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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II-V, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20th, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on November 20th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
[0010] of the Specification recites “joint angels” in line 3, but should read “joint angles”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “joint angels” in line 1, but should read “joint angles”
Claim 16 recites “a user” in line 1, but should read “the user”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “a plurality of joint angles” in line 1. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “plurality of real-time joint angles” from Claim 1, or a separate element. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the configuration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the ability" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the ability" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the steps" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “joint angles” in line 8. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “plurality of real-time joint angles” from Claim 1, or a separate element. Clarification is requested.
Claim 15 recites “a user interface” in line 9. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to one of the previously introduced “plurality of user interfaces” from Claim 1, or introducing a new, separate element. Clarification is requested.
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 1-16 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 1-16 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 1-16 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 1-16 recites at least one step or instruction for detecting upper extremity movement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
a plurality of inertial sensors configured to removably connect to a plurality of mounting devices; and
a computing system wirelessly and communicatively connected to the plurality of inertial sensors, further configured to provide a plurality of user interfaces for rehabilitative exergames;
wherein the wearable inertial sensor system is configured to provide a plurality of real-time joint angles based on the position and orientation of the plurality of inertial sensors.
Further, dependent Claims 2-16 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 (underlined above) in each of independent Claim 1 (and its dependent Claims 2-16) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in bold), 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 sensors”, “plurality of mounting devices”, “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. 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 method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) 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 1-16 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 sensors”, “plurality of mounting devices”, “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. 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
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 providing) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Applicant’s Background in the specification; and
The non-patent literature of record in the application.
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 1-16 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 1-16 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 1-16 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 instruct the practitioner to 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 1-16 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 1-16 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-16 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 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0332004; cited by Applicant) in view of Chamdani et al (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0265628; cited by Applicant).
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 sensors (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]) configured to removably connect to a plurality of mounting devices (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]); 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 sensors (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 provide a plurality of real-time (the user can receive near instantaneous feedback of body segment movement; [0100]) joint angles based on the position and orientation of the plurality of inertial sensors (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]; 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]).
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.
In a similar technical field, Chamdani teaches a low-latency body area network for capturing body motions (Abstract), comprising user interfaces for rehabilitative exergames (The system may incorporate injury analysis and motion library patterns/signatures based on studies in biomechanics, physical therapy/rehabilitation, sports medicine, and experiments in the target application area…the system may use an intuitive UI (user interface) with game technology; [0080]; FIG. 8D shows an exemplary user interface (UI) for tennis application) to facilitate rehabilitation and therapeutics; [0272]).
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 exergames teachings of Chamdani into the invention of Najafi in order to keep the user engaged and curious to know further (Chamdani [0272]).
Regarding Claim 2, Najafi discloses wherein a plurality of 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 sensors (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.
Chamdani teaches a joint angle coordinate system (joint kinematics is calculated in terms of angles of rotation in a 3D coordinate system…the system is made of a specific number of probes, each providing 3D inertial sensors data (acceleration, angular velocity, and magnetic field vector) and 3D orientation data within a common 3D global coordinate system created using the same sensors data at the first frame of analysis; [0158-0159]; Figures 6B and 6E), and wherein the data is quaternion data (Typically, the sensor data sampling rate is at 100 Hz, producing gyro x/y/z, accel x/y/z, mag x/y/z, and quaternion w/x/y/z values; [0074]; In one embodiment, the system (hub and satellite) sends the quaternion data; [0097]).
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 Chamdani into those of Najafi in order to improve human motion capture through biomechanics-modeling and quantitative analysis (Chamdani [0080]).
Regarding Claim 3, Najafi discloses wherein the joint angels are calculated (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]) in real time (the user can receive near instantaneous feedback of body segment movement; [0100]) and shown in a 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]).
Najafi fails to disclose an exergame user interface to facilitate rehabilitation and therapeutics.
Chamdani teaches an exergame user interface to facilitate rehabilitation and therapeutics (The system may incorporate injury analysis and motion library patterns/signatures based on studies in biomechanics, physical therapy/rehabilitation, sports medicine, and experiments in the target application area…the system may use an intuitive UI (user interface) with game technology; [0080]; FIG. 8D shows an exemplary user interface (UI) for tennis application) to facilitate rehabilitation and therapeutics; [0272]).
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 exergames teachings of Chamdani into the invention of Najafi in order to keep the user engaged and curious to know further (Chamdani [0272]).
Regarding Claim 4, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of inertial sensors 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 sensors 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 sensors 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 sensors 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.
Chamdani teaches wherein the user interface is a calibration user interface (Before task execution, the user is asked to carry out a set of predefined tasks or assume specific postures in order to calibrate the system or the set of sensor modules; [0158]).
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 Chamdani into the invention of Najafi in order to allow the system to calculate constant relations (K) between sensor modules positioned on the body and the body segments upon which they are attached. Each constant relation is calculated so that each body segment can be a reliable representation of anatomy and functionality behind (Chamdani [0158]).
Regarding Claim 11, Najafi discloses wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is a sensor mounting 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]; Other potential applications of the present principles could be tracking recovery of patients; [0016]; The sensor system 10 may generally constitute a sensing module (SM), which may be attached to the user's body for measuring body movements; [0036]; The I/O devices may also include the one or more sensors 364 worn on a user's body, as described above; [0097]) that facilitates the configuration of sensors for each individual (These sensors may function individually, collectively, or with cross-talk; [0084]; More specifically, the systems and methods allow classification between non-frail and pre-frail, and between pre-frail and frail individuals; [0010]).
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.
Chamdani teaches wherein one of the plurality of user interfaces is a user interface with exergames (The system may incorporate injury analysis and motion library patterns/signatures based on studies in biomechanics, physical therapy/rehabilitation, sports medicine, and experiments in the target application area…the system may use an intuitive UI (user interface) with game technology; [0080]; FIG. 8D shows an exemplary user interface (UI) for tennis application) to facilitate rehabilitation and therapeutics; [0272]).
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 exergame teachings of Chamdani into the invention of Najafi in order to keep the user engaged and curious to know further (Chamdani [0272]).
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 the ability for a clinician or therapist to view 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 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]).
Najafi fails to disclose a user interface with the ability to develop new exercises.
Chamdani teaches a user interface with the 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 the invention of Najafi in order to scale increased application complexity, the number of active users, concurrent sessions at peak usage, and newly developed applications (Chamdani [0079]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi and Chamdani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagasaka et al (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0038938; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 8, Najafi discloses one of the plurality of inertial sensors (The movement sensors themselves may be inertial sensors including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and the like; [0035]).
Najafi and Chamdani fail to disclose wherein one of the sensors 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 sensors (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 and Chamdani 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 and Chamdani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhandari (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0347922; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 9, Najafi fails to disclose a calibration device. Chamdani teaches a calibration user interface (Before task execution, the user is asked to carry out a set of predefined tasks or assume specific postures in order to calibrate the system or the set of sensor modules; [0158]).
However, both Najafi and Chamdani 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 and Chamdani in order to improve the inertial sensor and computer assisted navigation process and reduce overall cost of the system (Bhandari [0093]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi and Chamdani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liberty et al (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0162042; cited by Applicant).
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 the steps of:
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 sensors (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 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 joint angles to a user via a user interface (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 sensors and wherein the positions are quaternion positions.
Chamdani teaches calibrating the plurality of inertial sensors (А set of inertial sensors is positioned on different parts of a user according to a predefined set of rules...before task execution, the user is asked to carry out a set of predefined tasks or assume specific postures in order to calibrate the system or the set of sensor modules; [0158]);
wherein the positions are quaternion positions (Typically, the sensor data sampling rate is at 100 Hz, producing gyro x/y/z, accel x/y/z, mag x/y/z, and quaternion w/x/y/z values; [0074]; In other words, a quaternion (w, x, y, z)=(120 degrees, 1, -2, 3} is completely equivalent to (120 degrees, 1/3, -2/3, 1). In fact, any quaternion can be written with the biggest of its x/y/z values = 1 or = -1; [0097]).
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 Chamdani into those of Najafi in order to improve human motion capture through biomechanics-modeling and quantitative analysis (To further improve human motion capture and analysis, biomechanics-modeling and knowledge of the target application's activities are combined; Chamdani [0080]).
Najafi and Chamdani fail to disclose correcting for gravity based misalignment; and correcting for magnetic field based misalignment.
In a similar technical field, Liberty teaches 3D pointing devices and methods (Abstract), comprising correcting for gravity based misalignment (This calibration of the accelerometer output 602 can include, for example, compensation for one or more of scale, offset and axis misalignment error associated with the accelerometer 506; [0042]; In matrix equation form, scale corrects for axis misalignment; [0046]; The orientation is computed by first estimating the acceleration component due to gravity in the body frame…additional stability can be provided by constant field vectors including gravity and the earth's magnetic field; [0093-0094]); and
correcting for magnetic field based misalignment (This calibration of the accelerometer output 602 can include, for example, compensation for one or more of scale, offset and axis misalignment error associated with the accelerometer 506; [0042]; In matrix equation form, scale corrects for axis misalignment; [0046]; Additional stability can be provided by constant field vectors including gravity and the earth's magnetic field; [0094]).
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 correction teachings of Liberty into those of Najafi and Chamdani in order to improve usability such that it has minimal acceleration components due to angular motion and reduce costs while at the same time providing a high degree of correlation between movements (Liberty [0040] and [0098]).
Regarding Claim 16, Najafi discloses wherein the 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 a user via the 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0116258; previously cited) teaches a rehabilitation apparatus using game device (Abstract), comprising user interfaces for rehabilitative exergames (Referring to FIG. 16, the game similar to Tetris (hereinafter, "brickwork game") is targeted to build up bricks so that no gap may occur between adjacent bricks...FIG. 19 shows a fruit picking game as still another embodiment of the game configurable by the rehabilitation apparatus using game device of the invention...various types of games may be configured by the rehabilitation apparatus using game device of the invention; [0122-0124]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J JHIN 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 JHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791