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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 21 includes a typographical error. Element "S204" is interpreted by the examiner to recite "AJC" whereas the current element recites "AJG". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims contain limitations with elements that are not written out in their entirety as well as limitations that are missing proper punctuation to connect elements.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "a index value estimation device" recited in line 1 of the claim is not grammatically correct. This limitation should be written as "an index value estimation device".
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "that output the Angular Jerk Cost" recited in line 9 of the claim is not grammatically correct. This limitation should be written as "that outputs the Angular Jerk Cost".
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the instructions to” recited in line 2 of the claim should end in a colon in order to connect the limitation to the elements that follow it recited within the claim. This correction would recite “the instructions to:”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the instructions to” recited in line 2 of the claim should end in a colon in order to connect the limitation to the elements that follow it recited within the claim. This correction would recite “the instructions to:”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the instructions to” recited in line 2 of the claim should end in a colon in order to connect the limitation to the elements that follow it recited within the claim. This correction would recite “the instructions to:”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "that output the Angular Jerk Cost" recited in line 6 of the claim is not grammatically correct. This limitation should be written as "that outputs the Angular Jerk Cost".
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "that output the Angular Jerk Cost" recited in line 7 of the claim is not grammatically correct. This limitation should be written as "that outputs the Angular Jerk Cost".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation "estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user" recited in lines 5-6 of the claim is unclear. What is being measured of a user to estimate an angular jerk cost? Is the angular jerk cost being estimated for a user's foot based on the later recited "motion of a foot of the user"? Is the "motion of the foot of the user" being used to "estimate angular jerk cost" of another part of the body? Is the "motion of the foot of the user" being used to "estimate angular jerk cost" of an entire body of a user?
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation "input the parameter regarding the knee flexion angle" recited in line 8 of the claim is unclear. There was no recitation of "a parameter" nor "knee flexion angle" prior to this line within this claim. It is unclear what the "parameter" is or how "knee flexion angle" is relevant to how the device is acquiring "feature amount data used for estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user…related to a motion of a foot."
Additionally, the limitation "the parameter" in line 8 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is being interpreted to mean "a parameter".
Furthermore, the limitation "the knee flexion angle" in line 8of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is being interpreted to mean "a knee flexion angle".
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation "in response to input of the feature amount data" recited in line 9 of the claim is unclear. The applicant recites "input the parameter" and then within the same limitation recites "in response to input of the feature amount data". It is unclear if "parameter" and "feature amount data" are the same thing or if they are different entities. If "parameter" and "feature amount data" are the same thing, how can the same value be regarding "knee flexion angle" and "Angular Jerk Cost" given that these are two different types of measurements.
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear what the limitations “obtained in verification” recited in line 4 and “measured in verification” recited in line 6 of the claim means. It is unclear what is being verified. Is the feature amount being verified? Is the Angular Jerk Cost being verified? Is the subject themselves being verified? Is the gait itself being verified? What does verification entail or what is it being measured against? The terminology within this limitation is indefinite for how “verification” should be interpreted.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation "appearing in time series data of the knee flexion" recited in line 3 of the claim is unclear. In Claim 1, to which Claim 3 is dependent on, the applicant recites that the "Angular Jerk Cost" is related to a motion of a foot of a user. In Claim 3, the Angular Jerk Cost is recited as to be related to a knee flexion angle. It is unclear how this limitation further limits Claim 1 and what element "angular jerk cost" is reliant on. It is being interpreted to mean that an "Angular Jerk Cost" is estimated based two peaks occurring in a gait cycle that are representative of a knee flexion angle of a user.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation "address the knee state of the user" recited in line 3 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is being interpreted to mean "a knee state of the user".
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation "estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user" recited in line 3 of the claim is unclear. What is being measured of a user to estimate an angular jerk cost? Is the angular jerk cost being estimated for "motion of a foot of the user"? Is the "motion of the foot of the user" being used to "estimate angular jerk cost" of another part of the body? Is the "motion of the foot of the user" being used to "estimate angular jerk cost" of an entire body of a user?
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation "input the parameter regarding the knee flexion angle" recited in line 5 of the claim is unclear. There was no recitation of "a parameter" nor "knee flexion angle" prior to this line within this claim. It is unclear what the "parameter" is or how "knee flexion angle" is relevant to how the device is acquiring "feature amount data used for estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user…related to a motion of a foot."
Additionally, the limitation "the parameter" in line 5 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is being interpreted to mean "a parameter".
Furthermore, the limitation "the knee flexion angle" in line 5 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is being interpreted to mean "a knee flexion angle".
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation "in response to input of the feature amount data" recited in line 6 of the claim is unclear. The applicant recites "input the parameter" and then within the same limitation recites "in response to input of the feature amount data". It is unclear if "parameter" and "feature amount data" are the same thing or if they are different entities. If "parameter" and "feature amount data" are the same thing, how can the same value be regarding "knee flexion angle" and "Angular Jerk Cost" given that these are two different types of measurements.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation "estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user" recited in line 4 of the claim is unclear. What is being measured of a user to estimate an angular jerk cost? Is the angular jerk cost being estimated for "motion of a foot of the user"? Is the "motion of the foot of the user" being used to "estimate angular jerk cost" of another part of the body? Is the "motion of the foot of the user" being used to "estimate angular jerk cost" of an entire body of a user?
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation "input the parameter regarding the knee flexion angle" recited in line 6 of the claim is unclear. There was no recitation of "a parameter" nor "knee flexion angle" prior to this line within this claim. It is unclear what the "parameter" is or how "knee flexion angle" is relevant to how the device is acquiring "feature amount data used for estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user…related to a motion of a foot."
Additionally, the limitation "the parameter" in line 6 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is being interpreted to mean "a parameter".
Furthermore, the limitation "the knee flexion angle" in line 6 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is being interpreted to mean "a knee flexion angle".
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation "in response to input of the feature amount data" recited in line 7 of the claim is unclear. The applicant recites "input the parameter" and then within the same limitation recites "in response to input of the feature amount data". It is unclear if "parameter" and "feature amount data" are the same thing or if they are different entities. If "parameter" and "feature amount data" are the same thing, how can the same value be regarding "knee flexion angle" and "Angular Jerk Cost" given that these are two different types of measurements.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of Claim 9 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including acquiring feature amount data including a feature amount to be used for estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user; inputting the parameter regarding the knee flexion angle to a machine learning model; and displaying information according to the Angular Jerk Cost output on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user and displaying information according to the Angular Jerk Cost output on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe 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
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails 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. Claim 9 fails to recite any application of estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user and displaying information according to the Angular Jerk Cost output on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the Abstract Idea. The Abstract Idea alone does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not affect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on an estimated Angular Jerk Cost of a user or displaying information according to the Angular Jerk Cost output, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, Claim 9 recites additional steps of acquiring feature amount data; inputting the parameter regarding the knee flexion angle to a machine learning model. The acquiring and inputting steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the acquiring and inputting steps do 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)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a series of components, including a memory configured to store instructions, and a processor configured to execute instructions to acquire feature amount data to be used for estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user, and display information related to Angular Jerk Cost. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The steps of estimating an output and outputting information set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. Additionally, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited “index value estimation device” is a generic device configured to perform acquiring feature amount data and estimating an output obtained by inputting data as mere pre-solution data gathering; outputting information related to a feature amount as mere post-solution data gathering; and the “memory”, the “processor”, and “machine learning model” are generic computer programs configured to perform storing an estimation model that outputs data, storing instructions, and executing instructions as well as perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites a non-transitory recording medium as a component configured to store a program that causes a computer to acquire feature amount data to be used for estimating a Angular Jerk Cost of a user, inputting the parameter regarding the knee flexion angle to a machine learning model, and displaying information related to the Angular Jerk Cost. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The steps of estimating an output and outputting information set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. Additionally, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including acquiring feature amount data including a feature amount to be used for estimating Angular Jerk Cost of a user; inputting the parameter regarding the knee flexion angle to a machine learning model; and displaying information according to the Angular Jerk Cost output. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited “non-transitory program recording medium” and “machine learning model” are generic computer devices with generic computer programs that are configured to perform acquiring feature amount data; inputting the parameter into a machine learning model; and displaying information regarding the feature amount data as mere post-solution data gathering. The generic computer and its program are configured to perform the above as well as the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-8 fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite steps pertaining to data gathering and processing. Regarding Claims 2-7, a processor and a machine learning model are recited at a high level of generality that they amount to a generic computer and generic computer program. The steps of estimating Angular Jerk Cost and an output is mere pre-solution data gathering. The step of displaying recommendation information is mere post-solution data gathering. Regarding Claim 8, a “data acquisition device” configured to measure spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity is mere pre-solution data gathering.
The acquiring, inputting, estimating, and displaying steps recited in the independent claims, Claims 1 and 9-10, maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et. al.'234 (U.S. Publication Number 20120253234 - cited by applicant) in view of Jung'721 (U.S. Publication Number 20200355721).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang et. al.'234 discloses an index value estimation device (Paragraph [0111] - In addition to gait analysis…the movement distance and speed can be estimated because the spent time can be learnt from the processor; Paragraph [0126] - The variability may be used to determine if the gait of user is stable and predict the gait of the next step) comprising:
a memory storing instructions (Paragraph [0040] - A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors), and
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (Paragraph [0111] - the movement distance and speed can be estimated because the spent time can be learnt from the processor) to:
acquire feature amount data wherein the feature amount being extracted from sensor data related to a motion of a foot of the user (Paragraph [0047] - Thus, sensors in socks or those between socks and shoes or insoles may be used for sensing the changes in other joints; Paragraph [0124] - In addition, we can also use a sensor of two stages or more other than two separate sensors (S1 and S2) to obtain the same effect, namely, detect the angle, angular velocity, angular acceleration… to detect the angle, angular velocity and angular acceleration. For other locations such as rib, elbow, knees; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability);
input a parameter regarding knee flexion angle to a machine learning model that outputs angular acceleration-related data in response to the inputted data (Paragraph [0007] - An objective of the present invention is to sense gait analysis and posture changes, such as angle of bending of knee joint; Paragraph [0047] - We could predict the changes of angles of the hip or knee joint with sensors being installed on foot and the posture changes of feet according to the results of hip or knee joint sensors; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability); and
display information according to the output from the machine learning model in response to the input of the feature amount data on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user (Paragraph [0040] - Once sensing posture change, the sensor may generate an input digital signal to the microcontroller. A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors or raise alarm as necessary, or the communication module transmits the signal to other personal digital devices such as smart phone or computer, for analysis, display, storage or raise alarm).
Yang et. al.'234 further discloses a system that calculates angular acceleration over different periods of time (Paragraph [0124] - In addition, we can also use a sensor of two stages or more other than two separate sensors (S1 and S2) to obtain the same effect, namely, detect the angle, angular velocity, angular acceleration…. For other locations such as rib, elbow, knees; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability; Paragraph [0128] - In such circumstances, if the variability of angular acceleration or angular velocity is very small, the angular velocity of the next joint movement may be predicted), but fails to explicitly disclose estimating Angular Jerk Cost. Jung’721 teaches estimating angular jerk (Paragraph [0063] - In addition, by obtaining a gait jerk signal 502, which is a differential value of the gait acceleration signal 501, it is possible to detect a point-in-time in which an impact is applied to the ground when the limb comes into contact with the ground… In addition, the gait jerk signal 502 is necessarily required in order to analyze the gait acceleration signal 501 in more detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 to include estimating angular jerk in order to analyze gait acceleration in more detail as seen in Jung’721 given that angular jerk is a change in angular acceleration over time.
Yang et. al.'234 also fails to disclose displaying information according to Angular Jerk Cost. Jung’721 teaches displaying angular jerk to a user (Paragraph [0048] - the notifying module 140 may be realized in various forms, such as being connected to a smart phone, a computer, a dedicated display, or the like, to output accurate correction information as an image; Paragraph [0063] - the gait jerk signal 502 is necessarily required in order to analyze the gait acceleration signal 501 in more detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 to include displaying angular jerk in order to inform a user in more detail about their gait acceleration as seen in Jung’721 given that angular jerk is a change in angular acceleration over time.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang et. al.'234 in view of Jung’721 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1 above. Yang et. al.’234 further discloses the machine learning model is generated by a machine learning using training data having, as an explanatory variable (Paragraph [0111] - hence the movement distance and speed can be estimated because the spent time can be learnt from the processor; Paragraph [0122] - Embodiments of the present invention estimates the walking speed and obtains an approximate value based on the touchdown time difference between heel and tiptoe),
a feature amount used for estimating the Angular Jerk Cost extracted from the sensor data obtained in verification regarding a gait of each of a plurality of subjects (Paragraph [0061] - set in accordance with the average stride length found from the statistical data according to the human height or length of leg; Paragraph [0073] - Compared with normal walking), and
having, as an objective variable, a measured value of the Angular Jerk Cost actually measured in verification regarding a gait of each of the plurality of subjects (Paragraph [0123] - we can measure the parameters such as swing distance, swing angle, swing angular velocity or swing angular acceleration of posture changes in the swing phase and assess the user's stability and variability; Paragraph [0128] - The angular acceleration (a) can be calculated based on the value of the current and next time angular velocities and time differences).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang et. al.'234 in view of Jung’721 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1 above. Yang et. al.’234 further discloses obtaining measurements of joint movement during different phases in a user’s gait (Paragraph [0046] - The timing of gait is generally divided into seven phases, namely, loading response, mid-stance, terminal stance, pre-swing, initial swing, mid-swing and terminal swing, with the right heel's touching the ground as a starting point; Paragraph [0047] - Hence, the movements of hands, feet and joints and the body demonstrate corresponding change. So signal of a position may be used for sensing changes in other parts of the body as human body is an entire system).
Yang et. al.'234 also fails to disclose machine learning model is configured to estimate the Angular Jerk Cost associated with two peaks appearing in time series data of the knee flexion angle for one gait cycle. Jung’721 teaches estimating angular jerk by observing changes between more than one peak in a gait cycle (Paragraph [0063] - In addition, by obtaining a gait jerk signal 502, which is a differential value of the gait acceleration signal 501, it is possible to detect a point-in-time in which an impact is applied to the ground when the limb comes into contact with the ground… In addition, the gait jerk signal 502 is necessarily required in order to analyze the gait acceleration signal 501 in more detail; Paragraph [0077] - a first peak acceleration value 1202 indicates a point (foot-flat) at which the foot comes into contact with the ground, and is the highest acceleration value between a time 1201 (t SS start i) of a start point of the i-th single-limb support and a time 1205 (t SS mid i) of an i-th intermediate load section. In addition, a second peak acceleration value 1203 indicates a point (heel-off) at which the heel of the foot is away from the ground, and is the highest acceleration value between the time 1205 (t SS mid i) of an i-th intermediate load section and a time 1204 (t SS end i) of an end point of the i-th single-limb support. In addition, a trough acceleration value indicates a mid stance point, and is an acceleration value corresponding to t SS mid i. In this case, it is possible to find out a force value at a corresponding point-in-time by multiplying the respective values (the first peak acceleration value, the second peak acceleration value, and the trough acceleration value) by a body weight of the pedestrian). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 to include estimating angular jerk of a user through two peaks within a gait cycle in order to understand changes in acceleration between different phases of a user’s gait and deliver the user a value representative of that change as seen in Jung’721.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang et. al.'234 in view of Jung’721 discloses the device outlined in Claim 3 above. Yang et. al.’234 further discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to estimate changes in angular acceleration over time estimated for a section from mid-stance to terminal stance and changes in angular acceleration over time for a section from the terminal stance to toe off as the change in angular acceleration over time of the user (Paragraph [0046] - The timing of gait is generally divided into seven phases, namely, loading response, mid-stance, terminal stance, pre-swing, initial swing, mid-swing and terminal swing, with the right heel's touching the ground as a starting point… As sensed by sensors 5, 8, 9 and 12, (a) to (b) demonstrates loading response; (b) to (c) is the mid-stance; (c) to (d) is the terminal stance; Paragraph [0123] - measure the parameters such as swing distance, swing angle, swing angular velocity or swing angular acceleration of posture changes in the swing phase and assess the user's stability and variability).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang et. al.'234 in view of Jung’721 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1 above. Yang et. al.’234 further discloses the output is estimated by machine learning, and the information is used for decision making to address the knee state of the user (Paragraph [0040] - Once sensing posture change, the sensor may generate an input digital signal to the microcontroller. A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors or raise alarm as necessary, or the communication module transmits the signal to other personal digital devices such as smart phone or computer, for analysis, display, storage or raise alarm).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang et. al.'234 in view of Jung’721 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1 above. Yang et. al.’234 further discloses a data acquisition device configured to measure a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular velocity, and generate the sensor data based on the spatial acceleration and the spatial angular velocity (Paragraph [0047] - From an academic speaking, the initial swing should start from the right foot's being lift of the ground (g) and end at the most bending point (h) of the right knee. When a normal person lifts off his right foot (g), namely, the thumb of the right foot changes from "0" to "1", the bending angle of the right knee is 45.degree. and sensors on the foot may sense the angle of the knee joint; Paragraph [0071] - where points a.about.e in FIG. 7 show the time points of gait analysis for running: point a refers to the signal when the right heel just steps on the ground and also the starting point as defined in the analysis; Paragraph [0126] - In short, the foot velocity V may be obtained based on the landing time difference between S1 and S2 on two points in the sole of foot… Thus, embodiments of the present invention may measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang et. al.'234 discloses an estimation method executed by a computer (Paragraph [0060] - In addition, the microcontroller may also be used for predicting the gait of the next step according to the current gait change information; Paragraph [0128] - the angular velocity of the next joint movement may be predicted based on the current time angular velocity), the method comprising:
acquiring feature amount data wherein the feature amount being extracted from sensor data related to a motion of a foot of the user (Paragraph [0047] - Thus, sensors in socks or those between socks and shoes or insoles may be used for sensing the changes in other joints; Paragraph [0124] - In addition, we can also use a sensor of two stages or more other than two separate sensors (S1 and S2) to obtain the same effect, namely, detect the angle, angular velocity, angular acceleration… to detect the angle, angular velocity and angular acceleration. For other locations such as rib, elbow, knees; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability);
inputting a parameter regarding knee flexion angle to a machine learning model that outputs angular acceleration-related data in response to the inputted data (Paragraph [0007] - An objective of the present invention is to sense gait analysis and posture changes, such as angle of bending of knee joint; Paragraph [0047] - We could predict the changes of angles of the hip or knee joint with sensors being installed on foot and the posture changes of feet according to the results of hip or knee joint sensors; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability); and
displaying information according to the output from the machine learning model in response to the input of the feature amount data on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user (Paragraph [0040] - Once sensing posture change, the sensor may generate an input digital signal to the microcontroller. A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors or raise alarm as necessary, or the communication module transmits the signal to other personal digital devices such as smart phone or computer, for analysis, display, storage or raise alarm).
Yang et. al.'234 further discloses a system that calculates angular acceleration over different periods of time (Paragraph [0124] - In addition, we can also use a sensor of two stages or more other than two separate sensors (S1 and S2) to obtain the same effect, namely, detect the angle, angular velocity, angular acceleration…. For other locations such as rib, elbow, knees; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability; Paragraph [0128] - In such circumstances, if the variability of angular acceleration or angular velocity is very small, the angular velocity of the next joint movement may be predicted), but fails to explicitly disclose estimating Angular Jerk Cost. Jung’721 teaches estimating angular jerk (Paragraph [0063] - In addition, by obtaining a gait jerk signal 502, which is a differential value of the gait acceleration signal 501, it is possible to detect a point-in-time in which an impact is applied to the ground when the limb comes into contact with the ground… In addition, the gait jerk signal 502 is necessarily required in order to analyze the gait acceleration signal 501 in more detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 to include estimating angular jerk in order to analyze gait acceleration in more detail as seen in Jung’721 given that angular jerk is a change in angular acceleration over time.
Yang et. al.'234 also fails to disclose displaying information according to Angular Jerk Cost. Jung’721 teaches displaying angular jerk to a user (Paragraph [0048] - the notifying module 140 may be realized in various forms, such as being connected to a smart phone, a computer, a dedicated display, or the like, to output accurate correction information as an image; Paragraph [0063] - the gait jerk signal 502 is necessarily required in order to analyze the gait acceleration signal 501 in more detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 to include displaying angular jerk in order to inform a user in more detail about their gait acceleration as seen in Jung’721 given that angular jerk is a change in angular acceleration over time.
Regarding Claim 10, Yang et. al.’234 discloses a non-transitory program recording medium recorded with a program causing a computer to perform processes (Paragraph [0040] - A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors or raise alarm as necessary, or the communication module transmits the signal to other personal digital devices such as smart phone or computer, for analysis, display, storage or raise alarm), including the following:
acquiring feature amount data wherein the feature amount being extracted from sensor data related to a motion of a foot of the user (Paragraph [0047] - Thus, sensors in socks or those between socks and shoes or insoles may be used for sensing the changes in other joints; Paragraph [0124] - In addition, we can also use a sensor of two stages or more other than two separate sensors (S1 and S2) to obtain the same effect, namely, detect the angle, angular velocity, angular acceleration… to detect the angle, angular velocity and angular acceleration. For other locations such as rib, elbow, knees; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability);
inputting a parameter regarding knee flexion angle to a machine learning model that outputs angular acceleration-related data in response to the inputted data (Paragraph [0007] - An objective of the present invention is to sense gait analysis and posture changes, such as angle of bending of knee joint; Paragraph [0047] - We could predict the changes of angles of the hip or knee joint with sensors being installed on foot and the posture changes of feet according to the results of hip or knee joint sensors; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability); and
displaying information according to the output from the machine learning model in response to the input of the feature amount data on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user (Paragraph [0040] - Once sensing posture change, the sensor may generate an input digital signal to the microcontroller. A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors or raise alarm as necessary, or the communication module transmits the signal to other personal digital devices such as smart phone or computer, for analysis, display, storage or raise alarm).
Yang et. al.'234 further discloses a system that calculates angular acceleration over different periods of time (Paragraph [0124] - In addition, we can also use a sensor of two stages or more other than two separate sensors (S1 and S2) to obtain the same effect, namely, detect the angle, angular velocity, angular acceleration…. For other locations such as rib, elbow, knees; Paragraph [0126] - measure the acceleration during movement and speed of each time and carry out statistics to obtain the variability; Paragraph [0128] - In such circumstances, if the variability of angular acceleration or angular velocity is very small, the angular velocity of the next joint movement may be predicted), but fails to explicitly disclose estimating Angular Jerk Cost. Jung’721 teaches estimating angular jerk (Paragraph [0063] - In addition, by obtaining a gait jerk signal 502, which is a differential value of the gait acceleration signal 501, it is possible to detect a point-in-time in which an impact is applied to the ground when the limb comes into contact with the ground… In addition, the gait jerk signal 502 is necessarily required in order to analyze the gait acceleration signal 501 in more detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 to include estimating angular jerk in order to analyze gait acceleration in more detail as seen in Jung’721 given that angular jerk is a change in angular acceleration over time.
Yang et. al.'234 also fails to disclose displaying information according to Angular Jerk Cost. Jung’721 teaches displaying angular jerk to a user (Paragraph [0048] - the notifying module 140 may be realized in various forms, such as being connected to a smart phone, a computer, a dedicated display, or the like, to output accurate correction information as an image; Paragraph [0063] - the gait jerk signal 502 is necessarily required in order to analyze the gait acceleration signal 501 in more detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 to include displaying angular jerk in order to inform a user in more detail about their gait acceleration as seen in Jung’721 given that angular jerk is a change in angular acceleration over time.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et. al.'234 (U.S. Publication Number 20120253234 - cited by applicant) in view of Jung'721 (U.S. Publication Number 20200355721) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Matos'765 (WO Publication Number 03103765).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang et. al.'234 in view of Jung’721 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1 above. Yang et. al.'234 also discloses a processor configured to display, on a screen of a mobile terminal, recommendation information to a user according to estimation results of change of angular acceleration over time (Paragraph [0040] - A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors or raise alarm as necessary, or the communication module transmits the signal to other personal digital devices such as smart phone or computer, for analysis, display, storage or raise alarm; Paragraph [0122] - Too significant change might be the premonition of falls and warning would be raised accordingly), but fails to disclose display recommendation information according to the estimation result of the Angular Jerk Cost on the screen of the mobile terminal. Matos'765 teaches displaying information regarding a hospital at which a user can seek medical advice (Page 202 Second Paragraph to Page 203 First Paragraph - the emergency medical team local to the victim is called by the central station. They may be called: a) directly by the MP; b) by a CS administrator, or other person working with the MP (so that MP's attention need not be diverted from dealing with the EN); or c) by computer. As shown in figure 27, the PU 202 Deployment Screen, the MP may be provided with access to information about: a) the hospital nearest the victim; b) the emergency service (fire department, police or hospital based) nearest the victim; c) estimated arrival times for the nearest emergency service; and d) telephone numbers for contacting these emergency services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 in view of Jung’721 to include an alert with a display that includes information such as hospital locations and phone numbers in order to provide personnel with recommendations for how a user could receive help as seen in Matos’765.
Regarding Claim 6, Yang et. al.'234 in view of Jung'721 discloses the device disclosed in Claim 1 above. Yang et. al.'234 also discloses a processor configured to display, on a screen of a mobile terminal, recommendation information to a user according to estimation results of change of angular acceleration over time (Paragraph [0040] - A program processing modules in the microcontroller may then simultaneously analyze, display and store the digital signal from all sensors or raise alarm as necessary, or the communication module transmits the signal to other personal digital devices such as smart phone or computer, for analysis, display, storage or raise alarm; Paragraph [0122] - Too significant change might be the premonition of falls and warning would be raised accordingly), but fails to disclose a device that displays recommendation information including information regarding a hospital at which the user can seek medical advice. Matos'765 teaches displaying information regarding a hospital at which a user can seek medical advice (Page 202 Second Paragraph to Page 203 First Paragraph - the emergency medical team local to the victim is called by the central station. They may be called: a) directly by the MP; b) by a CS administrator, or other person working with the MP (so that MP's attention need not be diverted from dealing with the EN); or c) by computer. As shown in figure 27, the PU 202 Deployment Screen, the MP may be provided with access to information about: a) the hospital nearest the victim; b) the emergency service (fire department, police or hospital based) nearest the victim; c) estimated arrival times for the nearest emergency service; and d) telephone numbers for contacting these emergency services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Yang et. al.’234 in view of Jung’721 to include an alert with a display that includes information such as hospital locations and phone numbers in order to provide personnel with the closest options for a user to receive help as seen in Matos’765.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hawkins et. al.'945 (U.S. Publication Number 20150099945) discloses displaying jerk of a joint to a user and Folland et. al.'916 (U.S. Publication Number 20180279916) discloses calculating jerk based on changes and presence in peaks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ANN WESTFALL whose telephone number is (571)272-3845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4:30pm 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.
/SARAH ANN WESTFALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791