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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 5, “pressure averages” should read “pressure average”
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 2 and 7 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 2 recites the limitation “the R-score map comprises a plurality of score points” in lines 4-5. It is unclear how the score points are being calculated. Claim 2 further recites the limitation “an angle between each score point and a horizontal axis” in lines 6-7. A line through the score point is not defined; therefore, it is unclear how the angle is being measured. As such, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim, as best understood, is being interpreted as requiring a scatterplot that depicts a correlation between the music’s beat and a user’s step while walking, where the scatterplot’s R-value represent the strength and variation between the timing of the rhythmic beat and the user’s step.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the R-score map comprises a plurality of score points” in lines 5-6. It is unclear how the score points are being calculated. Claim 2 further recites the limitation “an angle between each score point and a horizontal axis” in lines 7-8. A line through the score point is not defined; therefore, it is unclear how the angle is being measured. As such, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim, as best understood, is being interpreted as requiring a scatterplot that depicts a correlation between the music’s beat and a user’s step while walking, where the scatterplot’s R-value represent the strength and variation between the timing of the rhythmic beat and the user’s step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (US 2021/0086024) in view of Najafi (US 10,504,496).
Regarding claim 1, McCarthy et al. teaches a rehabilitation method (Abstract; paras. 0007-0009), including:
playing a rhythm music at a beat speed by a music player (Fig. 18, step 1806; para. 0124);
capturing a plurality of first foot pressure distributions by a first pressure sensing device (Fig. 18, step 1812; para. 0042, “foot pressure profile that comprises 1 to 4 zones resulting in 100 to 400 pressure data points per foot per second”; paras. 0043-0046 and 0126; Fig. 4, right foot sensor 200R);
obtaining a plurality of first trigger mode pressure distributions (para. 0043, “one zone of pressure, e.g., heel strike pressure”; para. 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11, wherein the “time step” represents the steps taken by the user; heel-strike pressure exceeding a certain threshold - thereby indicating the user’s heel is touching the ground, is being interpreted as a step or repetitive movement in the gait cycle; paras. 0060-0063; Fig. 5, pressure 316a) which meet a trigger mode (paras. 0044, 0059-0063, 0117, and 0165-0166, wherein a trigger mode is being construed as the presence of a “heel strike”, wherein zone pressure data that indicates the presence of a “heel-strike” is being used and interpreted as a “step” or trigger, further signifying the onset of walking) in the first foot pressure distributions (Fig. 4, right foot sensor 200R; paras. 0042 and 0046, wherein the right foot pressure profile comprising pressure data points is being construed as the “first foot pressure distributions”) by a processor (paras. 0050-0059 and 0174-1075, wherein the computer program executing on one or more computing devices includes a processor);
obtaining a trigger speed (paras. 0063 and 0123, wherein “cadence” is being construed as the trigger speed) of the first trigger mode pressure distributions (paras. 0042-0043 and 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11; paras. 0060-0062; Fig. 5, pressure 316a) in the first foot pressure distributions (paras. 0042 and 0046) by the processor (paras. 0050-0059 and 0174-1075, wherein the computer program executing on one or more computing devices includes a processor);
increasing the beat speed (Fig. 18; paras. 0128-0129 and 0134, wherein the music’s “tempo” is being construed as the beat speed) by the processor (para. 0113); and
reducing the beat speed (Fig. 18; paras. 0128-0129 and 0134, wherein the music’s “tempo” is being construed as the beat speed) by the processor (para. 0113).
McCarthy et al. fails to specifically teach increasing the beat speed based on the beat speed being slower than the trigger speed; and reducing the beat speed based on the beat speed being faster than the trigger speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Najafi teaches increasing the beat speed based on the beat speed being slower than the trigger speed (Col. 1, lines 20-34; Figs. 4-5; Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-7 and 31-46, wherein the music control is configured to adjust the tempo of the music in order to synchronize the music to the user’s walking beat or cadence); and
reducing the beat speed based on the beat speed being faster than the trigger speed (Col. 1, lines 20-34; Figs. 4-5; Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-7 and 31-46, wherein the music control is configured to adjust the tempo of the music in order to synchronize the music to the user’s walking beat or cadence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the rehabilitation method of McCarthy et al. with the step of reducing/increasing the music’s tempo in accordance with the user’s walking beat of Najafi. To achieve synchronization between the music and the user’s cadence and improve the user’s walking speed, the tempo of the music needs to be continually adjusted in accordance with the user’s measured gait parameters (Najafi, Col. 1, lines 20-34; Figs. 4-5; Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-7 and 31-46).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation method according to claim 1 as stated above further comprising:
constructing a R-score map (McCarthy et al., Fig. 14; para. 0120; para. 0119, “EP ratio”; see EP Ratio equation) according to the first trigger mode pressure distribution (McCarthy et al., Fig. 11, “time step”; paras. 0117-0119) and a plurality of occurrences time points of the plurality of beat points of the rhythm music (McCarthy et al., paras. 0117-0119; Fig. 11, “time beat”), wherein the R-score map comprises a plurality of score points (McCarthy et al., para. 0120, “scattering of dots 1402, which represent the averages of the EP Ratio of a first patient’s gait”);
outputting the beat speed (McCarthy et al., Fig. 14, tempo over time 1408) based on each score point (Fig. 14, dots 1402) in the R-score map being equal to or less than (McCarthy et al., para. 0128, “entrainment potential”; Fig. 18, step 1818; paras. 0133-0134) a preset value (McCarthy et al., para. 0119, “the goal is for an EP Ratio = 1”; para. 0173).
Regarding claim 3, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation method according to claim 1 as stated above further comprising:
capturing a plurality of second foot pressure distributions by a second pressure sensing device (McCarthy et al., Fig. 18, step 1812; para. 0042, “foot pressure profile that comprises 1 to 4 zones resulting in 100 to 400 pressure data points per foot per second”, paras. 0043-0046 and 0126; Fig. 4, right foot sensor 200L);
obtaining a plurality of second trigger mode pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., para. 0043, “one zone of pressure, e.g., heel strike pressure”; para. 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11, wherein the “time step” represents the steps taken by the user; heel-strike pressure exceeding a certain threshold - thereby indicating the user’s heel is touching the ground is being interpreted as a step or repetitive movement in the gait cycle; paras. 0060-0063; Fig. 5, pressure 316b) which meet the trigger mode (McCarthy et al., paras. 0044, 0059-0063, 0117, and 0165-0166, wherein a trigger mode is being construed as the presence of a “heel strike”, wherein zone pressure data that indicates the presence of a “heel-strike” is being used and interpreted as a “step” or trigger, further signifying the onset of walking) in the second foot pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., Fig. 4, left foot sensor 200L; paras. 0042 and 0046, wherein the left foot pressure profile comprising pressure data points is being construed as the “second foot pressure distributions”) by the processor (McCarthy et al., paras. 0050-0059 and 0174-1075, wherein the computer program executing on one or more computing devices includes a processor); and
obtaining the trigger speed (McCarthy et al., paras. 0063 and 0123, wherein “cadence” is being construed as the trigger speed) of the first trigger mode pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., paras. 0042-0043 and 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11; paras. 0060-0062; Fig. 5, pressure 316a) and the second trigger mode pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., paras. 0042-0043 and 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11; paras. 0060-0062; Fig. 5, pressure 316b) in the first foot pressure distributions and the second foot pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., Fig. 4, right foot sensor 200R and left foot sensor 200L; paras. 0042 and 0046).
Regarding claim 6, McCarthy et al. teaches a rehabilitation device (Abstract; Fig. 1; paras. 0037-0038), comprising:
a music player (Fig. 2, music delivery system 230) configured to play a rhythm music at a beat speed (para. 0124);
a first pressure sensing device (Fig. 4, right foot sensor 200R) configured to capture a plurality of first foot pressure distributions (para. 0042-0046, “foot pressure profile/maps”); and
a processor (paras. 0010-0011 and 0174-0175; Fig. 1, edge processor 104; paras. 0055-0056) configured to:
obtain a plurality of first trigger mode pressure distributions (para. 0055, “the edge processor…enables fast multiple zone scanning at a rate of 100 to 400 complete foot pressure/6-degrees of freedom motion profiles per second”; para. 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11, wherein the “time step” represents the steps taken by the user; heel-strike pressure exceeding a certain threshold - thereby indicating the user’s heel is touching the ground is being interpreted as a step or repetitive movement in the gait cycle; paras. 0060-0063; Fig. 5, pressure 316a) which meet a trigger mode (paras. 0044, 0059-0063, 0117, and 0165-0166, wherein a trigger mode is being construed as the presence of a “heel strike”, wherein zone pressure data that indicates the presence of a “heel-strike” is being used and interpreted as a “step” or trigger, further signifying the onset of walking) in the first foot pressure distributions (Fig. 4, right foot sensor 200R; paras. 0042 and 0046, wherein the right foot pressure profile comprising pressure data points is being construed as the “first foot pressure distributions”);
obtain a trigger speed (paras. 0063 and 0123, wherein “cadence” is being construed as the trigger speed) of the first trigger mode pressure distribution (paras. 0042-0043 and 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11; paras. 0060-0062; Fig. 5, pressure 316a) in the first foot pressure distributions (paras. 0042, 0046, and 0055);
increase the beat speed (Fig. 18; paras. 0128-0129 and 0134, wherein the music’s “tempo” is being construed as the beat speed); and
reduce the beat speed (Fig. 18; paras. 0128-0129 and 0134, wherein the music’s “tempo” is being construed as the beat speed).
McCarthy et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a processor is configured to: increase the beat speed based on the beat speed being slower than the trigger speed; and reduce the beat speed based on the beat speed being faster than the trigger speed.
In the same field endeavor, Najafi teaches wherein a processor is configured to: increase the beat speed based on the beat speed being slower than the trigger speed (Col. 1, lines 20-34; Figs. 4-5; Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-7 and 31-46, wherein the music control is configured to adjust the tempo of the music in order to synchronize the music to the user’s walking beat or cadence); and
reduce the beat speed based on the beat speed being faster than the trigger speed (Col. 1, lines 20-34; Figs. 4-5; Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-7 and 31-46, wherein the music control is configured to adjust the tempo of the music in order to synchronize the music to the user’s walking beat or cadence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the rehabilitation device of McCarthy et al. with the processor configured to reduce/increase the music’s tempo in accordance with the user’s walking beat of Najafi. To achieve synchronization between the music and the user’s cadence and improve the user’s walking speed, the tempo of the music needs to be continually adjusted in accordance with the user’s measured gait parameters (Najafi, Col. 1, lines 20-34; Figs. 4-5; Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-7 and 31-46).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation device according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the processor (paras. 0174-0175) is further configured to:
construct a R-score map (McCarthy et al., Fig. 14; para. 0120; para. 0119, “EP ratio”; see EP Ratio equation) according to the first trigger mode pressure distribution (McCarthy et al., Fig. 11, “time step”; paras. 0117-0119) and a plurality of occurrences time points of the plurality of beat points of the rhythm music (McCarthy et al., paras. 0117-0119; Fig. 11, “time beat”), wherein the R-score map comprises a plurality of score points (McCarthy et al., para. 0120, “scattering of dots 1402, which represent the averages of the EP Ratio of a first patient’s gait”);
output the beat speed (McCarthy et al., Fig. 14, tempo over time 1408) based on each score point (Fig. 14, dots 1402) in the R-score map being equal to or less than (McCarthy et al., para. 0128, “entrainment potential”; Fig. 18, step 1818; paras. 0133-0134) a preset value (McCarthy et al., para. 0119, “the goal is for an EP Ratio = 1”; para. 0173).
Regarding claim 8, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation device according to claim 6 as stated above further comprising:
a second pressure sensing device configured to capture a plurality of second foot pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., paras. 0042-0046, “foot pressure profile/maps”; Fig. 4, left foot sensor 200L);
wherein the processor (McCarthy et al., paras. 0010-0011 and 0174-0175; Fig. 1, edge processor 104; paras. 0055-0056) is configured to:
obtain a plurality of second trigger mode pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., para. 0055, “the edge processor…enables fast multiple zone scanning at a rate of 100 to 400 complete foot pressure/6-degrees of freedom motion profiles per second”; para. 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11, wherein the “time step” represents the steps taken by the user; heel-strike pressure exceeding a certain threshold - thereby indicating the user’s heel is touching the ground is being interpreted as a step or repetitive movement in the gait cycle; paras. 0060-0063; Fig. 5, pressure 316b) which meet the trigger mode (McCarthy et al., paras. 0044, 0059-0063, 0117, and 0165-0166, wherein a trigger mode is being construed as the presence of a “heel strike”, wherein zone pressure data that indicates the presence of a “heel-strike” is being used and interpreted as a “step” or trigger, further signifying the onset of walking) in the second foot pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., Fig. 4, left foot sensor 200L; paras. 0042 and 0046, wherein the left foot pressure profile comprising pressure data points is being construed as the “second foot pressure distributions”); and
obtain the trigger speed (McCarthy et al., paras. 0063 and 0123, wherein “cadence” is being construed as the trigger speed) of the first trigger mode pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., paras. 0042-0043 and 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11; paras. 0060-0062; Fig. 5, pressure 316a) and the second trigger mode pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., paras. 0042-0043 and 0117, “heel strike pressure” and “time step”; Fig. 11; paras. 0060-0062; Fig. 5, pressure 316b) in the first foot pressure distributions and the second foot pressure distributions (McCarthy et al., Fig. 4, right foot sensor 200R and left foot sensor 200L; paras. 0042, 0046, and 0055).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi, further in view of Kärki et al. ("Plantar pressure distribution measurements: An approach to different methods to compute a pressure map"), hereinafter "Kärki et al.", and Crea et al. ("A wireless flexible sensorized insole for gait analysis"), hereinafter “Crea et al.”.
Regarding claim 4, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation method according to claim 1 as stated above. McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi fails to teach obtaining a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution by the processor; and obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure averages by the processor; and obtaining the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values by the processor.
In the same field of endeavor, Kärki et al. teaches obtaining a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution by the processor (Fig. 3. Average pressure map determines the mean of the values measured with a single sensor; pages 1771-1772, entirety of section: 2.2. Data analysis, wherein MATLAB ® software, running on a computing device, was used to compute and process the data); and
obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure averages by the processor (see Fig. 3, on page 1772, wherein the maximum pressure values of the average pressure map appear as a number and are represented by a color (red)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the rehabilitation method of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi with the step of obtaining a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure averages of Kärki et al. An average pressure map may provide a better overall picture of interface pressures associated with abnormal gait, whereas the computed maximum pressure values may be useful for analyses and investigations concerning particular areas of the affected plantar surface (Kärki et al., page 1770, entirety of section: Introduction).
While Kärki et al. teaches obtaining a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure averages, Kärki et al. fails to teach obtaining the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values by the processor.
In the same field of endeavor, Crea et al. teaches obtaining the trigger speed according to pressure values by the processor (page 1082, entirety of section: 3.2. Data Analysis, “Right and left step cadence…”; page 1083, Fig. 6; page 1084, Fig. 7 and entirety of section: Gait Parameters; pages 1080-1081, entirety of section: 2.4. Data Recording, Graphical User Interface and Gait Segmentation Algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have combined the rehabilitation method of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi, further in view of Kärki et al. with the trigger speed (cadence) computation of Crea et al. By substituting the pressure values of Crea et al. with the maximum extreme pressure values of Kärki et al., biomechanical features corresponding to specific gait phases, such as heel-strike and push-off, may be calculated and further processed for clinical diagnosis (Crea et al., pages 1074-1075, “one of the ultimate goals of gait analysis though pressure-sensitive insoles is the detection of gait events, e.g., heel strike, mid-stance, toe-off. These events are important in order to extract biomechanical features for clinical diagnosis (e.g., gait speed, temporal duration of stance/swing, gait symmetry) and their variability over gait cycles, as well as walking conditions (e.g., speed, cadence) and locomotion tasks (e.g., ascending/descending stairs, sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit)”).
Regarding claim 5, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation method according to claim 1 as stated above. McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi fails to teach obtaining a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution by the processor; and obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value by the processor; and obtaining the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values by the processor.
In the same field of endeavor, Kärki et al. teaches obtaining a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution by the processor (Fig. 1. Cumulative pressure map shows the sum of all pressure values measured with a single sensor; pages 1771-1772, entirety of section: 2.2. Data analysis, wherein MATLAB ® software, running on a computing device, was used to compute and process the data); and
obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value by the processor (see Fig. 1, on page 1772, wherein the maximum pressure values of the cumulative pressure map appear as a number and are represented by a color (red); page 1772, “Especially in the cumulative pressure map, very high relative pressure values may appear and thus it is useful to see the value also as a number”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the rehabilitation method of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi with the step of obtaining a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value of Kärki et al. A cumulative pressure map may provide a comprehensive picture of all the pressure values detected across the plantar surface, whereas the computed maximum pressure values may be useful for analyses and investigations concerning particular areas of the affected plantar surface (Kärki et al., page 1770, entirety of section: Introduction).
While Kärki et al. teaches obtaining a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtaining a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value, Kärki fails to teach obtaining the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values by the processor.
In the same field of endeavor, Crea et al. teaches obtaining the trigger speed according to pressure values by a processor (page 1082, entirety of section: 3.2. Data Analysis, “Right and left step cadence…”; page 1083, Fig. 6; page 1084, Fig. 7 and entirety of section: Gait Parameters; pages 1080-1081, entirety of section: 2.4. Data Recording, Graphical User Interface and Gait Segmentation Algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have combined the rehabilitation method of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi, further in view of Kärki et al. with the trigger speed (cadence) computation of Crea et al. By substituting the pressure values of Crea et al. with the maximum extreme pressure values of Kärki et al., biomechanical features corresponding to specific gait phases, such as heel-strike and push-off, may be calculated and further processed for clinical diagnosis (Crea et al., pages 1074-1075, “one of the ultimate goals of gait analysis though pressure-sensitive insoles is the detection of gait events, e.g., heel strike, mid-stance, toe-off. These events are important in order to extract biomechanical features for clinical diagnosis (e.g., gait speed, temporal duration of stance/swing, gait symmetry) and their variability over gait cycles, as well as walking conditions (e.g., speed, cadence) and locomotion tasks (e.g., ascending/descending stairs, sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit)”).
Regarding claim 9, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation device according to claim 6 as stated above. McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution; and obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure average values; and obtain the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values.
In the same field of endeavor, Kärki et al. teaches wherein the processor (pages 1771-1772, entirety of section: 2.2. Data analysis, wherein MATLAB ® software, running on a computing device, was used to compute and process the data) is further configured to:
obtain a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution (Fig. 3. Average pressure map determines the mean of the values measured with a single sensor); and
obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure averages (see Fig. 3, on page 1772, wherein the maximum pressure values of the average pressure map appear as a number and are represented by a color (red)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the rehabilitation device of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi with the processor configured to obtain a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure averages of Kärki et al. An average pressure map may provide a better overall picture of interface pressures associated with abnormal gait, whereas the computed maximum pressure values may be useful for analyses and investigations concerning particular areas of the affected plantar surface (Kärki et al., page 1770, entirety of section: Introduction).
While Kärki et al. teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first pressure average of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure averages, Kärki et al. fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values.
In the same field of endeavor, Crea et al. teaches wherein the processor (pages 1080-1081, entirety of section: 2.4. Data Recording, Graphical User Interface and Gait Segmentation Algorithm) is further configured to: obtain the trigger speed according to pressure values (page 1082, entirety of section: 3.2. Data Analysis, “Right and left step cadence…”; page 1083, Fig. 6; page 1084, Fig. 7 and entirety of section: Gait Parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have combined the rehabilitation device of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi, further in view of Kärki et al. with the trigger speed (cadence) computation of Crea et al. By substituting the pressure values of Crea et al. with the maximum extreme pressure values of Kärki et al., biomechanical features corresponding to specific gait phases, such as heel-strike and push-off, may be calculated and further processed for clinical diagnosis (Crea et al., pages 1074-1075, “one of the ultimate goals of gait analysis though pressure-sensitive insoles is the detection of gait events, e.g., heel strike, mid-stance, toe-off. These events are important in order to extract biomechanical features for clinical diagnosis (e.g., gait speed, temporal duration of stance/swing, gait symmetry) and their variability over gait cycles, as well as walking conditions (e.g., speed, cadence) and locomotion tasks (e.g., ascending/descending stairs, sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit)”).
Regarding claim 10, McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi teaches the rehabilitation device according to claim 6 as stated above. McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution; and obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value; and obtain the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values.
In the same field of endeavor, Kärki et al. teaches wherein the processor (pages 1771-1772, entirety of section: 2.2. Data analysis, wherein MATLAB ® software, running on a computing device, was used to compute and process the data) is further configured to: obtain a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution (Fig. 1. Cumulative pressure map shows the sum of all pressure values measured with a single sensor); and
obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value (see Fig. 1, on page 1772, wherein the maximum pressure values of the cumulative pressure map appear as a number and are represented by a color (red); page 1772, “Especially in the cumulative pressure map, very high relative pressure values may appear and thus it is useful to see the value also as a number”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the rehabilitation device of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi with the processor configured to obtain a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value of Kärki et al. A cumulative pressure map may provide a comprehensive picture of all the pressure values detected across the plantar surface, whereas the computed maximum pressure values may be useful for analyses and investigations concerning particular areas of the affected plantar surface (Kärki et al., page 1770, entirety of section: Introduction).
While Kärki et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to: obtain a first pressure sum value of a plurality of first pressure sensing values in each first foot pressure distribution and obtain a plurality of first maximum extreme values in the first pressure sum value, Kärki fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to obtain the trigger speed according to the first maximum extreme values by the processor.
In the same field of endeavor, Crea et al. teaches wherein the processor (pages 1080-1081, entirety of section: 2.4. Data Recording, Graphical User Interface and Gait Segmentation Algorithm) is configured to obtain the trigger speed according to pressure values (page 1082, entirety of section: 3.2. Data Analysis, “Right and left step cadence…”; page 1083, Fig. 6; page 1084, Fig. 7 and entirety of section: Gait Parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have combined the rehabilitation device of McCarthy et al. in view of Najafi, further in view of Kärki et al. with the trigger speed (cadence) computation of Crea et al. By substituting the pressure values of Crea et al. with the maximum extreme pressure values of Kärki et al., biomechanical features corresponding to specific gait phases, such as heel-strike and push-off, may be calculated and further processed for clinical diagnosis (Crea et al., pages 1074-1075, “one of the ultimate goals of gait analysis though pressure-sensitive insoles is the detection of gait events, e.g., heel strike, mid-stance, toe-off. These events are important in order to extract biomechanical features for clinical diagnosis (e.g., gait speed, temporal duration of stance/swing, gait symmetry) and their variability over gait cycles, as well as walking conditions (e.g., speed, cadence) and locomotion tasks (e.g., ascending/descending stairs, sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit)”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reed et al. (US 2022/0125336) teaches a method and apparatus for modifying and assessing gait asymmetry wherein auditory cues are generated for synchronizing a measured step time of a user with a target step time. Hu et al. (US 2022/0331195) discloses a gait evaluation system configured to obtain a plurality of plantar pressures of a user and evaluate the user’s limb features and biomechanics based on the obtained pressure data. Choi et al. (KR 2022/0033340) discloses a smart insole-based gait training system for adjusting the walking pace according to a sound output cycle of a user. The sound is adjusted according to the user’s measured pressure data. Tomizaki et al. (JP 2021/074066) discloses a walking guidance system that is configured to calculate walking characteristics, such as cadence, stride length, stance phase ratio, toe angle, based on foot pressure distribution measurements obtained during ambulating. Dalla Bella et al. (2017) investigates gait training based on rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS) for patients with Parkinson’s disease. A positive response to RAS was predicated by the synchronization performance in gait tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights