DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is responsive to the application and the preliminary amendment filed 02/09/2024.
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination. Claim 14 has been added. Claims 1 and 11 are independent Claims.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # FR2103524 filed in FRANCE on 04/06/2021, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 10/05/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 08/01/2024) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The computer-implemented method according to claim 1” should read “The computer-implemented method according to claim 8”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-10 and 14:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-10 and 14 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“a step of projecting at least one segment of the raw sensor data stream into an embedding space so as to obtain a representation vector having a predetermined size and being reduced compared to a dimension of the raw sensor data stream received”, and “a step of classifying the raw sensor data stream received from the representation vector and a classifier trained by machine learning, to provide a prediction of whether the at least one segment of the raw sensor data stream belongs to a class of user or to a class of activity practiced by the user” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“a step of receiving a raw sensor data stream from the at least two sensors, the raw sensor data stream comprising a plurality of types of data representative of a movement of a foot of the user” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The additional elements “a computer-implemented method for recognizing a footwear user or an activity practiced by a footwear user, the footwear including a pair of shoes and at least two sensors positioned respectively on or in the pair of shoes” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “using a bidirectional recurrent neural network, RNN, trained to generate the representation vector from the raw sensor data stream” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the bidirectional recurrent neural network, RNN, is a bidirectional long short-term memory, LSTM, network that uses a triplet loss function” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “the embedding space is a user embedding space and the representation vector is a user representation vector” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the embedding space is an activity embedding space and the representation vector is an activity representation vector” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “the classifier trained by machine learning comprises a random forest classifier or a regression-based classifier” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “the raw data stream comprises at least one type of data chosen from: force sensor data, gyroscope sensor data, gyrometer sensor data, accelerometer sensor data” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “each segment of the raw sensor data stream has a temporal duration of at least 500 ms” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “the footwear comprises at least one processor, the method being carried out by the processor” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “the footwear comprises at least one wireless connection module, the method being carried out by a smartphone or a cloud computing connected wirelessly with the wireless connection module” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “said temporal duration being at least 1 second” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 11-13:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 11-13 are directed to a system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 11 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“project at least one segment of the raw sensor data stream into an embedding space, so as to obtain a representation vector having a predetermined and reduced size compared to a dimension of the raw sensor data received”, and “classify the raw sensor data received from the representation vector and a classifier trained by machine learning, to provide a prediction of whether the at least one segment of the raw sensor data stream belongs to a class of user or to a class of activity practiced by the user” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 11 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“receive a raw sensor data stream, the raw sensor data stream comprising a plurality of types of data representative of a movement of a foot of the user” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The additional elements “at least two sensors adapted to be positioned on or in footwear comprising a pair of shoes so as to generate a raw sensor data stream in response to at least one biomechanical movement of the user during practice of an activity, a processor configured to execute a process, and a memory configured to store the process executable by the processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “the processor is disposed at least partially inside the footwear” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “the footwear further comprises at least one wireless connection module, and wherein the processor is comprised in a device connected wirelessly with the wireless connection module and chosen from: a smartphone or a cloud computing” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20190365287 A1).
The Choi reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS, filed 08/01/2024.
As to Claim 1:
Choi teaches a computer-implemented method for recognizing a footwear user or an activity practiced by a footwear user, the footwear including a pair of shoes and at least two sensors positioned respectively on or in the pair of shoes ([0035], [0046], [0050], and [0143-0145]), the method comprising:
a step of receiving a raw sensor data stream from the at least two sensors, the raw sensor data stream comprising a plurality of types of data representative of a movement of a foot of the user ([0145-0146], [0155-0156], and Figs.9 and 10),
a step of projecting at least one segment of the raw sensor data stream into an embedding space so as to obtain a representation vector having a predetermined size and being reduced compared to a dimension of the raw sensor data stream received ([0147], [0157], and Fig.10), and
a step of classifying the raw sensor data stream received from the representation vector and a classifier trained by machine learning, to provide a prediction of whether the at least one segment of the raw sensor data stream belongs to a class of user or to a class of activity practiced by the user ([0157], [0160-0161], and Fig.10).
As to Claim 2:
Choi teaches the projection step comprises using a bidirectional recurrent neural network, RNN, trained to generate the representation vector from the raw sensor data stream ([0107-0110]).
As to Claim 3:
Choi teaches the bidirectional recurrent neural network, RNN, is a bidirectional long short-term memory, LSTM, network that uses a triplet loss function ([0011-0014]).
As to Claim 4:
Choi teaches the embedding space is a user embedding space and the representation vector is a user representation vector ([0130], [0138], and [0152-0153]).
As to Claim 5:
Choi teaches the embedding space is an activity embedding space and the representation vector is an activity representation vector ([0148-0149], [0147], and [0152-0153]).
As to Claim 6:
Choi teaches the classifier trained by machine learning comprises a random forest classifier or a regression-based classifier ([0011-0014]).
As to Claim 7:
Choi teaches the raw data stream comprises at least one type of data chosen from: force sensor data, gyroscope sensor data, gyrometer sensor data, accelerometer sensor data ([0126]).
As to Claim 8:
wherein each segment of the raw sensor data stream has a temporal duration of at least 500 ms ([0093]).
As to Claim 9:
Choi teaches the footwear comprises at least one processor, the method being carried out by the processor ([0093], [0155-0157], Figs.4 and 10).
As to Claim 10:
Choi teaches the footwear comprises at least one wireless connection module, the method being carried out by a smartphone or a cloud computing connected wirelessly with the wireless connection module ([0010] and [0127]).
As to Claim 11:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 for rejection. Claims 11 is the same as Claim 1, except Claims 11 is a system Claim and Claim 1 is a method Claim.
As to Claim 12:
Choi teaches the processor is disposed at least partially inside the footwear ([0093], [0155-0157], Figs.4 and 10).
As to Claim 13:
Choi teaches the footwear further comprises at least one wireless connection module, and wherein the processor is comprised in a device connected wirelessly with the wireless connection module and chosen from: a smartphone or a cloud computing ([0010] and [0127]).
As to Claim 14:
Choi teaches temporal duration being at least 1 second ([0050] and [0093]).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights