DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered an the Examiner submits the following:
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 2-7 and 9. However, new 112(b) rejections are set forth below which are necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. New claim 12 requires the gait measurement device, including a sensor installed on footwear of the subject that measures a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular velocity. It also requires a second processor that extracts gait waveform data for one gait cycle, normalizes the extracted gait waveform data, and extracts the first feature amount therefrom.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the storage storing the physical ability estimation model, the feature amount construction model, and the falling risk estimation model as claimed, in combination with the other claim elements of claim 12. Also, the examiner agrees that claim 3 wasn’t rejected under prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of line 10, claim 2, a semicolon should be placed after “the acquired attribute data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “first instructions to;” should read “first instructions to:”.
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 12-17 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.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “first feature amount data” and “first feature amount” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if these first feature amounts are the same as, or part of, or different from the first feature amount data. First, “first feature amount data” is acquired, but later, “a first feature amount” is extracted and then that extract first feature amount is then referred to as “first feature amount data”. The specification also does not differentiate between the first feature amount data and the first feature amount. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same first feature amount and the first feature amount data are the same first feature amount.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “second feature amount data” and “second feature amount” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if these second feature amounts are the same as, or part of, or different from the second feature amount data. For instance, the first recitation of the construction of the second feature amount data (related to a physical ability factor) is recited, however, at the end of the claim, “the second feature amount” (no data) is constructed from the physical ability factor, which was constructed from the “second feature amount data”. The specification also does not differentiate between the second feature amount data and the second feature amount. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same second feature amount.
Regarding claim 12, the first recitation of “the physical ability factor” lacks proper antecedent basis, because the limitation has not been previously recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the estimated falling risk information” renders the claim indefinite, because it is recited as being estimated in three ways: 1) using the second feature amount data, 2) using the physical ability factor output from the estimation model, 3) using the falling risk score output from the falling risk estimation model. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the falling risk information is estimated using the falling risk score output from the falling risk estimation model.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a physical ability factor” is recited twice to start, therefore, it is unclear if these are the same physical ability factors, and how these physical ability factors are later related to “the physical ability factors” and which “physical ability factor” is used in the “physical ability estimation model”. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same physical ability factor.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the physical ability factor being extracted from gait waveform data generated using time-series data of sensor data measured according to gait” renders the claim indefinite for two reasons: 1) “gait waveform data,” “time-series data,” and “sensor data” are each previously recited, and it is unclear if these are the same data, 2) the claim elsewhere recites that the first feature amount data is extracted from the normalized gait waveform data and that the physical ability factor is output from the physical ability estimation model. It is therefore unclear how the physical ability factor is extracted from gait waveform data. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the first feature amount data is extracted from the previously recited gait waveform data.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the subjects” lacks proper antecedent basis, because the limitation has not been previously recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the second feature amount used for constructing the falling risk estimation model among the second feature amount constructed by the feature amount construction model” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether the training second feature amount is the subject’s second feature amount, and “among” implies a plurality where only a single second feature amount is recited. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim inputting the principal components of the subject’s second feature amount that correspond to the principal component selected when constructing the falling risk estimation model.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 12-17 are allowable over the prior art of record. The prior art of record, Aihara, van Schooten and Huang, taken alone or in combination, do not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the first processor estimating the physical ability factor by inputting the first feature amount data and the attribute data to a physical ability estimation model, constructing the at least one second feature amount by performing principal component analysis on the attribute factor and the estimated physical ability factor with a feature amount construction model, and estimating the falling risk information from the falling risk score output by a falling risk estimation model. Aihara ([0078], [0080]) and van Schooten (Statistical analysis) perform principal component analysis directly on gait and subject data, and Huang ([0018], [0045]) merely teach shoe-mounted sensors.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights