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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to the Specification has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Specification, filed 03/16/26.
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 03/16/26. However, a new claim objection has been presented in light of the amendments, as discussed in detail below.
The previous rejections to claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 03/16/26. However, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been maintained. Moreover, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as discussed in detail below.
Claim 6 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is indefinite as to how the dangerous level indicates a frequency of events that the height of the step is determined to be equal to or larger than the leg lifting range, wherein the height is of a single step. That is, it is unclear how the dangerous level can indicate a number of events that the height of the step is determined to be equal to or larger than the leg lifting range when there is only a singular step.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the amended claims recite performing data acquisition using a physical sensor and thereafter execute a relevant process based thereon which are not mere psychological processes or simple calculations able to be executed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper, and further are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (Remarks, filed 03/16/26, pp. 14-15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of acquiring sensor data using at least one of an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, as noted in the Non-Final Rejection, filed 12/16/25, pp. 5-6, the acquiring lifting information (based on the sensed data), as well as the acquiring height information encompass mental processes (observation/evaluation) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). That is, a human could mentally determine, based on gathered data (e.g., sensor data and/or visual observation), lifting information indicating a lifting range of a leg of the person, as well as height information indicating a height of a step. Moreover, a human could mentally determine, based on the gathered information (e.g., via sensor and/or visually), a dangerous level of walk of the person (e.g., a safety/trip hazard), and mentally generate walk assist information (e.g., command/instruction/notification to be given to the person). Finally, a human could output the walk assist information (e.g., verbally) to the person (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Applicant further argues that the claim contains additional elements which integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer, and apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (Remarks, filed 03/16/26, pp. 15-16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite the abstract ideas of mental processes (observation/evaluation) and certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims recite the abstract ideas of mentally gathering data (i.e., visual observation) and determining, based on gathered data (i.e., visual and/or sensed), movement information of a user, and mentally generating and outputting (i.e., verbally) guidance/instructions accordingly. While Applicant argues that the improvement provides for the determination of a level of walk of a person, the alleged improvement is in the abstract idea itself, and not an improvement to technology and/or the technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)(noting that it is insufficient to show an improvement is gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result)).
Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have bee fully considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection, presented in detail below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim should end with a period (See MPEP 608.01(m)). 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 6 and 17 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 6 recites in part “wherein the dangerous level indicates a frequency of events that the height of the step indicated by the height information is determined to be equal to or larger than the leg lifting range indicated by the lifting information”. It is indefinite as to how the dangerous level indicates a frequency of, or a number of, events that the height of a single step, indicated by the height information, is determined to be equal to or larger than a left lifting range, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see Specification, [0066], “For instance, the dangerous level determination part 16 may calculate, as the dangerous level, a frequency of (the number of) events that a height of a step in a place indicated by a place ID included in the lifting information input from the lifting detection part 15 is determined to be equal to or larger than a leg lifting range indicated by the lifting information.”).
Claim 17 recites “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the walk assist device is a walk assist suit worn by the person.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the walk assist device” in the claim.
A suggested amendment is as follows: “The information processing method according to claim [[1]]16, wherein the walk assist device is a walk assist suit worn by the person.”
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites in part “An information processing method”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), and certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Claim 1 recites: An information processing method, by a processor included in an information processing device, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring a sensor value output from a sensor including at least one of an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor, the sensor being configured to be attached to a leg of a person (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering);
acquiring, based on the sensor value about the person, lifting information indicating a lifting range of the leg of the person in a walk, the lifting range representing a value of a vertical distance between a floor surface and the leg (mental process: observation/evaluation; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering);
acquiring height information indicating a height of a step from a floor in a space where the person moves (mental process: observation/evaluation; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering);
determining, based on the lifting range indicated by the lifting information and the height of the step indicated by the height information, a dangerous level of the walk of the person (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment);
generating walk assist information in accordance with the dangerous level (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion); and
outputting the walk assist information (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission/display).
The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, as shown above, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, a human (e.g., therapist, caretaker, etc.) could mentally acquire, based on gathered data about a person (e.g., patient), lifting information indicating a lifting range of a leg of the person, as well as height information indicating a height of a step from a floor in a space where the person moves which could be determined through visual observation, for example. Moreover, a human could mentally determine, based on the gathered (e.g., via sensor and/or visually) information, a dangerous level of walk of the person (e.g., a safety/trip hazard), and mentally generate walk assist information (e.g., command/instruction/notification to be given to the person). Finally, a human could output the walk assist information (e.g., verbally) to the person (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. That is, while the claim recites “An information processing method, by a processor included in an information processing device”, the limitations of a “processor” and “information processing device” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere automation of a manual process. The generic manner in which the device and processor are claimed amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer and/or generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological (computer) environment, i.e., field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h). Moreover, the limitations of acquiring a sensor value output from a sensor including at least one of an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor, the sensor being configured to be attached to a leg of a person, acquiring, based on the sensor value about the person, lifting information indicating a lifting range of the leg of the person, and acquiring height information indicating a height of a step from a floor in a space where the person moves, are additionally and/or alternatively directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Similarly, the limitation of outputting the walk assist information is additionally and/or alternatively directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission/display, which also does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), recites a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), recites a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or recites any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract ideas.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While the claim recites a “processor” and an “information processing device”, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. Rather, the generic manner in which these limitations are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas using a computing device and/or generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological (computer) environment, i.e., field of use. Additionally and/or alternatively, the additional limitations of acquiring data and outputting data, as noted above, are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and data transmission/display, respectively). The sensor, including at least one of an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor, is a generic component performing its routine function (see e.g., U.S. Pub. 2017/0352288 A1, [0019], directed to assisting a person in walking and noting that accelerometers are well-known in the art). Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed by the processor included in the information processing device are devoid of technical/technological details. Further, the limitations, when taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Furthermore, the Specification demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, which refers to the elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0024], “The server 1 is an example of the information processing device. […] The server 1 includes, for example, a cloud server.” & [0048], “In Fig. 1, each of the motion information extraction part 12 to the height information extraction part 19 come into effect when the processor executes an information processing program. However, this is a mere example, and each of the motion information extraction part 12 to the height information extraction part 19 may be established in the form of a dedicated hardware circuit like an ASIC.”; see further [0006]; [0011]; [0036]; & [0038], which are the only other locations in the Specification which recite an “information processing device” and/or “processor”, and which comprise mere recitations of the claim language). Additionally, employing well-known computer functions (e.g., acquiring/gathering and/or transmitting/displaying data) to execute abstract ideas, even when limiting the use of the ideas to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 recites an information processing device comprising a processor which executes the limitations recited above, while independent claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to serve as an information processing device, by a processor, comprising the limitations recited above. As similarly noted above, these additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. Rather, the generic limitations merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computing device and/or generally link the abstract ideas to a computer environment. Thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas, presented above and similarly recited in the independent claims 13-14, into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 13-14 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12 and 15-17 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract ideas noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). The limitations of claims 2, 4-5, 8-10, and 16-17 recite further, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, abstract ideas and/or insignificant extra-solution activity comprising acquiring action pattern information (mental process: observation/evaluation; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering), generating dangerous action information by associating the dangerous level with the action pattern information (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion), generating notification information based on the dangerous action information (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion), presenting the notification information (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/displaying data), acquiring environmental pattern information (mental process: observation/evaluation; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering), generating dangerous environmental information by associating the dangerous level with the environment pattern information (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion), generating notification information based on the dangerous environmental information (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion), present the notification information (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/displaying data), estimating a high likelihood of falling-over based on previously mentally-determined information (e.g., at least one of dangerous action information and/or dangerous environmental information) (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion), presenting the notification information if the estimation indicates there is a high likelihood of the falling-over (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/displaying data), estimating on the basis of previously observed and/or gathered lifting information, a prospective lifting of the leg of a future walk of the person (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment/opinion), specifying based on the prospective lifting of the leg and the height information of the step, a step which is likely to cause falling-over in the future (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment/opinion; and/or human activity: interactions between individuals, e.g., teaching), generating a remodel proposal to remove the likelihood of falling-over at the position of the specified step in the future (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion), outputting the remodel proposal (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/displaying data), presenting and outputting training information (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/displaying data), and outputting walk assist information to a walk assist device (suit) worn by the person (insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data). While claims 2, 4, and 8 additionally recite a memory for storing observed and/or previously gathered data, the memory is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas using a generic computer component for performing its routine function (storing data) and/or generally links the abstract ideas to a particular environment (computer environment). Similarly, the walk assist suit is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a generic computer (e.g., wearable device) worn by a person (e.g., strapped to their arm). Additionally, the Specification demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for its well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, which refers to the element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0138]). Accordingly, the limitations fail to provide any elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on representative claim 1 is also applicable on claims 2, 4-5, 8-10, and 16-17.
Moreover, the limitations of claims 3, 6-7, 11-12, and 15, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely further defining the observed/previously-gathered and/or presented data. Claim 3 further defines the mentally generated notification information, claim 6 further defines the dangerous level which may still be mentally determined (i.e., can mentally determine that the height of a step indicated by observed and/or previously gathered data is equal to or larger than an observed and/or previously gathered leg lifting range), claim 7 further defines when the outputting of the walk assist information (e.g., verbally) occurs (i.e., wherein a human can mentally decide and verbally output the walk assist information when the dangerous level is determined to be equal to or higher than a threshold (e.g., when the observed and/or gathered data indicates that the height of the step poses as a tripping/falling hazard because the height is equal to or greater than a leg lifting state/range of the person)), claim 11 further defines the training information, claim 12 further defines when the training information is presented (i.e., wherein a human can mentally decide and verbally output training information when the dangerous level is determined to be equal to or higher than a threshold (e.g., when the observed and/or gathered data indicates that the height of the step poses as a tripping/falling hazard because the height is equal to or greater than a leg lifting state/range of the person)), and claim 15 further defines the lifting range. The additional limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on representative claim 1 is also applicable on claims 3, 6-7, 11-12, and 15.
Therefore, claims 2-12 and 15-17 are also not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0165938 A1) (hereinafter “Honda”) in view of Weffers-Albu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0352288 A1) (hereinafter “Weffers-Albu”).
Regarding claim 1, Honda discloses an information processing method, by a processor included in an information processing device (Figs. 1-2; [0018]; [0024]; [0035]; [0096], monitoring apparatus/server including one or more processors (controller) for performing a method), the information processing method comprising:
acquiring a sensor value output from a sensor [], the sensor being configured to be attached to [] a person (Fig. 1, #5; [0024]; [0029], wherein a wearable device comprising a sensor is mounted to a body part of a person and acquires a sensor value output such as a measured daily number of steps);
acquiring, based on the sensor value about the person, lifting information indicating a lifting range of the leg of the person in a walk, the lifting range representing a value of a vertical distance between a floor surface and the leg (Figs. 2 & 4-5; Fig. 6, #S14; [0024]; [0029]; [0050-0051]; [0056-0057], wherein the wearable device senses data about the person (e.g., elderly person), to acquire walking ability information (e.g., a daily number of steps (sensor value)), and wherein the walking ability information is used to acquire a walking ability level and allowable degree of dangerousness (lifting information of a leg of a person) (e.g., for a walking ability level of 2, a lifting range of a leg of a person is determined to be less than 3 cm));
acquiring height information indicating a height of a step from a floor in a space where the person moves (Figs. 1-3; [0020]; [0024]; [0026]; [0028]; [0031]; [0040]; [0047-0049]; [0052], wherein a dangerous place/target is acquired and may be a step, and a degree of dangerousness is determined by the height of the step from the floor surface);
determining, based on the lifting range indicated by the lifting information and the height of the step indicated by the height information, a dangerous level of the walk of the person (Figs. 3-4; [0040-0043]; [0049]; [0050-0051]; [0056-0057], wherein the walking ability level and the corresponding allowable degree of dangerousness (the lifting information) is compared to the degree of dangerousness of the dangerous place/target (the height information) to determine that the dangerous place/target is likely to expose the person to danger);
generating walk assist information in accordance with the dangerous level (Fig. 6, #S16; [0022]; [0027]; [0044-0045]; [0058-0059], where a warning/notification that the person is likely to be exposed to danger is generated and presented to the person (walk assist information)); and
outputting the walk assist information (Fig. 2; Fig. 6, #S16; [0022]; [0027]; [0044-0045]; [0058-0059], wherein the warning/notification (walk assist information) is output via image or sound using a portable device carried by the person).
Honda does not further explicitly disclose the sensor to be attached to a leg of a person and including at least one of an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor, wherein the sensor value from the at least one acceleration sensor or gyro sensor indicates a lifting range of a leg of the person representing a value of a vertical distance between a floor surface and the leg. However, Honda discloses wherein the wearable device comprising at least one sensor is mounted on a body part of the user (e.g., “waist, head, arm, or the like”) (Fig. 1; [0029]).Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the wearable device and accompanying sensor to any body part of the person, such as a leg, to achieve the same result of capturing movement data of the person. Moreover, Honda discloses determining a degree of dangerousness (dangerous level) based on acquired information of walking ability of the person and a dangerous place (e.g., a step) ([0020-0022]; [0040-0043]). While Honda discusses the information of walking ability to comprise measured data by the wearable device of the daily number of steps, Honda explicitly discloses that the “data of the daily number of steps is an example of information of walking ability” and the “information of walking ability is not necessarily the daily number of steps” ([0029]; [0041]). Weffers-Albu, directed to assisting a person in walking based on walking characteristics of the person ([0001]; [0014]; [0023]), teaches a measurement unit for measuring movement data, such as a person’s capability to lift a foot by providing a maximum height of the foot over the ground during walking (step height above ground – lifting range), wherein the measurement unit may include various sensors such as an accelerometer, which is well-known in the art and usually attached to the user ([0018-0019]; [0023]; [0037], wherein higher lifting of the feet may indicate good walking characteristics, while lower step height may indicate low walking characteristics).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional sensor such as an accelerometer into the wearable device of Honda and directly collect lifting range data as the information of walking ability, as an alternative to the example walking ability data acquired in Honda, in order to achieve the claimed invention and/or as alternative data used to compare the walking ability of the person to identified dangerous places to achieve the same result of aiding the person with walking (Weffers-Albu, [0014]; [0025], wherein personalized walking programs are tailored to the person’s (e.g., elderly patient’s) walking ability and environment data (e.g., severity of a walking route)).
Regarding claim 2, Honda further discloses acquiring action pattern information indicating an action pattern of the person in the space to store the action pattern information in a memory (Figs. 10-11; [0020]; [0081]; [0084]; [0088], wherein traffic flow (action pattern information), representing a path through which the person often passes, is recorded and stored in memory), wherein
in the determining of the dangerous level, when it is determined that the dangerous level is equal to or higher than a threshold, dangerous action information is generated by associating the dangerous level with the action pattern information including an action of the person and a place at a time at which the dangerous level is determined to be equal to or higher than the threshold ([0020]; [0041]; [0084-0085]; [0092], where the possibility that the person may be exposed to danger may be high or low, wherein when the dangerous place/target with a degree of dangerousness exceeds the allowable degree of dangerousness in a traffic flow (where the action is a user walking/passing through a path), the possibility that the person may be exposed to danger is high);
in the generating of the walk assist information, notification information for giving a notification about the action and the place at the time is generated as the walk assist information based on the dangerous action information ([0030]; [0043-0045]; [0059]; [0092-0094], wherein the person is notified of the high risk of danger via emphasizing an act (action) and place determined to be highly likely to cause the person to be exposed to danger (notification information)); and
in the outputting of the walk assist information, the notification information is presented ([0045]; [0058-0059]; [0093-0094], wherein the danger notification (notification information) is output via image or sound using the portable device carried by the person (e.g., the dangerous place may be emphasized via red coloring, circled, or indicated in a blinking manner)).
Regarding claim 3, Honda further discloses wherein the action at the time includes a prior action made preceding the time, and the notification information includes the prior action (Fig. 12; [0020]; [0023]; [0030]; [0045]; [0059]; [0071-0072]; [0090-0094], the dangerous act (prior act) (e.g., approaching a dangerous place, climbing, etc.) determined to be highly likely to cause the person to be exposed to danger, and wherein the person is notified of the high risk of danger via emphasizing the act (action) and place determined to be highly likely to cause the person to be exposed to danger (the notification information)).
Regarding claim 6, Honda further discloses – as best understood in light of the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – wherein the dangerous level indicates a frequency of events that the height of the step indicated by the height information is determined to be equal to or larger than the leg lifting range indicated by the lifting information (Figs. 3-4; [0040-0043]; [0049-0051]; [0056-0057], e.g., where it is determined whether the degree of dangerousness represented by the height of the step from the floor surface (e.g., 4 cm) is larger than the allowable degree of dangerousness (leg lifting range) indicated by the person’s walking ability level determined from the walking ability information (e.g., less than 3 cm for walking ability level II)).
Regarding claim 7, Honda further discloses wherein, in the outputting of the walk assist information, the walk assist information is output at a time when the dangerous level is determined to be equal to or higher than a threshold ([0030]; [0041]; [0045]; [0058-0059]; [0092-0094], wherein when the dangerous level is determined to be high (the degree of dangerousness exceeds the allowable degree of dangerousness), the person is notified of the high risk of danger).
Regarding claim 8, Honda further discloses wherein the height information includes a position of the step with respect to the floor (Figs. 1-3; [0020]; [0024]; [0026]; [0028]; [0031]; [0040]; [0047-0049]; [0052], height of the step from the floor surface), and, in the acquiring of the lifting information, the acquired lifting information is stored in a memory (Figs. 2 & 4; [0038]; [0041]; [0050-0051]; [0069]; [0081-0082], where the walking ability level information and the corresponding allowable degree of dangerousness information (lifting information) is stored in a memory), the information processing method further comprising: estimating, based on a history of the lifting information stored in the memory, a prospective lifting of the leg in a future walk of the person ([0040-0043]; [0050-0051]; [0056-0057], wherein the walking ability level information, and corresponding allowable degree of dangerousness information, stored in the memory are used to estimate whether the possibility that the person is exposed, in the future, to danger is high (e.g., where a prospective lifting of the leg in a future walk of a person is less than 3 cm, such that a dangerous place/target with a degree of dangerousness of 4 cm would present a high possibility that the person may be exposed to danger)); and specifying, based on the prospective lifting of the leg and the height information, a step which is likely to cause falling-over in the future ([0022]; [0027]; [0040-0045]; [0049-0051]; [0056-0059], where a dangerous place/target (e.g., a step) is determined, and may be emphasized in a danger notification, based on the allowable degree of dangerousness stored in the memory (prospective lifting of the leg in a future walk of the person) and the height information of the dangerous place/target (degree of dangerousness)).
Regarding claim 10, Honda further discloses presenting training information to improve a walking ability of the person in accordance with the dangerous level ([0030]; [0045]; [0059]; [0094], wherein a layout of the space includes a dangerous place, determined to likely cause the person to be exposed to danger, which is emphasized (e.g., indicated by the color red, in a blinking manner, or circled) and is presented to the person (“danger notification”) (training information) to improve the person’s walking ability by allowing the person to avoid the indicated dangerous place or walk carefully).
Regarding claim 11, Honda further discloses wherein the training information includes a training place specified in advance based on the height information and located in the space (Figs. 1-3; [0030-0031]; [0045]; [0059]; [0094], wherein the danger notification (training information) includes the dangerous place (e.g., the step with a height and position in the space) (training place), wherein the dangerous place (step) is specified in advance as environmental map data stored in the memory).
Regarding claim 12, Honda further discloses wherein, in the presenting of the training information, the training information is presented when the dangerous level is determined to be equal to or higher than a threshold ([0030]; [0041]; [0043-0045]; [0057-0059]; [0092-0094], wherein, when the degree of dangerousness for the dangerous place exceeds the allowable degree of dangerousness, the dangerous level (possibility of exposure to danger) is determined to be high and the danger notification, which includes the layout of the space including the emphasized dangerous place to aid with walking, is presented).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is an information processing device of claim 1, and is thereby rejected for the same reasoning (Honda, [0002]; [0096]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to serve as an information processing device for performing the limitations of claim 1, and is thereby rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 (Honda, [0002]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for the reasoning presented in claim 1 above (Weffers-Albu, [0018-0019]; [0023]; [0037], wherein the movement data includes the person’s capability to lift a foot (including a toe) based on the maximum height of the foot over the ground during walking).
Regarding claim 16, Honda further discloses wherein the walk assist information includes a control signal, and the walk assist information is output to a walk assist device [], the walk assist device being configured to assist, based on the control signal, walking of the person ([0030]; [0043-0045]; [0058-0059]; [0092-0094], wherein the danger notification (notification information) is output via image or sound using the portable device carried by the person (e.g., the dangerous place may be emphasized via red coloring, circled, or indicated in a blinking manner and the notification controls the person’s walking by causing the person to avoid the dangerous place or walk carefully)). While Honda may not explicitly disclose wherein the walk assist device is worn by the person, Honda discloses wherein the walk assist device (portable device) may provide notification information (control signals) using sound, such that the person does not need to look at the device ([0022]). Further, Honda discloses wherein a device of the system may be attached to the person ([0029], wearable device). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly attach the portable device to the person in order to provide a hands-free system that is capable of achieving the same results (i.e., providing notification to the user).
Claims 4-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda in view Weffers-Albu, as applied to claims 1 and 8, and in further view of Liu (JP 6539845 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Honda further discloses acquiring dangerous place information of the space and storing the dangerous place information in memory (Fig. 2, #213; [0036]; [0040]; [0048-0049]), wherein:
in the determining of the dangerous level, when it is determined that the dangerous level is equal to or higher than a threshold, the dangerous level is associated with the dangerous place ([0020]; [0041]; [0045]; [0057-0059]; [0084-0085]; [0092], where the possibility that the person may be exposed to danger may be high or low, wherein when the dangerous place with a degree of dangerousness exceeds the allowable degree of dangerousness, the possibility that the person may be exposed to danger is high and the dangerous place is emphasized accordingly via notification to the person);
in the generating of the walk assist information, notification information for giving a notification about an environment (place) where falling-over is likely to occur is generated based on the associated dangerous level and dangerous place ([0020]; [0030]; [0045]; [0059]; [0092-0094], wherein the person is notified of the high risk of danger (e.g., likelihood of falling-over) via emphasizing the dangerous place (e.g., step) determined to be highly likely to cause the person to be exposed to danger (notification information)); and
in the outputting of the walk assist information, the notification information is presented ([0045]; [0058-0059]; [0093-0094], wherein the notification information is output via image or sound using the portable device carried by the person (e.g., the dangerous place may be emphasized via red coloring, circled, or indicated in a blinking manner)).
Honda may not further explicitly disclose additionally acquiring environmental pattern information indicating an environmental change pattern in the space (including the dangerous place) and storing the environmental pattern information in the memory, nor, when it is determined that the dangerous level is equal to or higher than the threshold, generating dangerous environmental information by associating the dangerous level with the environmental pattern information at a time at which the dangerous level is determined to be equal to or higher than the threshold, wherein the presented notification information is generated on the basis of the dangerous environmental information. However, Liu, directed to a walking obstacle location determination system ([0001]), teaches an obstacle information storage means that records, together with date/time information and position information, captured image data and information about an obstacle detected by the obstacle detection means, wherein the purpose of recording together with the date and time information is to change the criterion for determining whether an obstacle is a walking obstacle depending on illuminance which corresponds to the season, for example (e.g., since the sun sets early in the winter, even if a low-light location is not detected in the summer, it becomes necessary to re-examine the location when the season changes) ([0032]; [0048]; [0099]). Liu further teaches providing a notification of a walking obstacle that appears in a season ([0024]; [0038]; [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire and store environmental pattern information indicating an environmental change pattern (e.g., location illuminance during different seasons), as taught by Liu, along with the dangerous place information, and to generate additional dangerous information (e.g., dangerous environmental information) when the dangerous level is equal to or higher than the threshold (when the dangerous place with a degree of dangerousness exceeds the allowable degree of dangerousness indicative of a high probability of the person being exposed to danger) by associating the dangerous level with the space/additional place information acquired in Liu (the environmental pattern information with respect to the place/spot/obstacle, e.g., illuminance), as disclosed in Honda, to more accurately determine obstacles/dangerous places and/or account for changes within the space over time (Liu, [0048], wherein the evaluation of illuminance is used to determine walking obstacles/dangerous places (e.g., low-light locations during certain dates/times), where it is necessary to perform a re-examination when the season changes). It further would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate and present the notification information (environment/dangerous place where falling-over is likely to occur) based further on the environmental pattern information (e.g., the dangerous environmental information), as taught by Liu, in order to notify the person of the dangerous place determined based on additional information which may affect the degree of dangerousness of the dangerous place, such as environmental pattern information, and/or better assist the person with walking.
Regarding claim 5, Honda further discloses estimating whether there is a situation where a falling-over is likely to occur based on at least one of dangerous action information associating action pattern information and the dangerous level with each other ([0020]; [0057]; [0084-0085]; [0092], when a dangerous place/target (e.g., step) with a degree of dangerousness exceeds the allowable degree of dangerousness in a traffic flow (where the action is a user walking/passing through a path), the possibility that the person may be exposed to danger (e.g., fall) is estimated to be is high) or the dangerous environmental information associating the environmental pattern information and the dangerous level with each other, wherein, in the outputting of the walk assist information, notification information is presented in estimation that there is the situation where the falling-over is likely to occur ([0020]; [0030]; [0045]; [0059]; [0092-0094], wherein the person is notified of the high risk of danger via emphasizing an act (action) and place (e.g., step) estimated to be highly likely to cause the person to be exposed to danger (e.g., falling)).
Moreover, as presented above in claim 4, Honda in view of Liu further teaches wherein in the outputting of the walk assist information, the notification information is presented in estimation that falling-over is likely to occur (i.e., when the degree of dangerousness of a dangerous place/target (obstacle), which may further be impacted by environmental pattern information (e.g., illuminance), as taught by Liu, exceeds the allowable degree of dangerousness, the person is notified of the high risk of danger (e.g., likelihood of falling-over)).
Regarding claim 9, Honda further discloses wherein, in response to a notification of a dangerous place (e.g., step) determined to be highly likely to cause the person to be exposed to danger, the person avoids the dangerous place or walks carefully ([0059]). Honda may not explicitly further disclose generating a remodel proposal for the space to remove the likelihood of falling-over at the position of the specified step in the future; and outputting the remodel proposal. However, Liu teaches ascertaining danger locations for a residence or the like and proposing renovations ([0042]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further generate and output a remodel proposal, as taught by Liu, based on the likelihood of the person falling-over at the position of the specified step in the future determined in Honda as an alternative method to overcome the dangerous place/target, and/or get rid of the dangerous place/target permanently to avoid future danger.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda in view Weffers-Albu, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Boku et al. (JP 2014059208 A) (hereinafter “Boku”).
Regarding claim 16, Honda further discloses wherein the walk assist information (danger notification) is output via image or sound using the portable device carried by the person (e.g., the dangerous place may be emphasized via red coloring, circled, or indicated in a blinking manner and the notification controls the person’s walking by causing the person to avoid the dangerous place or walk carefully) ([0030]; [0043-0045]; [0058-0059]; [0092-0094]). Honda further discloses wherein the walk assist device (portable device) may provide notification information (control signals) using sound, such that the person does not need to look at the device ([0022]), and additionally, wherein a device of the system may be attached to the person ([0029], wearable device). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly attach the portable device to the person in order to provide a hands-free system that is capable of achieving the same results (i.e., providing notification to the user).
To the extent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find that Honda does not disclose or teach wherein the walk assist information includes a control signal, and the walk assist information is output to a walk assist device worn by the person, the walk assist device being configured to assist, based on the control signal, walking of the person (though examiner would respectfully disagree), Boku, directed to a movement assist device ([0001]), teaches these limitations (Fig. 6; [0037-0043], wherein a movement assistance device is worn on the body of the user and receives walk assist information including a control command to assist a user’s movement (e.g., lift the person’s leg) to avoid a danger point (e.g., a step)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to output the walk assist information of Honda to a walk assist device, wherein the walk assist information further includes a control signal, as taught by Boku, in order to aid the user in walking/overcoming the detected danger (Boku, [0037-0042], wherein the walk assist device may aid the elderly person who has a weak foot-lifting force with additional force to assist the person’s movement and avoid danger).
Regarding claim 17, Honda discloses a walk assist device comprising a portable device for outputting walk assist information (the danger notification (notification information)) via image or sound (e.g., the dangerous place may be emphasized via red coloring, circled, or indicated in a blinking manner and wherein the notification controls the person’s walking by causing the person to avoid the dangerous place or walk carefully) ([0030]; [0043-0045]; [0058-0059]; [0092-0094]). Honda may not disclose wherein the walk assist device is a walk assist suit worn by the person. However, Boku, directed to a movement assist device ([0001]), teaches this limitation (Fig. 6; [0037-0043], wherein a movement assistance device is worn on the body of the user and receives a control command to assist a user’s movement (e.g., lifts the person’s leg) to avoid a danger point (e.g., a step)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to output the walk assist information (danger notification) to a walk assist device as taught by Boku in order to aid the user in walking/overcoming the detected danger (Boku, [0037-0042], wherein the walk assist device may aid the elderly person who has a weak foot-lifting force with additional force to assist the person’s movement and avoid danger).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715