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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 11 recite “a normal measurement frequency”. The specification states on pg. 7 line 19-20 “Normally, in order to accurately calculated the gait index, the measurement frequency may be about 100 Hz (hertz).” The term “normal measurement frequency” is therefore interpreted as about 100 Hz.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, “output advice information to help a subject of the gait index measurement to make decision according to the gait index” should read “output advice information to help a subject of the gait index measurement to make a decision according to the gait index”.
In Claim 8, “measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency, and outputs sensor data regarding gait using the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity” should read “measures the spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency, and outputs the sensor data regarding gait using the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity”, as these elements have already been introduced in parent Claim 1.
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 8-9 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 8 recites “a measurement device that includes a sensor that is provided to footwear of a subject of the gait index measurement, measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency, and outputs sensor data regarding gait using the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and transmits the sensor data output from the sensor to the gait index calculation device”. It is unclear what element is linked to the functional language “measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency”. In other words, is it the measurement device that measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency or the sensor? For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as the measuring device measuring spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 8.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a gait index calculation device. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites a gait measurement system. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites a gait index calculation method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites a non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claims is/are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
receive sensor data based on spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity that are measured at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency
interpolate the sensor data using a predetermined interpolation method
calculate a gait index using the interpolated sensor data
output the calculated gait index
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
A human is capable of manually/mentally receiving sensor data based on spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity that are measured at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency, e.g. by visually seeing it on a sensor display, a data table, or pen and paper.
“interpolate the sensor data using a predetermined interpolation method” is a mathematical calculation that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time.
“calculate a gait index using the interpolated sensor data” is a mathematical calculation that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time.
A human is capable of manually/mentally outputting the calculated gait index, e.g. audibly, with pen and paper, or with generic computing tools.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a measurement device that includes a sensor that is provided to footwear of a subject of the gait index measurement, measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency, and outputs sensor data regarding gait using the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and transmits the sensor data output from the sensor to the gait index calculation device (Claim 8)
The following limitations amount to a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent)and/or nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a memory storing instructions
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to…
A gait index calculation method that causes a computer to execute processing comprising…(Claim 10)
A non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded, the program causing a computer to execute processing comprising…(Claim 11)
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
a measurement device that includes a sensor that is provided to footwear of a subject of the gait index measurement, measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency, and outputs sensor data regarding gait using the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and transmits the sensor data output from the sensor to the gait index calculation device (Claim 8)
a memory storing instructions
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to…
A gait index calculation method that causes a computer to execute processing comprising…(Claim 10)
A non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded, the program causing a computer to execute processing comprising…(Claim 11)
The following limitations is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
The measurement device that includes a sensor that is provided to footwear of a subject of the gait index measurement is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on statement from the applicant's specification filed 01/11/2024 (“As illustrated in Fig. 2, the sensor 11 includes an acceleration sensor 111 and an angular velocity sensor 112”, 7:11-12; “For example, a sensor of a piezoelectric type, a piezoresistive type, a capacitance type, or the like can be used as the acceleration sensor 111. The sensor used as the acceleration sensor 111 is not limited to the measurement method as long as the sensor can measure acceleration.”, 8:3-6; “For example, a sensor of a vibration type, a capacitance type, or the like can be used as the angular velocity sensor 112. The sensor used as the angular velocity sensor 112 is not limited to the measurement method as long as the sensor can measure the angular velocity.”, 8:14-17).
The memory, the processor, and the non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on statement from the applicant's specification filed 01/11/2024 (“For example, the control unit 12 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a flash memory, and the like”, 11:10-14; 34:5-14; 35:16-23).
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 9 also fail to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-11 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hook et al (US 20130131555 A1, hereinafter Hook).
Regarding Claim 1, Hook discloses a gait index calculation device (Element 1000, Fig. 10) comprising:
a memory storing instructions (“The computer-executable instructions or computer program products as well as any data created and used during implementation of the disclosed embodiments can be stored on one or more computer-readable media (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable media, such as one or more optical media discs, volatile memory components (such as DRAM or SRAM), or nonvolatile memory components (such as flash memory or hard drives))”, [0088]), and
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to (“The computer-executable instructions or computer program products as well as any data created and used during implementation of the disclosed embodiments can be…executed on a computer (e.g., any commercially available computer, including smart phones or other computing devices that include computing hardware)”, [0088]):
receive sensor data based on spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity (“The IMU 900 includes three Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) sensors 902, 904, 906, which comprise two gyroscope ICs, an accelerometer IC, and a magnetometer IC, respectively”, [0074]; see angular acceleration and velocity are measured in Claim 13) that are measured at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency (“A 40 Hz data sampling rate can be used”, [0075]; this overlaps with the applicant’s definition of “a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency on page 7, lines 20-25 of the written description to be frequencies lower than 100 Hz);
interpolate the sensor data using a predetermined interpolation method (Steps 312-314, Fig. 3; “For example systems based on a 40 Hz sample rate, linear interpolation can be used between the 25 ms sample intervals to assign event times”, [0059]);
calculate a gait index using the interpolated sensor data (Step 318, Fig. 3; “At 318, for the remaining peaks, stride and stance times, range-of-motion angles, stride lengths, zero-crossing slopes for each stride, and stride statistics are calculated”, [0061]); and
output (See Elements 1050, Fig. 10) the calculated gait index (“FIG. 11 shows graphical results obtained from a gait analysis system as disclosed herein for three persons with PD, all of whom participated in exercise classes for persons with PD. FIG. 11 shows measurements of the two most important fall-risk parameters, stride time SD and stride length, and includes the mean stride time SD for persons with Parkinson's for both fallers and non-fallers, as defined by Hausdorff”, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hook discloses the gait index calculation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to interpolate the sensor data with at least one piece of data on a line segment connecting two pieces of the sensor data that are temporally continuous (“For example systems based on a 40 Hz sample rate, linear interpolation can be used between the 25 ms sample intervals to assign event times”, [0059]; this corresponds to the applicant’s definition of “to interpolate the sensor data with at least one piece of data on a line segment” as linear interpolation on 31:5-9).
Regarding Claim 10, Hook discloses a gait index calculation method that causes a computer to execute processing comprising (“Any of the disclosed methods can be implemented as computer-executable instructions or a computer program product. The computer-executable instructions or computer program products as well as any data created and used during implementation of the disclosed embodiments can be stored on one or more computer-readable media (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable media, such as one or more optical media discs, volatile memory components (such as DRAM or SRAM), or nonvolatile memory components (such as flash memory or hard drives)) and executed on a computer (e.g., any commercially available computer, including smart phones or other computing devices that include computing hardware)”, [0088]):
receiving sensor data based on spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity (“The IMU 900 includes three Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) sensors 902, 904, 906, which comprise two gyroscope ICs, an accelerometer IC, and a magnetometer IC, respectively”, [0074]; see angular acceleration and velocity are measured in Claim 13) that are measured at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency (“A 40 Hz data sampling rate can be used”, [0075]; this overlaps with the applicant’s definition of “a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency on page 7, lines 20-25 of the written description to be frequencies lower than 100 Hz);
interpolating the sensor data using a predetermined interpolation method (Steps 312-314, Fig. 3; “For example systems based on a 40 Hz sample rate, linear interpolation can be used between the 25 ms sample intervals to assign event times”, [0059]);
calculating a gait index using the interpolated sensor data (Step 318, Fig. 3; “At 318, for the remaining peaks, stride and stance times, range-of-motion angles, stride lengths, zero-crossing slopes for each stride, and stride statistics are calculated”, [0061]); and
outputting the calculated gait index (“FIG. 11 shows graphical results obtained from a gait analysis system as disclosed herein for three persons with PD, all of whom participated in exercise classes for persons with PD. FIG. 11 shows measurements of the two most important fall-risk parameters, stride time SD and stride length, and includes the mean stride time SD for persons with Parkinson's for both fallers and non-fallers, as defined by Hausdorff”, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hook discloses a non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded, the program causing a computer to execute processing comprising (“Any of the disclosed methods can be implemented as computer-executable instructions or a computer program product. The computer-executable instructions or computer program products as well as any data created and used during implementation of the disclosed embodiments can be stored on one or more computer-readable media (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable media, such as one or more optical media discs, volatile memory components (such as DRAM or SRAM), or nonvolatile memory components (such as flash memory or hard drives)) and executed on a computer (e.g., any commercially available computer, including smart phones or other computing devices that include computing hardware)”, [0088]):
receiving sensor data based on spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity (“The IMU 900 includes three Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) sensors 902, 904, 906, which comprise two gyroscope ICs, an accelerometer IC, and a magnetometer IC, respectively”, [0074]; see angular acceleration and velocity are measured in Claim 13) that are measured at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency (“A 40 Hz data sampling rate can be used”, [0075]; this overlaps with the applicant’s definition of “a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency on page 7, lines 20-25 of the written description to be frequencies lower than 100 Hz);
interpolating the sensor data using a predetermined interpolation method (Steps 312-314, Fig. 3; “For example systems based on a 40 Hz sample rate, linear interpolation can be used between the 25 ms sample intervals to assign event times”, [0059]);
calculating a gait index using the interpolated sensor data (Step 318, Fig. 3; “At 318, for the remaining peaks, stride and stance times, range-of-motion angles, stride lengths, zero-crossing slopes for each stride, and stride statistics are calculated”, [0061]); and
outputting the calculated gait index (“FIG. 11 shows graphical results obtained from a gait analysis system as disclosed herein for three persons with PD, all of whom participated in exercise classes for persons with PD. FIG. 11 shows measurements of the two most important fall-risk parameters, stride time SD and stride length, and includes the mean stride time SD for persons with Parkinson's for both fallers and non-fallers, as defined by Hausdorff”, [0078]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of Pena et al (US 20210298642 A1, hereinafter Pena).
Regarding Claim 3, Hook discloses a gait index calculation device according to claim 1. Hook discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to interpolate the sensor data with at least one piece of data on a curve approximating a plurality of pieces of the sensor data that are temporally continuous. However, Pena, which is also directed towards a gait index calculation device (Abstract), teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to interpolate the sensor data with at least one piece of data on a curve approximating a plurality of pieces of the sensor data that are temporally continuous (“ In accordance with the present disclosure, various interpolation methods may be used in order to interpolate a gait pattern. Accordingly, interpolation methods that may be used to interpolate a gait pattern may include, but are not limited to, linear interpolation and polynomial spline interpolations”, [0047]; this corresponds to the applicant’s definition of “interpolate the sensor data with at least one piece of data on a curve approximating a plurality of pieces of the sensor data that are temporally continuous” as polynomial interpolation on 31:12-18). As both linear and machine learning interpolation are both proven interpolation methods, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (polynomial interpolation) for another (linear interpolation), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (the interpolation of data for gait index calculations).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of Yuen et al (US 20120084054 A1, hereinafter Yuen).
Regarding Claim 4, Hook discloses the gait index calculation device according to claim 1. Hook discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to interpolate the sensor data using a model that outputs interpolation data for the sensor data according to inputs of a plurality of pieces of the sensor data that are temporally close. However, Yuen, which is also directed towards gait index calculation ([0070]), wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to interpolate the sensor data using a model that outputs interpolation data for the sensor data according to inputs of a plurality of pieces of the sensor data that are temporally close (“In yet another embodiment, step length may be obtained, acquired and/or determined via a look-up table or database, or interpolated (e.g., spline interpolation, neural network) between known (step frequency, step length) pairs or (step frequency, acceleration variance, step length) triplets that have been predetermined or specified by the user and/or pre-programmed or calibrated using the device”, [0070]; this corresponds to the applicant’s definition of “interpolate the sensor data using a model that outputs interpolation data for the sensor data according to inputs of a plurality of pieces of the sensor data that are temporally close” as machine learning interpolation on 31:19-26). As both linear and machine learning interpolation are both proven interpolation methods, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (machine learning interpolation) for another (linear interpolation), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (the interpolation of data for gait index calculations).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of Yuen, and further in view of Hong et al (KR 20210084779 A, hereinafter Hong; an attached machine translation was used for this rejection).
Regarding Claim 7, Hook discloses the gait index calculation device according to claim 1. Hong discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to interpolate by machine learning, and
output advice information to help a subject of the gait index measurement to make decision according to the gait index.
However, Yuen teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to interpolate by machine learning (“In yet another embodiment, step length may be obtained, acquired and/or determined via a look-up table or database, or interpolated (e.g.,…neural network) between known (step frequency, step length) pairs or (step frequency, acceleration variance, step length) triplets that have been predetermined or specified by the user and/or pre-programmed or calibrated using the device”, [0070]). As both linear and machine learning interpolation are both proven interpolation methods, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (machine learning interpolation) for another (linear interpolation), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (the interpolation of data for gait index calculations).
Hong teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to ([0006]) output advice information to help a subject of the gait index measurement to make decision (“the exercise recommendation unit 50 estimates the recommended exercise information corresponding to the general state information (S131), and then outputs it through the output unit 60 (S133)”, [0061]) according to the gait index (Step 133 is based on gait index data gathered at step S121, [0057] and Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the instructions of Hong to the processor of Hook, because adjusting exercise recommendations correspond to the user’s physical ability is advantageous (See Hong, [0008]-[0011]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of Hong.
Regarding Claim 8, Hook discloses a gait measurement system (See Fig. 7) comprising:
the gait index calculation device according to claim 1 (See the rejection of Claim 1 above); and
a measurement device (“FIG. 9 illustrates a representative system 900 for the acquisition of gait data. Such a system can be referred to as an inertial measurement unit (IMU).”, [0074]), that measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity (“The IMU 900 includes three Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) sensors 902, 904, 906, which comprise two gyroscope ICs, an accelerometer IC, and a magnetometer IC, respectively”, [0074]; see angular acceleration and velocity are measured in Claim 13) at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency (“A 40 Hz data sampling rate can be used”, [0075]; this overlaps with the applicant’s definition of “a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency on page 7, lines 20-25 of the written description to be frequencies lower than 100 Hz; the examiner notes this claim is being interpreted in light of the 112(b) rejection above), and outputs sensor data regarding gait using the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity (“ Two sets of data are assembled into packets…”, [0075]), and transmits the sensor data output from the sensor to the gait index calculation device (“…and are transmitted at a rate of 20 Hz to a base station via a 915”, [0075]).
Hook discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing that the measurement device includes a sensor that is provided to footwear of a subject of the gait index measurement. However, Hong teaches that the measurement device includes a sensor that is provided to footwear of a subject of the gait index measurement (“The gait measurement unit 100 outputs gait data, which is a plurality of pressure data according to the pressure distribution applied to the soles of the feet according to the user's gait, since a plurality of gait measuring units 100 are configured on the entire lower portion of the shoe sole or insole of the user's feet”, [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sensor that is provided to footwear of a subject to the measurement device of Hook, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of Elangovan et al (US 20170336273 A1, hereinafter Elangovan).
Regarding Claim 5, Hook discloses the gait index calculation device according to claim 1. Hook discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit a switching signal for switching the measurement frequency to a measurement device that measures the sensor data. However, Elangovan, which is also directed towards a gait index calculation device (See [0040]), teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to (“Preferably the device of the invention includes its own local power supply, such as a battery. The device may also include a local control module such as a microprocessor for controlling the device and providing an output”, [0038]) transmit a switching signal for switching the measurement frequency to a measurement device that measures the sensor data (“for example, in measuring foot pressure during walking, making pressure measurements at a frequency of 3 Hz (three measurements per second) may be sufficient. For measuring running, or other more active applications, a higher sampling frequency may be required and for slow walking or other less energetic applications, a lower sampling frequency may be required. The sampling frequency may be automatically adaptive based on the gait frequency so as to increase with a faster gait and decrease with a slower gait”, [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the switching signal of Elangovan to the device of Hook for the advantage of reducing power consumption (See Elangovan, [0040]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hook discloses the gait index calculation device according to claim 5. Hook discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit, to the measurement device, the switching signal for switching the measurement frequency to a lower frequency in response that the gait index calculation device detects a heel contact, and
transmit, to the measurement device, the switching signal for switching the measurement frequency to a higher frequency in response that the gait index calculation device detects a toe being off from the ground.
However, Elangovan teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to (“Preferably the device of the invention includes its own local power supply, such as a battery. The device may also include a local control module such as a microprocessor for controlling the device and providing an output”, [0038]) transmit, to the measurement device, the switching signal for switching the measurement frequency to a lower frequency (“for example, in measuring foot pressure during walking, making pressure measurements at a frequency of 3 Hz (three measurements per second) may be sufficient. For measuring running, or other more active applications, a higher sampling frequency may be required and for slow walking or other less energetic applications, a lower sampling frequency may be required. The sampling frequency may be automatically adaptive based on the gait frequency so as to increase with a faster gait and decrease with a slower gait”, [0040]) in response that the gait index calculation device detects a heel contact (“For measuring running, or other more active applications, a higher sampling frequency may be required and for slow walking or other less energetic applications, a lower sampling frequency may be required”, [0040]; “the signal from one device can be used as a trigger to activate other devices to turn on and measure pressure (for example a device positioned under a heel can detect the heel strike in a stride and turn on other devices in a network)”, [0043]; detecting a heel contact can happen during walk detection, where the frequency is lower), and
transmit, to the measurement device, the switching signal for switching the measurement frequency contact to a higher frequency in response that the gait index calculation device detects a toe being off from the ground (“For measuring running, or other more active applications, a higher sampling frequency may be required and for slow walking or other less energetic applications, a lower sampling frequency may be required”, [0040]; switching to a higher frequency during running corresponds to the situation described by the specification in 32:13-15 where switching to a higher frequency happens the fluctuation of sensor data is large, i.e. also during running). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the switching signals of Elangovan to the system of Hook for the advantage of reducing power consumption (See Elangovan, [0040]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hook discloses the gait measurement system according to claim 8. Hook discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the gait index calculation device transmits, to the measurement device, a switching signal for switching the measurement frequency, and
the measurement device switches the measurement frequency in response to the reception of the switching signal from the gait index calculation device.
However, Elangovan teaches wherein the gait index calculation device (See [0040]) transmits, to the measurement device, a switching signal for switching the measurement frequency (“for example, in measuring foot pressure during walking, making pressure measurements at a frequency of 3 Hz (three measurements per second) may be sufficient. For measuring running, or other more active applications, a higher sampling frequency may be required and for slow walking or other less energetic applications, a lower sampling frequency may be required. The sampling frequency may be automatically adaptive based on the gait frequency so as to increase with a faster gait and decrease with a slower gait”, [0040]), and
the measurement device switches the measurement frequency in response to the reception of the switching signal from the gait index calculation device (“In one embodiment one device in a set of devices may be used to measure a characteristic frequency of the activity (for example the number of steps per minute) and the microcontrollers local to the devices, or the central module, can control other devices in the network to adjust their sampling frequency appropriately based on the measured characteristic frequency of the activity”, [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the switching signal of Elangovan to the system of Hook for the advantage of reducing power consumption (See Elangovan, [0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See McNames et al (US-20140066816-A1), which discloses sensor data based on spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity that are measured at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency ([0043]).
See Kim et al (US-20140358040-A1), which discloses sensor data based on spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity that are measured at a frequency lower than a normal measurement frequency ([0015]).
See Sugiyama (US-20180356534-A1).
See Fukushi et al (US-20230139218-A1).
See the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) to Alvarez et al (“Human gait analysis using wearable sensors of acceleration and angular velocity”).
See the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) to Takeda et al (“Accelerometry-Based Distance Estimation for Ambulatory Human Motion Analysis”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791