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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20306678.2, filed on 12/23/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objection to Specification
The use of the term FlexiForce™ Sensors, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 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: in Claims 16 and 24, “ data processing unit”, in Claim 21, “a computing unit”, are interpreted to not be restricted to hardware capable of executing software, and refers in a general way to a processing device, which can for example include a microprocessor, an integrated circuit, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or a programmable logic device, see instant [0048].
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 § 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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Specifically, Claim 16 recites:
“A footwear comprising:
an inertial measurement unit (IMU);
a pressure sensor (PS);
and a data processing unit obtaining and estimating gait data based on measurements of the IMU and the PS, the data processing unit being configured to estimate the gait data by applying a particle filter;
wherein the inputs of the update step of the particle filter comprise the current IMU velocity determined during a stance;
and wherein the current IMU velocity is estimated with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance”.
Claim 24 recites:
“A method of processing gait data in a footwear implemented by a data processing unit configured to process the gait data with a particle filter recursively repeating a prediction step and an update step, the method comprising:
obtaining pressure data from a pressure sensor PS and determining the position of center of pressure O during a stance;
obtaining the angular velocity of an inertial measurement unit IMU bonded to the footwear;
estimating current IMU velocity with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance;
and introducing the current IMU velocity in the particle filter as a first input during the following update step”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category namely, a “machine” or “process”.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics and/or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “data processing unit, a computing unit, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a pressure sensor (PS)” are considered necessary data gathering using generic devices and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 17-23 and 25-30, further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 16, 19-24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (US 20170055880), hereinafter ‘Agrawal’ in view of Statham et al. (US 20200078638), hereinafter ‘Statham’.
Regarding Claim 16, Agrawal discloses footwear comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (e.g., Each footwear module may comprise one or more inertial sensors (i.e., footwear comprising an inertial measuring unit) [0008]),
a pressure sensor (PS) (e.g., Each footwear module may comprise one or more pressure sensors [0008]),
a data processing unit obtaining and estimating gait data based on measurements of the IMU and the PS (e.g., A processing unit, also worn by the subject, processes data from the sensors and generates feedback via the footwear units in response to these input data (i.e., a data processing unit obtaining gait data based on measurements of the IMU and the PS) [0004]; sending the pressure and/or kinematic data to a computer processor (i.e., a data processing unit obtaining gait data based on measurements of the IMU and the PS) [0007]; processing module may receive the sensor data and determine one or more gait parameters responsively thereto (i.e., a data processing unit obtaining gait data based on measurements) [0038]; Sensors may permit the extraction of gait kinematics. Employing calibration-based estimation of kinematic gait parameters (i.e., obtaining and estimating gait data based on measurements) [Abstract]),
the data processing unit being configured to estimate the gait data by applying a particle filter (e.g., processing module may receive the sensor data and determine one or more gait parameters (i.e., the data processing unit being configured to estimate the gait data) [0038]; IMU sensor(s) allow estimation of the orientation and of the position of the foot in real time, which may be utilized for on-line and off-line gait analysis (i.e., to estimate the gait data) [0048]; The gait analysis and training system illustrated in FIG. 10A is capable of estimating temporal and spatial gait parameter (i.e., to estimate the gait data) [0064]; the inertial measurement units provides orientation estimation relative to a reference frame based on an on-board extended Kalman filter (EKF) algorithm that weights the contributions of the accelerometer and magnetometer based on the current dynamics experienced by the inertial measurement units (i.e., to estimate the gait data by applying a particle filter) [0065]),
wherein the inputs of the update step of the particle filter comprise the current IMU velocity determined during a stance (e.g., the inertial measurement units provides orientation estimation relative to a reference frame based on an on-board extended Kalman filter (EKF) algorithm that weights the contributions of the accelerometer based on the current dynamics experienced by the inertial measurement units. FIGS. 15 and 16, which relate to data capture, reduction, and calibration for subject-specific and generic training, respectively, at startup, a subject stands stationary (i.e., the inputs of the update step of the particle filter during a stance) [0065]; The foot IMU returns the components of the acceleration vector a in the reference frame {F0}. A threshold-based algorithm detects the FF period as the fraction of the stance phase (i.e., during a stance). First, the foot velocity in the i-th stride vi is obtained by integration of a, with the medians of the i-th and (i+1)-th FF periods defining the i-th interval of integration (i.e., the inputs of the update step of the particle filter comprise the current IMU velocity determined during a stance) [0067]).
Agrawal does not explicitly disclose wherein the current IMU velocity is estimated with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance.
Statham discloses the current IMU velocity is estimated with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance (e.g., the system may use measured values for a particular aspect or particular properties of the motion of the user in performing the action, for example the force or pressure exerted upon, or the linear or rotational velocity (i.e., velocity is estimated) or acceleration of a body part to which a sensor is attached, to calculate forces or loads exerted upon parts of the body that may be different from those which are directly monitored by the sensors [0018]; using inertial measurement units, to measure or monitor the linear and/or angular velocity (i.e., the current IMU velocity is estimated with the angular velocity of the IMU) and/or acceleration of a part of the body, such as the foot [0023]; an IMU may be provided for one or both feet of a user performing an action so as to enable the velocity of the feet of the user to be measured, for example during the strike phase and/or the stance phase of a gait cycle (i.e., during a stance) [0024]; The center of pressure (COP) is calculated from the known positions of the pressure sensors in the insole and the model assumes all pressure to act through this calculated point (i.e., around the center of pressure O). The angle of the foot is inferred from the pressure and position of the COP relative to the rest of the foot during the stance phase by using the correlation of angle (measured by a motion analysis system) with pressure and COP propagation (i.e., and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance) [0090]; see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal with Statham for the current IMU velocity is estimated with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance as this would give the advantage to use monitored motion data that contains an indication or measure of the motion of a part or parts of the body of a user performing an action to infer or estimate the forces to which the body of the user is subjected while they are performing that action, and how those forces are distributed throughout the body, and in particular the musculoskeletal system, (see Statham, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 19, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Agrawal further discloses wherein the pressure sensor PS comprises a plurality of pressure cells (e.g., The sole portion may have a plurality of piezo-resistive pressure sensors. Each piezo-resistive sensor may be configured to generate a sensor signal responsively to pressure applied to the sole portion [0005]; As illustrated in FIGS. 2B-2C, sensing devices in the sole portion of the footwear unit may be grouped together at various regions 270-276 along the bottom of the foot. Each region may include at least one pressure sensor (i.e., the pressure sensor PS comprises a plurality of pressure cells) [0041]).
Regarding Claim 20, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Agrawal further discloses wherein the plurality of pressure cells is comprised in an insole (e.g., The sole portion may have a plurality of piezo-resistive pressure sensors. Each piezo-resistive sensor may be configured to generate a sensor signal responsively to pressure applied to the sole portion (i.e., the plurality of pressure cells is comprised in an insole) [0005]).
Regarding Claim 21, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Agrawal does not explicitly disclose wherein the footwear further comprises a computing unit configured to determine the position of the center of pressure O based on the measurements of the plurality of pressure cells.
Statham discloses the footwear further comprises a computing unit configured to determine the position of the center of pressure O based on the measurements of the plurality of pressure cells (e.g., executed by a computer configures the computer to: obtain a target biomechanical load distribution for the user, monitor, using data from a sensor arrangement [0077]; see Fig. 2 (i.e., the footwear further comprises a computing unit); The ground reaction force Ry3 is measured via the spatially distributed pressure sensors embedded in the insole. The center of pressure (COP) is calculated from the known positions of the pressure sensors (i.e., computing unit configured to determine the position of the center of pressure O based on the measurements of the plurality of pressure cells) in the insole and the model assumes all pressure to act through this calculated point [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal with Statham for the footwear further comprises a computing unit configured to determine the position of the center of pressure O based on the measurements of the plurality of pressure cells as this would give the advantage to use monitored motion data that contains an indication or measure of the motion of a part or parts of the body of a user performing an action to infer or estimate the forces to which the body of the user is subjected while they are performing that action, and how those forces are distributed throughout the body, and in particular the musculoskeletal system, (see Statham, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 22, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Agrawal further discloses wherein the IMU comprises at least one accelerometer and/or at least one gyroscope (e.g., Although only a single IMU is illustrated in FIGS. 3A-3D, multiple IMUs are also possible [0044]; Each of the inertial measurement units provides orientation estimation relative to a reference frame that weights the contributions of the accelerometer (i.e., the IMU comprises at least one accelerometer) based on the current dynamics experienced by the inertial measurement units [0065]).
Regarding Claim 23, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Agrawal further discloses wherein the particle filter is a Kalman filter (e.g., Each of the inertial measurement units provides orientation estimation relative to a reference frame based on an on-board extended Kalman filter (EKF) (i.e., the particle filter is a Kalman filter) algorithm [0065]).
Regarding Claim 24,
Agrawal discloses a method of processing gait data in a footwear implemented by a data processing unit configured to process the gait data with a particle filter recursively repeating a prediction step and an update step, the method comprising: (e.g., methods, and devices for gait training and/or analysis. An autonomous system is worn by a subject, thereby allowing for analysis of the subject's gait and offering sensory feedback to the subject in real-time. One or more footwear (i.e., a method of processing gait data in a footwear) units or modules are worn by a subject. Sensors coupled to or embedded within the footwear unit measure. A processing unit, also worn by the subject, processes data from the sensors (i.e., implemented by a data processing unit configured to process the gait data) [0004]; Each of the inertial measurement units provides orientation estimation (i.e., prediction step) relative to a reference frame based on an on-board extended Kalman filter (EKF) (i.e., with a particle filter recursively repeating a prediction step and an update step) algorithm that weights the contributions of the accelerometer and magnetometer based on the current dynamics experienced by the inertial measurement units. Data capture, reduction, and calibration (i.e., update step) for subject-specific and generic training. The mean acceleration values measured in the startup interval define the direction of the gravity vector g relative to the local IMU frames [0065]; see Fig. 17 (i.e., recursively repeating a prediction step and an update step); These steps are repeated for each member of a set of subjects with varied anthropometric characteristics and a model is generated to estimate gait characteristics from the captured gait kinematics (i.e., a particle filter recursively repeating a prediction step and an update step), the measured anthropometric characteristics of the set of subjects, and the samples resulting from all of the sampling obtained for all the subjects in the set whereby the model predicts parameters representing gait characteristics responsively to both samples from sensor signals and the anthropometric characteristics [0161]),
and introducing the current IMU velocity in the particle filter as a first input during the following update step (e.g., The foot IMU returns the components of the acceleration vector a in the reference frame. First, the foot velocity in the i-th stride vi is obtained by integration of a (i.e., introducing the current IMU velocity in the particle filter) [0067]; see Fig. 17, S25 (i.e., as a first input during the following update step).
Agrawal does not explicitly disclose obtaining pressure data from a pressure sensor PS and determining the position of center of pressure O during a stance, obtaining the angular velocity of an inertial measurement unit IMU bonded to the footwear, and estimating current IMU velocity with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance.
Statham discloses obtaining pressure data from a pressure sensor PS and determining the position of center of pressure O during a stance (e.g., the ground reaction force Ry3 is measured via the spatially distributed pressure sensors embedded in the insole. The center of pressure (COP) is calculated from the known positions of the pressure sensors in the insole and the model assumes all pressure to act through this calculated point. The total force acting through the COP can be derived from the foot pressure sensor measurements. The angle of the foot is inferred from the pressure and position of the COP relative to the rest of the foot during the stance phase (i.e., during a stance) by using the correlation of angle with pressure and COP propagation [0090]),
obtaining the angular velocity of an inertial measurement unit IMU bonded to the footwear (e.g., the sensor arrangement is configured, using inertial measurement units, to measure or monitor the linear and/or angular velocity. An inertial measurement unit (IMU) is included in the sensor arrangement and is attachable to the footwear of a user. An IMU may be configured to be in electronic communication with the other parts of the system and may be provided as an integral part of an inner sole or sole insert for user footwear [0023]),
estimating current IMU velocity with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance (e.g., the system may use measured values for a particular aspect or particular properties of the motion of the user in performing the action, for example the force or pressure exerted upon, or the linear or rotational velocity (i.e., velocity is estimated) or acceleration of a body part to which a sensor is attached, to calculate forces or loads exerted upon parts of the body that may be different from those which are directly monitored by the sensors [0018]; using inertial measurement units, to measure or monitor the linear and/or angular velocity (i.e., the current IMU velocity is estimated with the angular velocity of the IMU) and/or acceleration of a part of the body, such as the foot [0023]; an IMU may be provided for one or both feet of a user performing an action so as to enable the velocity of the feet of the user to be measured, for example during the strike phase and/or the stance phase of a gait cycle (i.e., during a stance) [0024]; The center of pressure (COP) is calculated from the known positions of the pressure sensors in the insole and the model assumes all pressure to act through this calculated point (i.e., around the center of pressure O). The angle of the foot is inferred from the pressure and position of the COP relative to the rest of the foot during the stance phase by using the correlation of angle (measured by a motion analysis system) with pressure and COP propagation (i.e., and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance) [0090]; see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal with Statham for obtaining pressure data from a pressure sensor PS and determining the position of center of pressure O during a stance, obtaining the angular velocity of an inertial measurement unit IMU bonded to the footwear, and estimating current IMU velocity with the angular velocity of the IMU around the center of pressure O and the distance between the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance as this would give the advantage to use monitored motion data that contains an indication or measure of the motion of a part or parts of the body of a user performing an action to infer or estimate the forces to which the body of the user is subjected while they are performing that action, and how those forces are distributed throughout the body, and in particular the musculoskeletal system, (see Statham, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 27, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 24.
Agrwal further discloses wherein the steps of the method are repeated during a stance (e.g., During walking, these signals peak in sequence as the center of pressure in the foot moves from the heel to the toe, thus allowing identification of the sub-phases of stance [0044]; These steps are repeated for each member of a set of subjects with varied anthropometric characteristics and a model is generated to estimate gait characteristics from the captured gait kinematics, the measured anthropometric characteristics of the set of subjects, and the samples resulting from all of the sampling obtained for all the subjects in the set whereby the model predicts parameters representing gait characteristics responsively to both samples from sensor signals and the anthropometric characteristics [0161]).
Statham additionally discloses the steps of the method are repeated during a stance (e.g., an IMU may be provided for one or both feet of a user performing an action so as to enable the velocity of the feet of the user to be measured, for example during the strike phase and/or the stance phase of a gait cycle, which can be used to calculate the impulse or force exerted upon the feet of the user during the gait cycle (i.e., during a stance) [0024]; the monitored motion data for each of the monitored feet comprises an indication of the velocity or orientation of the foot during the stance phase of the gait cycle. Although data may likewise be collected during other phases of the gait cycle, it may be most advantageous to monitor the motion of the feet of the user during the stance phase (i.e., during a stance) [0061]; During the stance phase in stable state running, a person is supporting the body on one foot with spatially distributed pressure sensors embedded in an insole under the supporting foot [0090]; the system then instructs the user to conduct a run and attempt to change the first aspect of their running style to influence one or more parameters towards a goal value that may be automatically adjusted to account for terrain, ambient and environmental conditions. If the user fails to achieve an incremental goal, the system invites them to repeat the attempt in another running interval (i.e., the steps of the method are repeated during a stance) [120]).
Regarding Claim 28, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 27.
Agrawal further discloses wherein the steps of the method are repeated at a repetition frequency corresponding to at least one of: the sampling frequency of PS (e.g., the processing module is configured to sample data at a rate of at least 500 Hz (i.e., a repetition frequency) [0097]; the wearable processing module is configured to sample data at a rate of at least 500 Hz (i.e., at a repetition frequency) [0137]; the capturing, inertial signals are sampled indicating orientation and displacement motion of a gait of a subject from a N-degree of freedom inertial measurement unit (IMU), force signals are sample from force sensors (FRS) located at multiple points on soles of the two sensor footwear unit. These steps are repeated (i.e., the steps of the method are repeated at a repetition frequency corresponding to at least one of: the sampling frequency of PS) for each member of a set of subjects with varied anthropometric characteristics and a model is generated to estimate gait characteristics from the captured gait kinematics, the measured anthropometric characteristics of the set of subjects, and the samples resulting from all of the sampling obtained for all the subjects in the set [0161]).
Agrawal does not explicitly disclose at a repetition frequency corresponding to at least one of: the sampling frequency of the angular velocity of IMU.
Statham discloses at a repetition frequency corresponding to at least one of: the sampling frequency of the angular velocity of IMU (e.g., using inertial measurement units, to measure or monitor the linear and/or angular velocity [0023]; an IMU may be provided for one or both feet of a user performing an action so as to enable the velocity of the feet of the user to be measured, for example during the strike phase and/or the stance phase of a gait cycle (i.e., at a repetition frequency corresponding to at least one of: the sampling frequency of the angular velocity of IMU) [0024]; for actions related to running or walking, or any form of locomotion, to monitor the motion of the feet of the user in particular. Therefore, in preferred embodiments, the one or more monitored parts of the body include one or both of the feet of a user, and the monitored motion data for each of the monitored feet comprises an indication of the velocity or orientation of the foot during the stance phase of the gait cycle (i.e., at a repetition frequency corresponding to at least one of: the sampling frequency of the angular velocity of IMU) [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal with Statham for at a repetition frequency corresponding to at least one of: the sampling frequency of the angular velocity of IMU as this would give the advantage to base the motion adjustment instruction upon an adjustment that has been calculated so as to correct one or more values representing the forces comprised by the monitored biomechanical load distribution, (see Statham, [0029]).
Regarding Claim 29, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 24.
Agrawal further discloses wherein the particle filter is a Kalman filter (e.g., Each of the inertial measurement units provides orientation estimation relative to a reference (frame based on an on-board extended Kalman filter (EKF) (i.e., the particle filter is a Kalman filter) algorithm [0065]).
Regarding Claim 30, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 24.
Agrawal further discloses a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method (e.g., the disclosed modules, processes, or systems associated with control or use of the disclosed devices may be implemented in hardware, hardware programmed by software, software instruction stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a computer program product comprising instructions). Any of the methods or processes disclosed herein can be implemented, for example, using a processor configured to execute a sequence of programmed instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which processor and/or computer readable medium may be part of a system configured to control or use the gait training/analysis system (i.e., when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method) [0177])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal in view of Statham and further in view of Couvet (US 20200318972), hereinafter ‘Couvet’ .
Regarding Claim 17, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Agrawal and Statham do not explicitly disclose wherein the inputs of the update step of the particle filter are asynchronous with a predetermined gait stage.
Couvet discloses the inputs of the update step of the particle filter are asynchronous with a predetermined gait stage (e.g., the circuit of the invention combines accurate local and asynchronous measurements (i.e., are asynchronous with a predetermined gait stage) from a magnetic measurement sensor with synchronous measurements derived over time supplied by an inertial sensor, so as to be able to extrapolate the position and the attitude of a linked reference frame [0051]; The circuit (IMU) generates raw data that are sent to the calculation circuit, which performs, in real time on the basis of the data received from the six sensors, the calculations for filtering (i.e., the inputs of the update step of the particle filter) [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal and Statham with Couvet for the inputs of the update step of the particle filter are asynchronous with a predetermined gait stage as this would give the advantage to extrapolate the position and the attitude of a linked reference frame due either to a height-based movement, to jumps, large strides or even dance movements, (see Couvet, [0051]).
Claims 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal and Statham in view of Zhao et al. (US 20220299321), hereinafter ‘Zhao’ and further in view of Vidal et al. (US 20220338759), hereinafter ‘Vidal’.
Regarding Claim 18, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Agrawal and Statham do not explicitly disclose wherein the current IMU velocity is estimated by equation (2)
v
→
=
R
(
w
→
Λ
r
→
)
in which
w
→
the angular velocity of the IMU,
r
→
is the vector joining the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance,
Λ
stands for cross product and R is the rotation matrix between the fixed reference frame and the IMU rotational frame.
Zhao discloses current IMU velocity is estimated, the angular velocity of the IMU, cross product, the rotation matrix between the fixed reference frame and the IMU rotational frame (e.g., Ivi The velocity at the location of IMU in the IMU frame (i.e., current IMU velocity) [0040]; the angular velocity ω(k) (i.e., the angular velocity of the IMU), and the angular position RI
⟶
U (k) of the IMU, which is also the angular position of the system, e.g., the angular position of the system/IMU frame relative to the user frame (e.g., a fixed frame) (i.e., the rotation matrix between the fixed reference frame and the IMU rotational frame) [0045]; system may use velocity as the measurements for calibration:
Uvo = Uvi + U
ω
x Ur
Where Uvo and Uvi are the velocity at the location o and i, respectively, in the user frame Ur is the displacement from the location i to o in the user frame. U
ω
is the angular velocity of the rigid body in the user frame. “×” stands for vector cross multiplication (i.e., cross product) [0055]; Further, the corresponding rigid body equations in the body/IMU frame are:
Ivo = Ivi +
ω
x Ir [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal and Statham with Zhao for current IMU velocity is estimated, the angular velocity of the IMU, cross product, the rotation matrix between the fixed reference frame and the IMU rotational frame as this would give the advantage for the velocity measured or derived from sensors differing from the measured or derived IMU measurements may be circumvented or filtered out to obtain a reliable calibration matrix, (see Zhao, [0079]).
Agrawal, Statham, and Zhao do not explicitly disclose
r
→
is the vector joining the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance.
Vidal discloses
r
→
is the vector joining the center of pressure O during a stance (e.g., Where
r
P
→
is the vector joining the center of pressure (i.e.,
r
→
is the vector joining the center of pressure) to the center of mass at toe-off,
r
Λ
→
the vector joining the center of pressure (i.e.,
r
→
is the vector joining the center of pressure) to the tibio-talus articulation center [0124]; the mean of minimums of the medio-lateral angular speed between late stance phase and pre-swing phase (i.e., during a stance) [0125]; Velocity (V) was computed as the mean of way-in and way-out velocity [0166]; joint angular velocity can be derived using IMUs [0167]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal, Statham and Zhao with Vidal for
r
→
is the vector joining the IMU and the center of pressure O during a stance as this would give the advantage to assess gait quality within the time constraint and without the need for dedicated space, (see Vidal, [0148]).
Regarding Claim 26, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 24 and Agrawal, Statham, Zhao and Vidal disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 18.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal and Statham in view of Zihajehzadeh et al (US 20170307376), hereinafter ‘Zihajehzadeh’.
Regarding Claim 25, Agrawal and Statham disclose the limitations as discussed above in Claim 24.
Agrawal further discloses receiving and introducing prior measurement and gait data in the particle filter, so as to obtain a predicted IMU velocity (e.g., Each of the inertial measurement units provides orientation estimation relative to a reference frame based on an on-board extended Kalman filter (EKF) algorithm that weights the contributions of the accelerometer and magnetometer based on the current dynamics experienced by the inertial measurement units (i.e., receiving and introducing prior measurement and gait data in the particle filter) [0065]; The foot IMU returns the components of the acceleration vector a in the reference frame {F0}. First, the foot velocity in the i-th stride vi is obtained by integration of a. The constant of integration v0i is set to zero (ZUPT technique) and the raw velocity estimate is corrected (i.e., so as to estimate an updated IMU velocity) [0067]).
Agrawal and Statham do not explicitly disclose during the preceding prediction step, and introducing the predicted IMU velocity in the particle filter as a second input during the following update step, so as to estimate an updated IMU velocity.
Zihajehzadeh discloses during the preceding prediction step (e.g., estimating at 204 further includes recursively predicting and correcting in a Kalman filter [0068]; Predicting includes predicting (i.e., during the preceding prediction step) a vertical position (altitude) and a vertical velocity (i.e., so as to obtain a predicted IMU velocity) based on the strapdown integration using acceleration of the IMU-baro and the prior vertical position and vertical velocity [0069]),
introducing the predicted IMU velocity in the particle filter as a second input during the following update step, so as to estimate an updated IMU velocity (e.g., The system 100 may be used in conjunction with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) providing the accelerometer and the gyroscope, and also having a barometric altimeter integrated therewith [0014]; velocity determination system 100 further includes a cascaded two-step Kalman filter (KF) system including an orientation KF 110 and vertical position/velocity KF 120. The output of the first step (i.e., introducing the predicted IMU velocity in the particle filter) is provided as an input to the second step (i.e., as a second input during the following update step, so as to estimate an updated IMU velocity) [0015]; according to the second Kalman filter operation, vertical position/velocity of the IMU-baro based on the acceleration measurement, the barometric pressure measurement, and the roll and pitch estimate (i.e., as a second input during the following update step, so as to estimate an updated IMU velocity). In an embodiment, estimating at 204 further includes recursively predicting and correcting in a Kalman filter [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal and Statham with Zihajehzadeh for during the preceding prediction step, and introducing the predicted IMU velocity in the particle filt