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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims may be addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mobbs (US 20240350035 A1).
For claim(s) 1, 15, and 16, Mobbs teaches
A gait evaluation system, comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to:
acquire a measurement value of a quantitative parameter indicating an amount of walking, measured by a waist-mounted measurement device configured to be worn by a subject; [Fig(s). 1 ¶¶100-110]
acquire at least measurement values of a pelvic movement including at least one of a hip rotation angle, a lateral hip tilt, and a front-back hip bend, [lateral and/or front-back hip movement in ¶¶142-145]
as well as a stride length [¶116] and a cadence [¶16] as qualitative parameters indicating a walking form, measured by the measurement device configured to be worn by the subject;
determine an evaluation result regarding the amount of walking, based on a measurement value of the quantitative parameter; determine an estimate of a muscle activity level as an evaluation result regarding a walking form, based on a predetermined evaluation model that reflects a degree of approximation to a form tendency with which a walking exercise effect is likely to be achieved, and the measurement values of the qualitative parameters; [qualitative and quantitative evaluation of walking is/are central inventive feature(s) detailed throughout the majority (if not the entirety) of the disclosure of Mobbs – see at least abstract, Figs. 3-4 which show the use of step count and velocity (amount-quantitative parameter) and any number of qualitative parameters (variability, WORM metric) as detailed in at least ¶¶132-170 specifically ¶¶132-149]
and output walking result information including the evaluation result regarding the amount of walking and the estimate of the muscle activity level, as the walking exercise effect, [¶129]
wherein the one or more processors are configured to display an object indicating a magnitude of the walking exercise effect on each body part on an image of a human body model displayed on a screen. [CMOS of Fig(s). 4 constitute(s), under BRI, at least some form of an object indicating an exercise magnitude on a human body model]
For claim(s) 2, Mobbs teaches
determining the evaluation result regarding the walking form using, as the predetermined evaluation model, an evaluation formula set such that a weight is added at least to a measurement value of the stride length. [¶¶171-175]
For claim(s) 3-4, Mobbs teaches
wherein the measurement value of the stride length is a ratio of an average stride length to the height of the subject measured. [¶¶190-191]
For claim(s) 5-6, Mobbs teaches
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the evaluation result regarding the walking form using, as the predetermined evaluation model, an evaluation formula for obtaining a sum of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is obtained by adding a weight to a ratio of the subject's stride-height ratio to an average stride-height ratio of a corresponding attributed level, and the second value represents a ratio of the subject's cadence to an average cadence of the corresponding attributed level. [weighting of ¶¶171-175 and ¶191 with Table 5]
For claim(s) 7-10, Mobbs teaches
acquiring a measurement value of pelvic movement and arm swing angle as the qualitative parameters, and
determining the evaluation result regarding the walking form using, as the predetermined evaluation model, an evaluation formula set such that a weight is added at least to a measurement value of the pelvic movement and arm swing angle. [¶¶142-170 WORM score including upper body and upper limb movement in ¶142 (i.e., arm swing angle) and trunk in ¶¶142-145 (and pelvis thereby) then weighted in ¶¶171-175]
For claim(s) 11-12, Mobbs teaches
outputting the walking result information including information regarding whether or not at least one of the evaluation result regarding the amount of walking or the evaluation result regarding the walking form has satisfied a predetermined target achievement condition; [personalized scoring in ¶¶128-129 (a form of target achievement condition evaluation) for CMOS score in ¶133]
outputting the walking result information including information regarding an exercise effect on each body part based on the evaluation result regarding the amount of walking and the evaluation result regarding the walking form. [graded scoring in Fig(s). 4 per ¶¶129-133 including effects on foot movement (feet being ‘each body part’ under BRI)]
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) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mobbs in view of Blades (US 20230158368 A1).
For claim(s) 17-19, Mobb fails to teach the processors making progress in an game when a result satisfies a target.
Blades teaches a gait evaluation system [abstract] comprising processors configured to judge whether a result satisfies a target such that a game is made to progress when satisfied. [¶315]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Mobbs to incorporate the game-progress function of Blades in order to aid in user motivation and consistency of training. As motivated by Blades ¶315.
In consideration of Examiner’s interpretation and citation for the display of a human body model in the amendments, and in earnest and good faith advancement of prosecution, claim(s) 1, 15, and 16 is/are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mobbs in view of Ihara (US 20230371849 A1).
If (arguendo) Mobbs fails to teach displaying an object indicating exercise magnitude on each body part on an image of a human body model, then:
Ihara teaches a gait evaluation system [abstract] comprising a processor which displays an object indicating an exercise magnitude on each affected body part on an image of a human body model. [Fig(s). 14-18]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the display of Mobbs to incorporate the human body model of Ihara in order to aid in feedback to the user to improve their gait. As motivated by Ihara ¶¶94-104.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 5/5/26 arguments with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in remarks p. 11 that Mobbs fails to teach displaying an exercise effect on each body part on an image of a human body model. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The CMOS of Mobbs Fig(s). 4 well and reasonably constitute(s), under BRI, at least some form of a display of an exercise effect a modeling of the human body in that the chart is a depiction of the effects of walking on a subject’s body. In any event, in earnest advancement of prosecution, an alternate rejection has been provided by which these arguments are moot.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S MELHUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/BENJAMIN S MELHUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights