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 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 1-4 and 6-11 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. Thus, the claims are directed to a product and a process, which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claims 1, 10 and 11 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: 1) acquire information based on a sensor attached to a sole-side of a foot of a user, 2) detect, when a gait of the user cannot be detected based on the information indicating the angle between the sole of the foot of the user and the ground and a first threshold value, the gait of the user based on comparing the information indicating the angle and a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value; 3) detect, in a case where the gait of the user cannot be detected based on the information indicating the angle, as sampled at a first sampling frequency, and the first threshold value, the gait of the user based on the information indicating the angle as sampled at a second sampling frequency higher than the first sampling frequency; 4) measure a time length for the user to take one step forward based on the information indicating the angle, as sampled at the second sampling frequency, and the second threshold value; 5) determine a first point at which a sign of angular velocity of the angle changes from positive to negative as a local maximum point at which the angle has a local maximum value; 6) determine a second point at which the sign of angular velocity of the angle changes from negative to positive as a local minimum point at which the angle has a local minimum value; and 7) output detection information of detecting the gait of the user.
These limitations recite a mental process, because the claimed limitations describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a caregiver can acquire measured walking information form the sensor, observe/monitor the measured walking information, analyze the walking information acquired and output the walking information without the use of a processor. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: Claims 1, 10 and 11 does not recite additional elements/steps that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1, 10 and 11 recites the following additional elements/ steps beyond the judicial exception: A) a sensor attached to a sole-side of a foot of a user, the sensor being an inertial measurement unit having a 3-axis acceleration sensor and a 3- axis gyro sensor, and claims 1 and 11 recite other additional elements: B) a memory and/or storage medium, and C) processor.
Accordingly, the combination of the additional element/step A and B does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a sensor and memory is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Element C does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a controller/processor amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, each of the additional elements/step or a combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Claims 1, 10 and 11 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, Claims 1, 10 and 11 recites: A) a sensor attached to a sole-side of a foot of a user, the sensor being an inertial measurement unit having a 3-axis acceleration sensor and a 3- axis gyro sensor, and claims 1 and 11 recite other additional elements: B) a memory and/or storage medium, and C) processor.
The combination of elements A-C of a sensor, memory and processor does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of sensor, memory and a processor is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the elements A-C are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by Kiani et al (US 2015/0100105), Kim et al (US 2016/0324445), and Selner et al (US 2017/0319368) which all show sensor attached to a sole-side of a foot of a user, the sensor being an inertial measurement unit having a 3-axis acceleration sensor and a 3-axis gyro sensor, memory and a processor to determine walking information, as claimed in claims 1, 10 and 11 evidencing that these elements are well-understood, route, and conventional in the applanation arts.
Element C does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because adding a controller/processor is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)II).
Accordingly, the additional elements individual or in co do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to recite additional element(s) 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.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-11 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim objections, 112 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections, 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/27/2026 regarding 101 rejection and that claim amendments believed to represent a practical application or significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because claims limitations 1) acquire information based on a sensor attached to a sole-side of a foot of a user, 2) detect, when a gait of the user cannot be detected based on the information indicating the angle between the sole of the foot of the user and the ground; 3) detect, in a case where the gait of the user cannot be detected based on the information indicating the angle, as sampled at a first sampling frequency, and the first threshold value, the gait of the user based on the information indicating the angle as sampled at a second sampling frequency higher than the first sampling frequency; 4) measure a time length for the user to take one step forward; 5) determine a first point at which a sign of angular velocity of the angle changes from positive to negative; 6) determine a second point at which the sign of angular velocity of the angle changes from negative to positive as a local minimum point; and 7) output detection information of detecting the gait of the user, recite a mental process, because the claimed limitations describe a concept performed in the human mind. For example, a caregiver can acquire measured walking information form the sensor, observe/monitor the measured walking information, analyze the walking information acquired and output the walking information without the use of a processor. Thus, claims 1, 10 and 11 are drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Also, the additional elements, such as, A) a sensor attached to a sole-side of a foot of a user, the sensor being an inertial measurement unit having a 3-axis acceleration sensor and a 3- axis gyro sensor, B) a memory and/or storage medium, and C) processor, does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of sensors and processor is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements individual or in co do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to recite additional element(s) 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights