values of the sensor signal (the force sensor is compared to a threshold to identify a shoe tap); updating a sensor signal threshold in response to identifying the ambulatory status
“[0141] FIG. 23 is a flow diagram illustrating an example implementation of the "update threshold" routine shown in each of FIGS. 17 and 21 which may be used to dynamically update a threshold value for detecting a heel-strike event in response to one or more changing characteristics of the signal output by the sensor of the foot-mounted device shown in FIGS. 4-6”;
and determining a loading characteristic (i.e. heal strike) of the article of footwear based on the updated sensor signal threshold and a subsequent value of the sensor signal.
Prior Art Cited, not applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andon et al CN111278320 teach a capacitive force sensor that senses foot presence in a shoe, the sensor reference value being adjustable for ambient conditions.
Objected Claims
Claims 6,7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855