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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “sensor attached” in line 5 should be amended to read –sensor configured to be attached--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “information” in line 12 should be amended to read –the information--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and” in line 5 should be amended to read –or--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “information” in line 8 should be amended to read –the information--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “information” in line 9 should be amended to read –the information--. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claims 1, 10 and 11, recite an apparatus and a series of steps or acts, and. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a product. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claim(s) 1, 10 and 11 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: acquire information based on a sensor attached to a foot of a user; detect, when a gait of the user cannot be detected based on the information indicating an angle between a sole of the foot of the user and the ground acquired by the acquisition means and a first threshold value; and output information based on a result of the detection. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: the gait of the user based on the information indicating the angle and a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value. Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, sensor, processor and a memory, but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2-9 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-11 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
Limitation “acquisition means” in claim 1, the claim does not recite enough structure that corresponds to claimed “acquisition means” that can perform the function of acquire information, the specification does not disclose any structure that corresponds to the claimed “acquisition means”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recite the limitation “acquisition means” the specification fails to disclose whether the "means" constitutes software, hardware or a combination of software and hardware.
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 1-11 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 recite the limitation “acquisition means” this limitation is not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what structural elements the “means” must or must not include. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “acquisition means”.
For the purpose of examination, the claimed “acquisition means” will be interpreted as part of the processor.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example:
Claims 1, 10 and 11 recite limitation “the gait of the user based on the information indicating the angle and a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value” this limitation is not defined by the claims, one with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know if the gait is being detected by comparing the angle to a second threshold, or why the angle is being compared to the second threshold. Similarly, claims 4-6.
For example:
Claim 3 recite the limitation “when a predetermined command is received from an external device, the gait of the user based on the second threshold value” this limitation is not defined by the claims, one with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know if the gait is being detected based on the command from the external device, or the first threshold value is received from the external device.
For example:
Claim 5 recite limitations “indicating the angle sampled at a first sampling frequency” and “indicating the angle sampled by a second sampling frequency” these limitations are not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know if the angle is sampled automatically at different sampling frequency to detect gait or not, or that the information only indicates the sampling frequency of the sampled angle.
Claim 4 recite the limitation “threshold value” this limitation is not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know if the claimed “threshold value” in claim 4 is referring to the first or second threshold value in claim 1, and/or if the claimed “threshold value” is a different threshold value than the first and second threshold values in claim 1. As broadly as claimed the scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the claimed “threshold value”. For purpose of examination, the claimed threshold value is the same as the first threshold value.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the acquisition means" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the angular velocity" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over NEC corp (Nec hereinafter) (WO 2020194598, English translated version is used herein) in view of Takashi (JP2002360549A, English translated version is used herein).
As to claims 1, 8, 10 and 11, Nec teaches an information processing apparatus and method comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium/memory storing a program for causing an information processing apparatus/processor to perform processes of (the walking determination system 10, having data acquisition device 11 and gait discrimination device 12, wherein devices 11 and 12 have a memory soring instructions therein, pages 4-6, fig.1-3);
acquiring information based on a sensor (walking determination device 12 including acceleration sensor 111, an angular velocity sensor 112, page 4 and page 6) attached to a foot of a user (attached to arch of the foot in shoe 110, page 5, fig.2);
detecting, when a gait of the user cannot be detected based on the information indicating an angle between a sole of the foot of the user and the ground acquired by the acquisition means (data acquisition device 11 and signal processing unit 13, page 4 and page 6) and a first threshold value (determining the attitude angle between the foot of the user and a horizontal axis/ground, and determines whether or not the acquired posture angle exceeds the threshold value. When the posture angle exceeds the threshold value, page 7, par.5-6, wherein the walking determination unit 126 determines if a step has been taken or not, page7, output unit 127 acquires the determination result of whether or not one step of walking has been performed from the walking determination unit 126, page 8), and
outputting information based on a result of the detection (outputting measured information/result via transmission unit 114, page 6, and outputting information/result via output unit 127, output unit 127 acquires the determination result of whether or not one step of walking has been performed from the walking determination unit 126, page 8).
Nec teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach the gait of the user based on the information indicating the angle and a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the second threshold value based on at least one of the acceleration or the angular velocity measured by the sensor.
However, Takashi teaches an analogous foot sensor system that detects gait of a user (abstract), wherein the gait of the user based on the information indicating the angle and a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value (during walking, the acceleration sensor 3 detects a vertical vibration component, and the detection result is output as a waveform analog signal, page 3, the number of steps is counted, at step 112, the amplitude W R and the threshold of sensitivity level 3 are compared, the comparison at step 112, the Width WRIs not greater than the threshold of the sensitivity level 3, if the Width WRIs greater than the sensitivity level 2 threshold Is that in step 116 the threshold is sensitivity level 2 is changed to the threshold value, page 4),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the second threshold value based on at least one of the acceleration or the angular velocity measured by the sensor (if the Width WRIs greater than the sensitivity level 2 threshold Is that in step 116 the threshold is sensitivity level 2 is changed to the threshold value, page 4).
Since determining walking/gait using different threshold is well-known in the art, so it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a different threshold to detect walking/gait in Nec’s invention as taught by Takashi’s invention, to accurately distinguish between walking or no walking of the user.
As to claim 2, Nec teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the information based on the sensor attached to the user at any place between the arch and the heel of the foot of the user (the sensor is placed at the arch of the foot, page 5, par.4, fig.2).
As to claim 4, Nec teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect, in the case where at least one of acceleration and angular velocity measured by the sensor is equal to or greater than a threshold value and the gait of the user cannot be detected based on the first threshold value (signal processing unit 113 acquires the acceleration and the angular velocity from each of the acceleration sensor 111 and the angular velocity sensor 112, respectively, page 6, wherein the acceleration and angular velocity are compared to a threshold, page 7), the gait of the user based on the second threshold value.
As to claim 6, Nec teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect, in the case where the gait of the user cannot be detected based on the first threshold value, the gait of the user based on the information indicating the angle, the second threshold value, and the acceleration in a direction in which the user walks measured by the sensor (the acceleration is measured in the direction the user is walking, page 5, par.4-5 and pages 6-7).
As to claim 7, Nec in view of Takashi teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the second threshold value based on attributes of the user (Takashi: the threshold and sensitivity level changes based on walking speed of the user, page 4, par.2-3). It would have been obvious to adjust the threshold based on walking speed of each person, to accurately detect walking/gait of the user.
As to claim 9, Nec teaches the information processing apparatus, herein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the second threshold value based on at least one of a heart rate and a skin temperature of the user (the signal processing unit may be configured to output sensor data obtained by correcting the acquired raw data of acceleration and angular velocity, such as mounting error, temperature correction, page 6, par.3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791