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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control system” in claims 1, 4 9,11, 16, 20, 27, and 30, “communication system” in claims 2-4, “remote control system” in claims 4 and 25 and “local control system” in claims 4 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Page 31 of the teaches that a control system/local control system can be a “computer program on a computer”. Page 11 of the provided specification states that “the remote control system may be an application executed on a computer or mobile device”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the sole part comprises one or more of (i) at least part of the control system and (ii) the electrical power source”, and the claim also recites “wherein the sole part comprises the local control system” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 19-24, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount).
In regards to claim 1 Sun teaches a system comprising;
a body wearable unit (smart shoe of Fig. 18)
one or more sensors ([0129. peripheral sensors such as the pressure and IMU devices 1802),
a control system ([0129] microcontroller device 1804),
and an electrical power source ([0129] battery 1808)
wherein: the body wearable unit comprises the one or more sensors, the control system, and the electrical power source (smart shoe of Fig. 18 contains IMU devices 1802, battery 1808, and microcontroller device 1804)
the electrical power source is configured to provide electrical power to the one or more sensors and the control system ([0129]);
the control system is configured to generate wearer data based on the signals generated by the sensors; wherein the wearer data comprises wearer movement related data ([0129] [0135] IMU sensor data/pressure sensor data can be used to determine gait/weight distribution)
the body wearable unit comprises footwear, wherein the footwear is a shoe (Fig. 18 shoe 1810);
and the one or more sensors, the control system , and the electrical power source are functionally coupled to the body wearable unit (smart shoe of Fig. 18 contains IMU devices 1802 and microcontroller device 1804).
Sun fails to teach one or more cameras. the one or more cameras are configured to monitor a user wearing the wearable unit and to provide a related camera signal; wherein the electrical power source is configured to provide electrical power to the one or more cameras, wherein the control system is configured to generate wearer movement data based on the related camera signal. Yang teaches a camera mounted on a shoe in order to make detected movement information more accurate ([0084] “In addition, camera accelerometer or gyroscope may also be set on shoes so as to detect the accelerated speed and angular velocity of movement and make the detected information more accurate”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors of Sun to include a shoe mounted camera in order to collect camera sensor data make the IMU/pressure sensor data of Sun more accurate as taught by Yang.
Sun/Yang fails to teach a system wherein the one or more cameras are configured to record a body of the user, the one or more cameras looking upwards from a lower extremity. Paramotor Planet teaches a camera mount for a shoe that allows a camera to look upwards at a user from a lower extremity (Paragraph 2, “Mount your GoPro at the end of your foot just above your toe. Point your camera towards you for a great selfie angle to capture you”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the camera of Sun/Yang using a user facing shoe mount like the one of Paramotor Planet in order to orient the camera toward the user.
In regards to claim 2 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the body wearable unit further comprises a communication system ([0128] radio frequency (RF) device 1806), wherein the electrical power source is configured to provide electrical power to the communication system ([0128-0129] Battery powers all of system including radio frequency (RF) device 1806), and wherein the communication system is functionally coupled to the body wearable unit (Fig 18 radio frequency (RF) device 1806).
In regards to claim 3 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the communication system is configured to provide the wearer data to a receiver [[(510)]] external of the body wearable unit ([0129] “the data is then transmitted via a radio frequency (RF) device 1806 to a specified receiver”).
In regards to claim 5 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the footwear comprises a front part (See annotated Sun Fig. 18 below). Modified Sun does not explicitly teach a system wherein a first camera is physically coupled to the front part of footwear. However, would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the camera to the front part of the footwear. Doing so would merely be a simple rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI.C
PNG
media_image1.png
260
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sun Fig. 18
In regards to claim 7 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the footwear comprises a back part (See annotated Sun Fig. 18 above). Modified Sun does not explicitly teach a system wherein a second camera is physically coupled to the front part of footwear. However, would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the camera to the back part of the footwear. Doing so would merely be a simple rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI.C
In regards to claim 9 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the footwear comprises a sole part, wherein the sole part comprises one or more the electrical power source (Sun [0129] “the larger items such as the battery can be embedded into the sole-heel”).
In regards to claim 11 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 1,wherein the control system is configured to generate the wearer data based on (a) the related camera signal and (b) an inertial measure unit sensor signal of an inertial measure unit sensor functionally coupled to the user wearing the wearable unit (Sun [0129] Device generates wearer data using IMU sensor coupled to footwear).
In regards to claim 13 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 11,wherein the inertial measure unit comprises one or more of a gyroscope and an accelerometer (Sun [0127]).
In regards to claim 19 modified Sun teaches the system according to any one of the preceding claimsclaim1, wherein the wearer data comprise information about one or more of load capacity, kicking force, muscle state, muscle force, muscle torques and joint loads ([Sun 0135] poor muscle control is a muscle state).
In regards to claim 20 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the footwear further comprises a pressure insole (Sun [0051] [0053]) , wherein the pressure insole is functionally coupled to the body wearable unit (Sun Fig. 18 pressure and IMU devices 1802), wherein the electrical power source is configured to provide electrical power to the pressure insole (Sun [0129] Battery powers whole system), and wherein the control system is configured to generate wearer data based on (i) the related camera signal and (ii) a pressure insole signal from the pressure insole (Sun [0129] Microcontroller reads, processes, and formats sensor data into readable and usable data).
In regards to claim 21 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 20, wherein the pressure insole comprises a pressure sensor (Sun [0051] [0053]).
In regards to claim 22 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim1,wherein one or more of the one or more cameras are selected from the group of an optical camera, an infrared camera, a multispectral camera, and a LIDAR sensor (Yang [0112] cameras are optical).
In regards to claim 23 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the shoe can detect running style ([0139]). Modified Sun does not explicitly teach the footwear comprising a sports shoe selected from the group of soccer shoes, running shoes, and skates. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the shoe of modified Sun a running shoe if the shoe is to be worn when running. Doing so would merely be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (running shoe, skates, soccer shoes), with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 24 modified Sun teaches a method for generating wearer data using the system according to claim1, wherein the method comprises: (a) monitoring with one or more cameras a user wearing the wearable unit and providing a related camera signal wherein the one or more cameras are configured to record a body of the user, the one or more cameras looking upwards from a lower extremity (Yang [0084], Paramotor Planet Paragraph 2); and (b) generating wearer data based on the related camera signal, wherein the wearer data comprises wearer movement related data (Sun [0129] Microcontroller reads, processes, and formats sensor data into readable and usable data, Yang [0084] used to increase accuracy of data).
In regards to claim 26 modified Sun teaches the method according to claim 24, further comprising retrieving an inertial measure unit sensor signal of an inertial measure unit sensor functionally coupled to the user wearing the wearable unit and generating wearer data based on (i) the related camera signal and (ii) the inertial measure unit sensor signal (Sun [0129] Device generates wearer data using IMU sensor coupled to footwear).
In regards to claim 29 modified Sun teaches the method according to claim 24, further comprising retrieving a pressure insole signal from a pressure insole (Sun [0051] [0053]), and generating wearer data based on (i) the related camera signal and (ii) the pressure insole signal (Sun [0129] Microcontroller reads, processes, and formats sensor data into readable and usable data).
Claim(s) 4 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Benford (US 20180132758 A1).
In regards to claim 4 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 2 wherein the control system comprises a local control system ([0129] microcontroller) and a remote control system ([0130] phone),
wherein the electrical power source is configured to provide electrical power to the local control system , wherein the local control system is functionally coupled to the body wearable unit ([0129] microcontroller device is in the shoe and powered the battery) ;
wherein the communication system is configured to communicate between the local control system and the remote control system ([0130] “In another embodiment, a wireless connection 1910 may use any suitable air interface (e.g., WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.) to transfer data to another device such as an online server or application for data processing.”);
wherein the control system is configured to generate wearer data based on (i) the related camera signal and (ii) information from the remote control system.
Benford teaches using a phone to indicate to a microcontroller that is attached to the user’s foot to start or stop collecting data ([0049]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sun so that the remote system is configured to generate wearer data based on the related camera signal and the signal to start measuring. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of remotely starting and stopping data collection.
In regards to claim 25 modified Sun teaches the method according to claim 24, further comprising a remote control system ([0130] phone). Modified sun fails to teach retrieving information from the remote control system and generating wearer data based on (i) the related camera signal and (ii) the information from the remote control system. Benford teaches using a phone to indicate to a microcontroller that is attached to the user’s foot to start or stop collecting data ([0049]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sun so that the remote system is configured to generate wearer data based on the related camera signal and the signal to start measuring. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of remotely starting and stopping data collection.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) as applied to claims 5 and 7, further in view of Wang (US 20100274304 A1
In regards to claim 6 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 5. Modified Sun fails to teach how the first camera is coupled to the shoe. Wang teaches a method of attaching a sensor to a shoe using Velcro (Wang [0018]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the camera to the front of the shoe using a Velcro strap like the method of Wang. Doing so would merely be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Velcro strap, shoelace, stitched cavity, etc.), with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 8 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 7. Modified Sun fails to teach how the second camera is coupled to the shoe. Wang teaches a method of attaching a sensor to a shoe using Velcro (Wang [0018]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the camera to the front of the shoe using a Velcro strap like the method of Wang. Doing so would merely be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Velcro strap, shoelace, stitched cavity, etc.), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) in view of Benford (US 20180132758 A1) as applied to claim 4, further in view of Onyekachi (US 20210068492 A1).
In regards to claim 10 Modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein the sole part comprises the electrical power source. Modified Sun fails to teach wherein the sole part comprises the local control system. Onyekachi teaches a smart shoe where the microcontroller is disposed in the sole of the shoe (Onyekachi [0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sole of modified Sun to house the microcontroller like the smart shoe of Onyekachi. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of housing the local control system in the sole.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Matijevich (US 20210236020 A1).
In regards to claim 12 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the system comprises the inertial measure unit sensor (Sun [0127]). Modified Sun fails to teach a system wherein the inertial measure unit sensor is configured external of the footwear. Matijevich teaches an IMU configured external of footwear on a user’s ankle ([0098] Fig. 2A, leg orientation sensor). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IMU of modified Sun to be housed on the ankle of the user like the device of Matijevich. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of estimating the angular orientation and/or acceleration of a limb segment.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Anderson (US 20220257146 A1).
In regards to claim 14, modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 1,wherein the system comprises an artificial neural network (Sun [0133]). Modified Sun fails to teach the artificial neural network having an artificial neural network architecture selected from the group of a multilayer feed forward network architecture, a single-layer feed-forward network, a single node with its own feedback, single-layer recurrent network, and a multilayer recurrent network. Anderson teaches multilayer feed forward network architecture to generate movement data from two types of sensors ([0185]). It would have been It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the neural network of Sun be a multilayer perceptron (MLP) like the device of Anderson. Doing so would merely be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (multilayer feed forward network architecture, a single-layer feed-forward network, etc.), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) in view of Anderson (US 20220257146 A1) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Benjamin (US 20210174908 A1).
In regards to claim 15 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the artificial neural network comprises one or more hidden layers, wherein each hidden layer comprises of one or more nodes (Anderson ([0185] MLPs inherently have a hidden layer with nodes). Modified Sun fails to teach a system wherein the artificial neural network is configured to assign weights to nodes of the hidden layers in the artificial neural network, and/or (b) the weights are calculated from the related camera signal and a training mode signal of a training mode sensor using a backpropagation algorithm. Benjamin teaches training a MLP with input data and then calculating weights using backpropagation ([0645] [0419]). It would have been It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to train the neural network using camera signals and using camera signals and IMU/Pressure signals taken during known gaits/movements as input data, and then backpropagate like the method of Benjamin. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of training a neural network to determine gait from camera and IMU signals, and weighting the nodes of the neural network.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) as applied to claims 1 and 24, further in view of Segal (US 20240115159 A1).
In regards to claim 16 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 1, including a control mode where a trained classifier is configured to generate the wearer data based on the related camera signal generated during control mode ([0133- 0135] data is used to determine gait). Modified Sun does not explicitly teach the wherein the control system is configured to execute a first training mode wherein: during execution of the training mode the control system is trained based on the related camera signal and a training mode signal of a training mode sensor generated during the training mode, to provide a trained control system. Segal teaches a mode of training a machine leaning model on a training set of data and then a mode of using that model to classify movement data (Segal Abstract, [0016]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of modified Sun to train the machine learning model using camera signals and IMU/Pressure signals of known gaits, and then use that model to determine gait like the method of Segal. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of having a training mode and control mode.
In regards to claim 17 modified Sun in view of Segal teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the training mode signal comprises an inertial measure unit sensor signal ([0129] it’s obvious to train using camera data and IMU Pressure data, as that is what the sensors collect to determine movement data).
In regards to claim 27 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 24, including a control mode where a trained classifier is configured to generate the wearer data based on the related camera signal generated during control mode ([0133- 0135] data is used to determine gait). Modified Sun does not explicitly teach the wherein the control system is configured to execute a first training mode wherein: during execution of the training mode the control system is trained based on the related camera signal and a training mode signal of a training mode sensor generated during the training mode, to provide a trained control system. Segal teaches a mode of training a machine leaning model on a training set of data and then a mode of using that model to classify movement data (Segal Abstract, [0016]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of modified Sun to train the machine learning model using camera signals and IMU/Pressure signals of known gaits, and then use that model to determine gait like the method of Segal. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of having a training mode and control mode.
In regards to claim 28 modified Sun in view of Segal method according to claims 27, wherein the training mode signal comprises an inertial measure unit sensor signal ([0129] it’s obvious to train using camera data and IMU Pressure data, as that is what the sensors collect to determine movement data).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) in view of Anderson (US 20220257146 A1) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Segal (US 20240115159 A1).
In regards to claim 18 modified Sun teaches the system of claim 14, wherein a classifier has been trained to generate the wearer data based on the related camera signal generated during control mode ([0133- 0135] data is used to determine gait). Modified sun fails to teach a system wherein the artificial neural network is calibrated by means of a training mode as wherein one or more of the following applies: (i) wearer data for calibration are generated from the related camera signal and a training mode signal of a training mode sensor, and wherein wearer data are generated by assuming a predetermined routine of postures and movement. Segal teaches a mode of training a machine leaning model on a training set of data and then a mode of using that model to classify movement data (Segal Abstract, [0016]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of modified Sun to train the neural network using camera signals and IMU/Pressure signals of known gaits in order to then use that model to determine gait like the method of Segal. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of training a neural network to determine gait from camera and IMU signals.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount) as applied to claim 1, in view of Kuo (US 20150279231 A1) further in view of Kettel (US 20210378565 A1).
In regards to claim 30 modified Sun teaches the system according to claim 1. Modified Sun fails to teach a manual, wherein the manual comprises instructions for a user to use the body wearable unit for training the control system. Kuo teaches training a movement tracking device by performing a set of calibration movements ([0068]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to train the control system of Sun to detect specific movements like the device of Kuo. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of training the device.
Modified Sun in view of Kuo fails to teach a manual. Kettel teaches a manual with instructions for calibrating a device ([0100]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a manual on how to train control system of modified Sun in view of Kuo like the system of Kettel. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing instructions on how to train the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 24-29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 24-29 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 122(b) rejections of claims 1-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 122(b) rejections of claims 1-30 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The addition of a camera “wherein the one or more cameras are configured to record a body of the user, the one or more cameras looking upwards from a lower extremity” overcomes the rejection of claim 1 over Sun in view of Yang. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sun (US 20190234817 A1) in view of Yang (US 20120253234 A1) in view of Paramotor Planet (Action Camera Foot Mount). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791