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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 3rd, 2026 has been entered.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on August 3rd, 2026, amended claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, 15-16, and new claims 33-34 are entered. Claims 3 and 17-32 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed on August 3rd, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained, and further clarified, in view of the amendment.
At Pg. 7 of the Reply, Applicant argues that the “claim limitations cannot be categorized as a ‘mental process’…calculating dynamic relative quaternions and performing continuous gravity and magnetic misalignment corrections across multiple physical sensors in real-time cannot realistically be done mentally or on paper”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed steps of calculating and correcting can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. The multiple physical sensors serve as data-gathering elements and are separate from the abstract idea.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for calculation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes performed on a computer control system. The “Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’ Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Thus, the computing system in the system claim does not prevent identification of the abstract idea as a mental process. The computer is merely utilized as a tool to perform the mental steps.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments regarding “real-time”, the Examiner would like to clarify that everything occurs in “real-time”, as there is no other standard of time that is being referred to. It appears that the Applicant may be equating “real-time” to “high-speed”, but those two terms are not equivalent to each another.
Further at Pg. 7 of the Reply, Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to “explicitly recite[s] a specific physical layout of sensors on the human body”, which makes amended claim 1 analogous to Thales Visionx, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Thales Visionx, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017), the court found that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea but instead specified a “particular configuration” of inertial sensors and a method of using sensor data to accurately calculate position and orientation on a moving platform.
However, Claim 1 of the instant application has no limitations regarding any “particular configuration” of one or more sensors, which were emphasized in Thales Visionx, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rather, the current claim has been amended to recite “one of a plurality of mounting devices configured for specific placement on a subject’s upper arms, forearms, and back”. The Examiner notes wherein the limitation “configured for specific placement on a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back” is a recitation of the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. The plurality of inertial sensor modules and mounting devices serve as data-gathering elements rather than a “particular configuration” of inertial sensors used to calculate position and orientation on a moving platform. In Thales, the mathematical equations involved were a consequence of the sensor arrangement and reference frame choice. The claims protected the application of physics to an unconventional sensor configuration, which constituted a patent-eligible invention. However, the current claims lack the specificity of those in Thales Visionx, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017); and thus, they cannot be considered analogous to one another.
Lastly at Pg. 7 of the Reply, Applicant argues that claim 1 “recites a technical solution to a technical problem”, as the “corrections transforms the raw data into an accurate interactive exergame control system, providing a clear technical improvement”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to clarify that the claim has been analyzed as a whole, and that the additional elements have been considered, both individually and in combination. However, the additional elements do not provide significantly more.
Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Furthermore, the Examiner would like to point out that the Applicant seems to be misinterpreting the usage of “transformation” by the MPEP. The transformation of an article means that the “article”, which is a physical object or substance, has changed to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claim limitations fail to recite any sort of transformation.
When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 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 “calculate in real-time relative quaternion positions and orientations between the plurality of inertial sensor modules, correct for gravity based misalignment and magnetic field based misalignment, and a plurality of real-time joint angles” in lines 9-12. It is unclear as to whether there is a verb missing prior to the limitation “a plurality of real-time joint angles”, as the previous limitations have the verbs “calculate” and “correct”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “an exergame user interface” in lines 13-14. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is one of the “plurality of user interfaces for rehabilitative exergames” previously introduced in lines 7-8 of Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 4 recites “a subject’s left forearm” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back” previously introduced in lines 4-5 of Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 5 recites “a subject’s left upper arm” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back” previously introduced in lines 4-5 of Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 6 recites “a subject’s right forearm” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back” previously introduced in lines 4-5 of Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 7 recites “a subject’s right upper arm” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back” previously introduced in lines 4-5 of Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 8 recites “a subject’s back” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back” previously introduced in lines 4-5 of Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the subject’s upper extremity (UE) joints" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the neutral pose" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is a patient user interface with exergames to perform range of motion exercises” in lines 1-2. It is unclear as to whether this is referring to the previously introduced “exergame user interface” from lines 13-14 of Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 33 contains the trademark/trade name “Velcro”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a specific type of fastener and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 recite a wearable inertial sensor system. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 recites at least one step or instruction for detecting upper extremity movement, which is grouped as a mental process. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “calculat[ing] in real-time relative quaternion positions and orientations between the plurality of inertial sensor modules, correct for gravity based misalignment and magnetic field based misalignment, and a plurality of real-time joint angles based on the calculated relative quaternion positions and orientations of the plurality of inertial sensor modules”.
Further, dependent Claims 2, 4-16, and 33-34 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and its dependent Claims 2, 4-16, and 33-34) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: “plurality of inertial sensor modules (comprising an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer)”, “plurality of mounting devices (a snap fit slide mechanism fastened to a Velcro strap)”, “computing system”, “plurality of user interfaces”, “calibration device”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “processor” as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field and/or serve as data-gathering/data-outputting elements. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “computing system” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “plurality of inertial sensor modules (comprising an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer)”, “plurality of mounting devices (a snap fit slide mechanism fastened to a Velcro strap)”, “computing system”, “plurality of user interfaces”, “calibration device”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “processor” as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks and/or serve as data-gathering/data-outputting elements. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
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 the Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraphs [0117-0137]) which discloses that the “computing system” and “processor” comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. connecting and calculating) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; the Applicant’s Background in the specification; and the non-patent literature and cited prior art of record.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “computing system” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “computing system”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 33-34 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0332004; cited by Applicant; previously cited) in view of Cotton et al (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0401224) and Sundaram et al (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0237291; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Najafi discloses a wearable inertial sensor system to detect upper extremity movement (a combination of wearable sensors, a test protocol, and a movement quality assessment method…the systems and methods may take advantage of measurements at the extremities, e.g., upper extremities; [0010-0011]), comprising:
a plurality of inertial sensor modules (The movement sensors themselves may be inertial sensors including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and the like…the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities (e.g., by differentiation). Similarly, the movement sensor(s) may be accelerometers; [0035-0036]) each connected to one of a plurality of mounting devices configured for specific placement on a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back (a sensor system 10 may include a set of one or more movement sensors, including a movement sensor 12 attached to an upper arm and a movement sensor 14 attached to a forearm, e.g. with bands; [0034]; The Examiner notes wherein the limitation “configured for specific placement on a subject’s upper arms, forearms and back” is a recitation of the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations); and
a computing system (the frailty sensor system 300 includes a computer system 302; [0087]; Figure 9) wirelessly and communicatively connected to the plurality of inertial sensor modules (The communication interface 367 can include a wireless transceiver or transmitter for delivering information to the computer system 302 over the communication link 361...In some cases, the sensor system 365 and the computer system 302 communicate over a wired link instead of a wireless link; [0094]), further configured to provide a plurality of user interfaces (In other embodiments, the computer system 300 may be controlled by a proprietary operating system... provide a user interface, such as a graphical user interface ("GUI")…the I/O devices and interfaces 368 provide a communication interface to various external devices; [0096-0100]);
wherein the wearable inertial sensor system (The movement sensors themselves may be inertial sensors including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and the like…the sensor system 10 may generally constitute a sensing module (SM), which may be attached to the user's body for measuring body movements; [0035-0036]) is configured to calculate a plurality of real-time (the user can receive near instantaneous feedback of body segment movement; [0100]) joint angles (For example, the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities; [0035]) based on the calculated relative positions and orientations of the plurality of inertial sensor modules (wherein the first variable comprises at least one of a position of the limb, a joint angle associated with the limb, an angular velocity associated with movement of the limb, or an acceleration associated with movement of the limb; [0115]), and to display the plurality of real-time joint angles via an interface to facilitate rehabilitation and therapeutics (In other embodiments, the computer system 300 may be controlled by a proprietary operating system...provide a user interface, such as a graphical user interface ("GUI"); [0096]; The Examiner notes wherein the limitation “to facilitate rehabilitation and therapeutics” is a recitation of the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations).
Najafi fails to specifically disclose calculating in real-time relative quaternion positions and orientations between the plurality of inertial sensor modules, correcting for gravity based misalignment and magnetic field based misalignment, and calculating a plurality of real-time joint angles based on the calculated relative quaternion positions and orientations of the plurality of inertial sensor modules.
In a similar technical field, Cotton teaches a wearable joint tracking device with muscle activity and methods thereof (Abstract), comprising calculating in real-time relative quaternion positions and orientations between the plurality of inertial sensor modules (Joint Angle Estimation…each sensor 102 produces a quaternion pose estimate and visualizing these directly is not an intuitive way to understand their relative orientations. Calculating the relative rotation between two quaternions, however, is fairly straightforward; [0058-0065]), correcting for gravity based misalignment and magnetic field based misalignment ([0049-0057]), and calculating a plurality of real-time joint angles based on the calculated relative quaternion positions and orientations of the plurality of inertial sensor modules (this allows extracting and visualizing the joint angle(s) in real-time from multiple sensors 102; [0058-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the gravity and magnetic field misalignment teachings of Cotton into the teachings of Najafi in order to obtain improved slow frequency response by correcting for gyroscope drift (Cotton [0050]).
Furthermore, although Najafi discloses multiple purposes for the disclosed systems and methods (Systems and methods in certain implementations provide significant advantages, including providing a sensitive and specific measure of frailty...Further, the systems and methods may also be advantageous for quick and easy analysis of frailty in the home or outpatient clinical setting: [0011]; Other potential applications of the present principles could be tracking recovery of patients; [0016]; In one exemplary configuration, at least one gyroscope is configured to measure speed of rotation of a body segment during a pre-defined flexion-extension activity; [0036]; The systems and methods allow early identification of pre-frailty, e.g., for intervention with structured exercise, which has been demonstrated to slow or even reverse the progression of frailty. The systems and methods may be particularly useful for older adults in emergency, trauma or surgical settings who are unable to perform gait-based assessments, and may also be used as an outpatient tool for routine frailty assessment by low-cost paraprofessionals in a busy outpatient environment, where gait-based assessment is impractical; [0083]), Najafi fails to specifically disclose wherein the user interfaces are for rehabilitative exergames and displaying the plurality of real-time joint angles via an exergame user interface.
In a similar technical field, Cotton teaches a wearable joint tracking device with muscle activity and methods thereof (Abstract), wherein the user interfaces are for rehabilitative exergames and displaying the plurality of real-time joint angles via an exergame user interface (the wearable sensor system 100 can be incorporated into therapeutic games or therapy applications that provide biofeedback for building muscle strength and accuracy. Wearable sensors are emerging as a powerful rehabilitation tool that allows muscle activity and movement to be monitored and guided in real time, which makes them particularly suited to translating therapies more broadly into clinical practice. Therapeutic games, sometimes called serious games, are also becoming more common in rehabilitation and have shown promise as a home-based intervention to improve arm function after stroke or SCI; [0102-0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the rehabilitative game teachings of Cotton into the invention of Najafi in order to create engaging and intrinsically motivating therapies that build on ABTs to dramatically increase both the availability of therapy and the dosing that can be provided (Cotton [0102]).
Najafi and Cotton fail to specifically teach wherein the plurality of inertial sensor modules are each removably connected to one of a plurality of mounting devices.
In a similar technical field, Sundaram teaches devices, systems, and methods for adaptive health monitoring using behavioral, psychological, and physiological changes of a body portion (Abstract), comprising a plurality of inertial sensor modules (sensor module 320) are each removably connected to one of a plurality of mounting devices (stretchable component 310) configured for specific placement on a subject’s upper arms, forearms, and back (The sensor system 300 of various embodiments includes a stretchable component 310 configured to adhere to or fit securely around the body portion, and a sensor module 320 coupled thereto. In some embodiments, at least a portion of the sensor module 320 is removable from the stretchable or adhesive component 310. For example, the stretchable or adhesive component 310 may be formed of a machine-washable fabric, and at least a portion of the sensor module 320 may be housed within a protective casing that is detachable from the stretchable or adhesive component 310; [0123]; the sensor system 300 is removable and configured for repeated reattachment. In order to achieve consistent, reliable, and accurate results, it is desirable for the various sensors to be located at the same locations with each reattachment. To facilitate proper positioning of the sensors, in some embodiments, the sensor system 300 is integrated into clothing, footwear, a band, or a brace. For example, one or more stretchable components 310 and sensor modules 320 may be integrated into a shirt (FIG. 4C), sports bra, shorts, leggings or pants (FIG. 4D), underwear, compression socks or other socks (FIG. 4E), partial socks or sleeves (FIG. 4F), knee brace (FIG. 4G), ankle brace (FIG. 4H), or any other suitable garment; [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the removable sensor teachings of Sundaram into those of Najafi and Cotton in order to enable the sensor system to be removable and configured for repeated reattachment. In order to achieve consistent, reliable, and accurate results, it is desirable for the various sensors to be located at the same locations with each reattachment (Sundaram [0133]).
Regarding Claim 2, Najafi discloses wherein the plurality of real-time joint angles are calculated in a joint angle system (For example, the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities; [0035]; For all outcome measures, the mean values across right and left arms were quantified, using forearm and upper arm sensors to estimate elbow angle; [0071]) by the computing system based on data provided by the plurality of inertial sensor modules (The movement sensors themselves may be inertial sensors including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and the like; [0035]; The systems and methods according to current principles may be fully implemented in any number of computing devices…the frailty sensor system 300 includes a computer system 302 and a sensor system 365; [0085-0087]).
Najafi fails to specifically disclose a joint angle coordinate system, and wherein the data is quaternion data.
In a similar technical field, Cotton teaches a wearable joint tracking device with muscle activity and methods thereof (Abstract), comprising a joint angle coordinate system (by using the full 3D pose, the angle of a joint can then be measured as the difference in pose of two body segments…this allows the system 100 to have a better understanding of the user's movements; [0037-0039]; The cameras themselves can be calibrated using a checkerboard pattern that could be seen by both cameras 210 and was used to estimate both the intrinsic and extrinsic camera parameters with relative rotation and offset. This parameterizes a simple pinhole camera model that predicts how coordinates in 3D space map onto 2D image space; [0048]; This parameterizes a simple pinhole camera model that predicts how coordinates in 3D space map onto 2D image space (no distortion parameters are used); [0070]), and wherein the data is quaternion data ([0049-0062]; [0071-0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the joint angle coordinate system and quaternion data teachings of Cotton into those of Najafi in order to allow the system to have a better understanding of the user's movements and to capture the real angle (Cotton [0039] and [0061]).
Regarding Claim 4, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of inertial sensor modules is configured to be placed on a subject's left forearm (a movement sensor 14 attached to a forearm, e.g., with bands; [0034]; performing frailty assessment on one side (either right or left) may be preferred; [0065]).
Regarding Claim 5, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of inertial sensor modules is configured to be placed on a subject's left upper arm (a movement sensor 12 attached to an upper arm; [0034]; performing frailty assessment on one side (either right or left) may be preferred; [0065]).
Regarding Claim 6, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of inertial sensor modules is configured to be placed on a subject's right forearm (a movement sensor 14 attached to a forearm, e.g., with bands; [0034]; performing frailty assessment on one side (either right or left) may be preferred; [0065]).
Regarding Claim 7, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of inertial sensor modules is configured to be placed on a subject's right upper arm (a movement sensor 12 attached to an upper arm; [0034]; performing frailty assessment on one side (either right or left) may be preferred; [0065]).
Regarding Claim 10, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is a sensor user interface (In other embodiments, the computer system 300 may be controlled by a proprietary operating system... provide a user interface, such as a graphical user interface ("GUI"); [0096]; The mobile computing device may in turn transmit the collected sensor data via the network 341 ...The feedback data may then be used by the mobile computing device to display a visual feedback to the user (e.g., via the user interface described above); [0100]).
Najafi fails to disclose wherein the user interface is a calibration user interface.
In a similar technical field, Cotton teaches a wearable joint tracking device with muscle activity and methods thereof (Abstract), wherein the user interface is a calibration user interface ([0047-0048]; [0069-0070]; [0084-0087]; [0095-0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the calibration teachings of Cotton into the invention of Najafi in order to calibrate an orientation and position of the sensors relative to the body for more improved accuracy in tracking using video calibration. Video calibration can allow more accurate tracking afterwards with just the sensors being worn, and the user need not use the cameras to track movement. These functionalities allow the system to detect meaningful movements in real time that is detected on the smartphone and can be used for rehabilitation (Cotton [0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is a patient user interface to perform range of motion exercises (In one exemplary configuration, at least one gyroscope is configured to measure speed of rotation of a body segment during a pre-defined flexion-extension activity; [0036]; The systems and methods allow early identification of pre-frailty, e.g., for intervention with structured exercise, which has been demonstrated to slow or even reverse the progression of frailty; [0083]; In other embodiments, the computer system 300 may be controlled by a proprietary operating system...provide a user interface, such as a graphical user interface ("GUI"); [0096]; The feedback data may then be used by the mobile computing device to display a visual feedback to the user (e.g., via the user interface described above); [0100]).
Najafi fails to specifically disclose wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is a user interface with exergames.
In a similar technical field, Cotton teaches a wearable joint tracking device with muscle activity and methods thereof (Abstract), wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is a user interface with exergames (the wearable sensor system 100 can be incorporated into therapeutic games or therapy applications that provide biofeedback for building muscle strength and accuracy. Wearable sensors are emerging as a powerful rehabilitation tool that allows muscle activity and movement to be monitored and guided in real time, which makes them particularly suited to translating therapies more broadly into clinical practice. Therapeutic games, sometimes called serious games, are also becoming more common in rehabilitation and have shown promise as a home-based intervention to improve arm function after stroke or SCI; [0102-0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the rehabilitative game teachings of Cotton into the invention of Najafi in order to create engaging and intrinsically motivating therapies that build on ABTs to dramatically increase both the availability of therapy and the dosing that can be provide (Cotton [0102]).
Regarding Claim 13, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces (In other embodiments, the computer system 300 may be controlled by a proprietary operating system...provide a user interface, such as a graphical user interface ("GUI"); [0096]) is a playback user interface with an ability for a clinician or therapist to view the plurality of real-time joint angles and assess subject performance (provide feedback to the user and/or clinician based on information received from the processing electronics 370 and/or other patient characteristics (e.g., anthropometric data)...communicates feedback information to the computer system 302 which in turn outputs the biofeedback to the user and/or clinician; [0093]; For example, the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities; [0035]; The systems and methods according to present principles can also predict...an individual's performance on other strength assessment routines, e.g., grip strength and the like; [0063]).
Regarding Claim 15, Najafi discloses further comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processor (Typically, instructions are laid out on computer readable media, generally non-transitory, and these instructions are sufficient to allow a processor in the computing device to implement the method of the embodiments disclosed herein; [0085]), performs steps comprising:
collecting inertial sensor data (The movement sensors themselves may be inertial sensors including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and the like; [0035]; The mass storage device 382 may store data collected from a plurality of sensors; [0095]);
calculating relative positions between the inertial sensor modules (The movement sensors themselves may be inertial sensors; [0035]; position may be measured by a camera-based motion capture system, and used to derive angular velocity; [0042]);
converting the calculated positions to the plurality of real-time joint angles (For example, the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities; [0035]; The method of embodiment 1, wherein the first variable comprises at least one of a position of the limb, a joint angle associated with the limb, an angular velocity associated with movement of the limb, or an acceleration associated with movement of the limb; [0115]); and
displaying the plurality of real-time joint angles to a user via one or more of the plurality of user interfaces (For example, the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities; [0035]; The system can display frailty status...in addition, the system may remotely display relevant information; [0038]; For instance, the feedback output can comprise a liquid crystal display or other type of display for providing graphical feedback; [0093]; the visual presentation of data to a user (e.g., the visual feedback user interface described above for providing visual feedback relating to body segment movement; [0098]; the user can receive near-instantaneous feedback of body segment movement; [0100]).
Najafi fails to disclose calibrating the plurality of inertial sensor modules; correcting for gravity based misalignment; correcting for magnetic field based misalignment; and wherein the positions are quaternion positions.
In a similar technical field, Cotton teaches a wearable joint tracking device with muscle activity and methods thereof (Abstract), comprising calibrating the plurality of inertial sensor modules ([0045-0048]); correcting for gravity based misalignment ([0049-0057]); correcting for magnetic field based misalignment ([0049-0057]); and wherein the positions are quaternion positions (Joint Angle Estimation…each sensor 102 produces a quaternion pose estimate and visualizing these directly is not an intuitive way to understand their relative orientations. Calculating the relative rotation between two quaternions, however, is fairly straightforward; [0058-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the gravity and magnetic field misalignment teachings of Cotton into the teachings of Najafi in order to obtain improved slow frequency response by correcting for gyroscope drift (Cotton [0050]).
Regarding Claim 16, Najafi discloses wherein the plurality of real-time joint angles (the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities; [0035]) are displayed to the user via the one or more of the plurality of user interface in real-time (For example, the movement sensor(s) may be cameras (e.g., camera based motion capture) or the movement sensor(s) may be goniometers. In these cases, joint angles may be measured and then used to determine joint rotational velocities; [0035]; The system can display frailty status...in addition, the system may remotely display relevant information; [0038]; For instance, the feedback output can comprise a liquid crystal display or other type of display for providing graphical feedback; [0093]; the visual presentation of data to a user (e.g., the visual feedback user interface described above for providing visual feedback relating to body segment movement; [0098]; the user can receive near-instantaneous feedback of body segment movement; [0100]).
Regarding Claim 33, Najafi and Cotton fail to disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of mounting devices comprises a snap fit slide mechanism fastened to a Velcro strap.
In a similar technical field, Sundaram teaches devices, systems, and methods for adaptive health monitoring using behavioral, psychological, and physiological changes of a body portion (Abstract), wherein at least one of the plurality of mounting devices comprises a snap fit slide mechanism fastened to a Velcro strap (The removable portion of the sensor module 320 may be securable to the stretchable component 310 via any suitable attachment mechanism. For example, the stretchable component 310 may include a cradle or holder sized to receive the removable portion of the sensor module 320, and the removable portion of the sensor module 320 may snap or clip into the holder, as shown in FIG. 4I. Alternatively, the removable portion of the sensor module 320 may zip or hook into place, or it may slide between layers or into a pocket of the stretchable component 310, as shown in FIG. 4J; [0133-0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the fastener sensor teachings of Sundaram into those of Najafi and Cotton in order to enable the sensor system to be removable and configured for repeated reattachment. In order to achieve consistent, reliable, and accurate results, it is desirable for the various sensors to be located at the same locations with each reattachment (Sundaram [0133]).
Regarding Claim 34, Najafi discloses wherein the plurality of inertial sensor modules each comprise an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer (The sensor system 10 may generally constitute a sensing module (SM), which may be attached to the user's body for measuring body movements. In one implementation, the sensor module includes one to three gyroscope sensors. In one exemplary configuration, at least one gyroscope is configured to measure speed of rotation of a body segment during a pre-defined flexion-extension activity. The SM may also include other kinematic sensors, e.g. accelerometer, magnetometer, and the like, and muscle activity sensors, e.g., electromyographic (EMG) sensors, and other tracking sensors, e.g., camera based systems, laser sensors, and the like; [0036]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagasaka et al (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0038938; cited by Applicant; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 8, Najafi discloses a plurality of inertial sensor modules (The movement sensors themselves may be inertial sensors including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and the like; [0035]).
Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram fail to specifically disclose wherein one of the plurality of inertial sensor modules is configured to be placed centrally on a subject's back.
In a similar technical field, Nagasaka teaches an activity state analyzer (Abstract), wherein one of the plurality of inertial sensor modules (Figure 1A, Element 10) is configured to be placed centrally on a subject's back (a plurality of types of sensors attached to a lower back of a cyclist; [0006]; The cyclist CL wears the wearable device at a center of the lower back by securing the wearable device at a belt of a cycling pant; [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the sensor placement teachings of Nagasaka into those of Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram in order to provide an accurate analysis for activity states, as the back of the subject moves up and down periodically during different types of motion and would thus output additional acceleration readings (Nagasaka [0084]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhandari (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0347922; cited by Applicant; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 9, Najafi fails to disclose a calibration device. Cotton teaches a calibration user interface ([0047-0048]; [0069-0070]; [0084-0087]; [0095-0098]). Sundaram teaches wherein the method includes calibrating the sensor system to establish a parameter baseline ([0145]), and wherein the monitoring system calibrates the sensor system by determining an orientation of a sensor system ([0151-0152]).
However, Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram fail to specifically disclose a calibration device.
In a similar technical field, Bhandari teaches a calibration device for inertial sensors (Abstract), comprising a calibration device (A calibration device for calibrating two or more inertial sensors to a common coordinate system; Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the calibration device teachings of Bhandari into those of Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram in order to improve the inertial sensor and computer assisted navigation process and reduce overall cost of the system (Bhandari [0093]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chamdani et al (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0265628; cited by Applicant; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 14, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is an instructor user interface (the computer system 300 may be controlled by a proprietary operating system...provide a user interface, such as a graphical user interface ("GUI")…the computer system 302 may include one or more commonly available input/output (I/O) devices and interfaces 368; [0096-0097]; the I/O devices and interfaces 368 provide a communication interface to various external devices...The sensors 12, 14 may be configured to transmit data (through a wired or wireless connection) to a mobile computing device. The mobile computing device may in turn transmit the collected sensor data via the network 341 to the frailty sensor system 300, which may, as described above, process the received data and provide feedback data back to the mobile computing device. The feedback data may then be used by the mobile computing device to display a visual feedback to the user (e.g., via the user interface described above); [0100]) by a clinician for a subject to perform (The feedback output 371 is configured to provide feedback to the user and/or clinician based on information received from the processing electronics 370 and/or other patient characteristics (e.g., anthropometric data)...where the frailty system 300 includes a separate computer system 302... which in turn outputs the biofeedback to the user and/or clinician; [0093]; The sensors 12, 14 may be configured to transmit data (through a wired or wireless connection) to a mobile computing device. The mobile computing device may in turn transmit the collected sensor data via the network 341 to the frailty sensor system 300, which may, as described above, process the received data and provide feedback data back to the mobile computing device. The feedback data may then be used by the mobile computing device to display a visual feedback to the user (e.g., via the user interface described above); [0100]).
However, Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram fail to disclose a user interface with an ability to develop new exercises.
In a similar technical field, Chamdani teaches techniques for forming a specialized low-latency local area network with sensor modules (Abstract), comprising a user interface with an ability to develop new exercises (the system leverages remote motion the cloud capabilities to enable real monitoring time motion monitoring of a user by or coaching other authorized users (coach, doctor, supervisor)…the system leverages cloud's "infinite" computing resources to scale increased application complexity; [0079]; In this embodiment, the system is configured to:...creating standard ensemble of knowledge around specific motions in tennis and use the above information around specific motions to automatically recognize the type of movement coming from data collected on a new task execution; [0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the new exercise development teachings of Chamdani into those of Najafi, Cotton, and Sundaram in order to scale increased application complexity, the number of active users, concurrent sessions at peak usage, and newly developed applications (Chamdani [0079]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights