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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's amendments and arguments/remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections presented herein necessitated by the amendments with the newly added independent claim 21 to which every other claim is now dependent back to.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-“feedback means for providing stimuli” in claim 1 interpreted to be vibrating motors, earbuds, and/or the single-board computer per the specification and Figure 3 and equivalents thereof
-‘wrist-worn device’ with the function of ‘pulse alarms are delivered’ in claim 17 to be the structure 24 shown in Figure 3 as a watch and equivalents thereof
-‘said gait measurement system measures gait parameters’ in claim 21 interpreted to be the combination of the computing unit and sensors as earlier recited in the claim
-‘said gait measurement system is adapted to measure inter-limb parameters’ in claim 28 interpreted to be the combination of the computing unit and sensors as earlier recited in the claim 21
-‘said gait measurement system is adapted to remotely monitor and administer walking and/or balance exercises’ in claim 32
-“auditory and/or vibro-tactile feedback means … for gait and/or balance rehabilitation” in claim 33 interpreted to be vibrating motors, earbuds, and/or the single-board computer per the specification and Figure 3 and equivalents thereof
-‘said gait measurement system is adapted to facilitate injury prevention in professional athletes’ in claim 35
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 and 21-39 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 21 recites ‘such that’ making it unclear if everything after the ‘such that’ is meant to be claimed or not or if it’s merely exemplary language. For examination purposes it will be treated as “wherein said computing unit is configured to: (i) obtain a corresponding calibration model for…..,(ii) obtain other calibration models for…., and (iii) apply cross-validation to said model data….”. Examiner suggests amending to reflect this clearer wording.
Claim 26 recites multiple ‘and/or’ limitations making it unclear exactly what the intended scope of the claim is meant to be.
Claim limitation “said gait measurement system is adapted to remotely monitor and administer walking and/or balance exercises” in claim 32 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There appears to be no corresponding structure that performs this function disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 33 recites multiple ‘and/or’ limitations making it unclear exactly what the intended scope of the claim is meant to be.
Claim 33 recites the limitation ‘can be’ making it unclear if everything following the ‘can be’ is meant to be part of the claimed invention or not.
Claim limitation “said gait measurement system is adapted to facilitate injury prevention in professional athletes” in claim 35 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There appears to be no corresponding structure to perform this function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-18 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 1-18 and 21-39 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 1-18 and 21-39).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claim 21 and 1, 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 21:
A gait measurement system, comprising:
A first insole module for placement in one or more shoes of a user, said first insole module including a first piezoresistive sensor, a first inertial sensor, a first logic unit communicatively coupled to said first piezoresistive sensor and to said first inertial sensor, and a first transmission unit, wherein said first piezoresistive sensor includes a first plurality of pressure-sensing cells;
a second insole module for placement in the one or more shoes of the user, said second insole module including a second piezoresistive sensor, a second inertial sensor, a second logic unit communicatively coupled to said second piezoresistive sensor and to said second inertial sensor, and a second transmission unit, wherein said second piezoresistive sensor includes a second plurality of pressure-sensing cells; and
a computing unit communicatively coupled to said first inertial sensor and to said first piezoresistive sensor via said first transmission unit and communicatively coupled to said second inertial sensor and second piezoresistive sensor via said second transmission unit, such that
(i) a corresponding calibration model is obtained for each pressure-sensing cell of said first plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said second plurality of pressure-sensing cells, respectively, based on model data obtained from said first plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said second plurality of pressure-sensing cells,
(ii) other calibration models are obtained for said first inertial sensor and said second inertial sensor based on respective model data obtained from said first inertial sensor and said second inertial sensor, and
(iii) cross-validation is applied to said model data obtained from said first plurality of pressure- sensing cells and said second plurality of pressure-sensing cells and to said model data obtained from said first inertial sensor and said second inertial sensor, whereby said gait measurement system measures gait parameters selected from the group consisting of stride length, foot-ground clearance, foot trajectory, cadence, double support time, single support time, walking speed, center of pressure, and margin of stability.
Specifically from claim 1
determine the user's actual running speed in real time and to calculate said difference, if any, between said actual running speed and a targeted running speed; and
providing stimuli to the user responsive to said difference, if any, between said actual running speed and said targeted running speed.
These underlined limitations 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. Claim 21 in particular is directed to observation through each of the obtaining functions and through evaluation of applying cross-validation.
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 1-18 and 21-39 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 steps 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: “A gait measurement system, comprising: A first insole module for placement in one or more shoes of a user, said first insole module including a first piezoresistive sensor, a first inertial sensor, a first logic unit communicatively coupled to said first piezoresistive sensor and to said first inertial sensor, and a first transmission unit, wherein said first piezoresistive sensor includes a first plurality of pressure-sensing cells; a second insole module for placement in the one or more shoes of the user, said second insole module including a second piezoresistive sensor, a second inertial sensor, a second logic unit communicatively coupled to said second piezoresistive sensor and to said second inertial sensor, and a second transmission unit, wherein said second piezoresistive sensor includes a second plurality of pressure-sensing cells; and a computing unit communicatively coupled to said first inertial sensor and to said first piezoresistive sensor via said first transmission unit and communicatively coupled to said second inertial sensor and second piezoresistive sensor via said second transmission unit, such that” in claim 21, “the gait measurement system of claim 21” in claim 1, “said first inertial sensor and a first array of force-sensitive resistors” and “second inertial sensor and a second array of force-sensitive resistors” in claim 1, “said computing unit” in claim 1, “said first transmission unit and second transmission unit” in claim 1, ‘earbuds’ in claim 13, ‘vibrotactile feedback’ in claims 14-15, ‘pulse alarms’ in claims 15-18, ‘wrist-worn device’ in claim 17, ‘vibrating motors’ in claim 18, ‘a mobile device having GPS’ in claim 31, ‘auditory and/or vibro-tactile feedback means’ in claim 33, ‘at least one proximity sensor’ in claim 34, ‘retrofitted’ in claims 36-37, ‘shoe’ in claim 38, ‘a first shoe’ and ‘a second shoe’ in claim 39
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 and data output, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s Specification (Paragraphs 0019, 0053)
Applicant's specification (Paragraphs 0032-0042) which discloses that the 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). The insole and use of said insole merely indicates field of use. The vibratory feedback is merely considered field-of-use as well as alternative ways to provide data output. The calibrating of the insoles appears to merely be outputting of data and thus constitutes merely data output which does no provide significantly more.
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 2-18 and 22-39 are additional data output or additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art used for data output
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.
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 1-18 and 21-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11439325 in view of Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0096466). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlapping subject matter is detailed in the chart below. The differences include the computing unit, transmission units, and the multiple insole modules of the instant application. For multiple insole modules it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patent to have multiple insoles since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. MPEP 2144.04(VI-B). For the computing unit, Sarrafzadeh teaches this in at least Paragraph 0053, element 114, and the transmission unit as element 122. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patent with Sarrafzadeh because it allows for minimizing data received from a multiple-sensor array, while maintaining the integrity of the original signal (Paragraph 0013 of Sarrafzadeh) and further a computing unit and transmission module are well known and conventional equipment such that implementing either would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation and would yield predictable results.
Instant Application 18/244,847
Conflicting US Patent No. 11439325
21. (New) A gait measurement system, comprising:
a first insole module for placement in one or more shoes of a user, said first insole module including a first piezoresistive sensor, a first inertial sensor, a first logic unit communicatively coupled to said first piezoresistive sensor and to said first inertial sensor, and a first transmission unit, wherein said first piezoresistive sensor includes a first plurality of pressure-sensing cells;
a second insole module for placement in the one or more shoes of the user, said second insole module including a second piezoresistive sensor, a second inertial sensor, a second logic unit communicatively coupled to said second piezoresistive sensor and to said second inertial sensor, and a second transmission unit, wherein said second piezoresistive sensor includes a second plurality of pressure-sensing cells; and
a computing unit communicatively coupled to said first inertial sensor and to said first piezoresistive sensor via said first transmission unit and communicatively coupled to said second inertial sensor and second piezoresistive sensor via said second transmission unit, such that (i) a corresponding calibration model is obtained for each pressure-sensing cell of said first plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said second plurality of pressure-sensing cells, respectively, based on model data obtained from said first plurality of pressure-sensing cells and said second plurality of pressure-sensing cells, (ii) other calibration models are obtained for said first inertial sensor and said second inertial sensor based on respective model data obtained from said first inertial sensor and said second inertial sensor, and (iii) cross-validation is applied to said model data obtained from said first plurality of pressure- sensing cells and said second plurality of pressure-sensing cells and to said model data obtained from said first inertial sensor and said second inertial sensor, whereby said gait measurement system measures gait parameters selected from the group consisting of stride length, foot-ground clearance, foot trajectory, cadence, double support time, single support time, walking speed, center of pressure, and margin of stability.
1. A method for calibrating a gait measurement system, comprising the steps of:
i) providing an instrumented insole having a plurality of pressure-sensing cells;
ii) exerting a fixed, uniform pressure on said instrumented insole;
iii) recording a respective output for each of said pressure-sensing cells in response to pressure exerted on said instrumented insole during the performance of step (ii);
iv) applying a plurality of fitting functions to said respective output of each of said pressure-sensing cells, thereby obtaining a plurality of respective model data; and
v) applying cross validation to said plurality of respective model data to obtain a calibration model for each of said pressure-sensing cells.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one pressure-sensing cell of said plurality of pressure-sensing cells comprises a piezoresistive sensor.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of providing said instrumented insole with an inertial sensor.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of providing said instrumented insole with a logic unit configured to sample data at 500 Hertz.
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of measuring one or more gait parameters selected from the group consisting of stride length, foot-ground clearance, foot trajectory, cadence, double support time, single support time, walking speed, center of pressure, and margin of stability
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights