DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the notification" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s), specifically claims 1 and 9-10 recite(s) an abstract idea for estimating a degree of pronation/supination of the foot that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is capable of being performed mentally and/or by a human with the aid of pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation “estimate a degree of pronation/supination of the foot by using the feature amount extracted from the angular waveform in the coronal plane” amounts to an observation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the “memory storing instructions” and “processor connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions” are merely generic computer components performing generic computer functions which are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art; as such, they do not meaningfully limit the claim to be more than just the abstract idea. The limitations “detect a terminal stance period from time-series data of sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor provided at a foot portion of a user” and “extract a feature amount from an angular waveform in a coronal plane during the terminal stance period” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way, of the information needed to carry out the claimed algorithm. The limitation “accumulate the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database installed at a data center” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, such as outputting the result of the claimed algorithm, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. The “sensor provided at a foot portion” is not positively recited by the claim and further is recited at such a high level of generality that, even if it were positively recited, could not be evaluated under the Berkheimer standard to determine if it is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite any limitations that amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, the limitations of these dependent claim(s) merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea, but does not contain any further “additional elements”. Thus, the dependent claim(s) are not significantly more than the extended abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the limitation “a data acquisition device configured to measure a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular velocity, generate sensor data based on the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and transmit the generated sensor data to the estimation device” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as disclosed in Woo et al. (US 2008/0258921 A1) – [0076] – “Various articles of footwear incorporating sensor systems able to register footstrikes are known in the art, such as those described in U.S. patent publication number US 2005/0126370 and U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,867,361 and 6,639,140. Any such article of footwear may be incorporated in system 100.” They represent components and/or activities which would routinely be used in applying the abstract idea. As such, they do not meaningfully limit the claim, taken as a whole, to a particular application of the abstract idea; rather, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
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(s) 1-2 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (KR 20200081117 A1) (cited by Applicant; citations refer to attached translation), further in view of Winter (US Patent No. 10,820,836 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bae et al. discloses an estimation device comprising:
a memory storing instructions (see p. 4, 2nd ¶ - “The gait analysis apparatus may include a memory 1000, a storage unit 3000, and a process 5000. The memory 1000 may include at least one instruction for executing the processor 5000, which will be described later”), and
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (see p. 4, 2nd ¶ - “The gait analysis apparatus may include a memory 1000, a storage unit 3000, and a process 5000. The memory 1000 may include at least one instruction for executing the processor 5000, which will be described later”) to:
detect a terminal stance period from time-series data of sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor provided at a foot portion of a user (see Figure 4 and p. 5, 4th ¶ - “More specifically, the first section is an initial grounding machine (HS, Heel Strike) state section, the second section is a load reactor (SS, Stance Start) state section, and the third section is a terminal stance phase (SE, Stance End). ) It is a state section”);
extract a feature amount from an angular waveform in a coronal plane during the terminal stance period (see p. 3, 10th ¶- “Referring to FIG. 2, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may be inertial sensors. Accordingly, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may measure a user's 3D movement in a horizontal plane, a sagittal plane, and a coronal plane based on the user” and p. 8, 6th ¶ - “For example, the processor 5000 may extract a composite feature by calculating an average or a deviation for acceleration and angular velocity data of the right foot between the first section and the fourth section of the gait cycle, respectively”); and
estimate a degree of pronation/supination of the foot by using the feature amount extracted from the angular waveform in the coronal plane (see Figure 6 and p. 6, 8th ¶ - “Looking at the 3D movement of each body part in the horizontal plane, the sagittal plane, and the coronal plane in more detail, the movement of the foot based on the horizontal plane is the first angle change (Inversion) inside the body and the second angle change (Eversion) outside the body. ). For example, for the right foot, the first angle change (Inversion) may be an angle change in the -y direction, and for the left foot, the first angle change (Inversion) may be an angle change in the +y direction”).
It is noted Bae et al. does not specifically teach accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database installed at a data center. However, Winter teaches accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database (140) installed at a data center (see Figures 1 and 11 and col. 8, line 65-col. 9, line 9 – “Running analyzer 602 may also send at least part of sensor data 210, or results from processing sensor data 210, to server 140 for further analysis. For example, server 140 may implement a website that allows more detailed analysis of the run, and comparison of that run to previous runs and run made by other runners. The web site may also generate recommendations for improving the runner's performance (e.g., bettering stride length and running efficiency). The website may also provide exercises and coaching to help the runner eliminate the changes identified by running analyzer 602 during the run, and thereby further improve the runner's performance and help prevent injuries” and col. 16, lines 57-66 – “Sensor data 210 is collected and stored within communication device 120 and may be processed to further adjust model 234. This data may also be sent to server 140 and used to determine adjustment for different types of user. For example, when a user has five consecutive runs (or a predefined number of steps) over a particular threshold (e.g., loading rate, peak impact, pronation rate, and/or pronation degree), an alarm is tripped and the user is alerted to the detected higher risk of injury and may be advised to replace shoes or change stride”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae et al. to include accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database installed at a data center, as disclosed in Winter, so as to generate recommendations for improving the user’s performance, provide exercises and coaching, and help prevent injuries (see Winter: col. 9, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 2, Bae et al. discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to input the feature amount extracted from the angular waveform in the coronal plane to a machine learning model that outputs an estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot when the feature amount extracted from the angular waveform in the coronal plane is input, and output the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot (see p. 8, 6th ¶ - “According to another embodiment, the processor 5000 uses the feature points, feature intervals, and feature patterns obtained from the first and second features in the foot, pelvis, and head to form a second composite feature (S .sub.1 (F .sub.R , F .sub.L , P, N)). For example, the processor 5000 may extract a composite feature by calculating an average or a deviation for acceleration and angular velocity data of the right foot between the first section and the fourth section of the gait cycle, respectively”).
Regarding claim 7, Winter teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to display the notification including the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user on the screen of the mobile terminal used by the user with content optimized for healthcare application (see Figures 1 and 9 and col. 9, lines 23-36 – “Screen 900 shows a left shoe pronation graphic 902 and a left shoe pronation value 906, a right shoe pronation graphic 904 and a right shoe pronation value 908, as generated by a gait analyzer 606 portion of running analyzer 602. Screen 900 also displays an impact force value 910, 912, for each shoe. Left and right values are determined and displayed when the runner is using two foot strike monitors 102, one on each of the left and right running shoes. Otherwise, a single value may be determined and displayed for each of pronation and impact force. A slider 914 allows the runner to move a run position control 916 to display pronation and impact force for any part of the selected or current run. That, the runner may evaluate how their gait changed over the duration of the run”).
Regarding claim 8, Bae et al. discloses the estimation device according to claim 1 (see rejection above); and
a data acquisition device that measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, generates the sensor data based on the spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and transmits the sensor data to the estimation device (see p. 3, 10th ¶- “Referring to FIG. 2, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may be inertial sensors. Accordingly, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may measure a user's 3D movement in a horizontal plane, a sagittal plane, and a coronal plane based on the user” and p. 8, 6th ¶ - “For example, the processor 5000 may extract a composite feature by calculating an average or a deviation for acceleration and angular velocity data of the right foot between the first section and the fourth section of the gait cycle, respectively”).
Regarding claim 9, Bae et al. discloses an estimation method executed by a computer, the method comprising:
detecting a terminal stance period from time-series data of sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor provided at a foot portion of a user (see Figure 4 and p. 5, 4th ¶ - “More specifically, the first section is an initial grounding machine (HS, Heel Strike) state section, the second section is a load reactor (SS, Stance Start) state section, and the third section is a terminal stance phase (SE, Stance End). ) It is a state section”);
extracting a feature amount from an angular waveform in a coronal plane during the terminal stance period (see p. 3, 10th ¶- “Referring to FIG. 2, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may be inertial sensors. Accordingly, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may measure a user's 3D movement in a horizontal plane, a sagittal plane, and a coronal plane based on the user” and p. 8, 6th ¶ - “For example, the processor 5000 may extract a composite feature by calculating an average or a deviation for acceleration and angular velocity data of the right foot between the first section and the fourth section of the gait cycle, respectively”); and
estimating a degree of pronation/supination of the foot by using the feature amount extracted from the angular waveform in the coronal plane (see Figure 6 and p. 6, 8th ¶ - “Looking at the 3D movement of each body part in the horizontal plane, the sagittal plane, and the coronal plane in more detail, the movement of the foot based on the horizontal plane is the first angle change (Inversion) inside the body and the second angle change (Eversion) outside the body. ). For example, for the right foot, the first angle change (Inversion) may be an angle change in the -y direction, and for the left foot, the first angle change (Inversion) may be an angle change in the +y direction”).
It is noted Bae et al. does not specifically teach accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database installed at a data center. However, Winter teaches accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database (140) installed at a data center (see Figures 1 and 11 and col. 8, line 65-col. 9, line 9 – “Running analyzer 602 may also send at least part of sensor data 210, or results from processing sensor data 210, to server 140 for further analysis. For example, server 140 may implement a website that allows more detailed analysis of the run, and comparison of that run to previous runs and run made by other runners. The web site may also generate recommendations for improving the runner's performance (e.g., bettering stride length and running efficiency). The website may also provide exercises and coaching to help the runner eliminate the changes identified by running analyzer 602 during the run, and thereby further improve the runner's performance and help prevent injuries” and col. 16, lines 57-66 – “Sensor data 210 is collected and stored within communication device 120 and may be processed to further adjust model 234. This data may also be sent to server 140 and used to determine adjustment for different types of user. For example, when a user has five consecutive runs (or a predefined number of steps) over a particular threshold (e.g., loading rate, peak impact, pronation rate, and/or pronation degree), an alarm is tripped and the user is alerted to the detected higher risk of injury and may be advised to replace shoes or change stride”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bae et al. to include accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database installed at a data center, as disclosed in Winter, so as to generate recommendations for improving the user’s performance, provide exercises and coaching, and help prevent injuries (see Winter: col. 9, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 10, Bae et al. discloses a non-transitory program recording medium recorded with a program causing a computer to perform the following processes:
detecting a terminal stance period from time-series data of sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor provided at a foot portion of a user (see Figure 4 and p. 5, 4th ¶ - “More specifically, the first section is an initial grounding machine (HS, Heel Strike) state section, the second section is a load reactor (SS, Stance Start) state section, and the third section is a terminal stance phase (SE, Stance End). ) It is a state section”);
extracting a feature amount from an angular waveform in a coronal plane during the terminal stance period (see p. 3, 10th ¶- “Referring to FIG. 2, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may be inertial sensors. Accordingly, the first to fourth sensors S .sub.1 , S .sub.2 , S .sub.3 , and S .sub.4 may measure a user's 3D movement in a horizontal plane, a sagittal plane, and a coronal plane based on the user” and p. 8, 6th ¶ - “For example, the processor 5000 may extract a composite feature by calculating an average or a deviation for acceleration and angular velocity data of the right foot between the first section and the fourth section of the gait cycle, respectively”); and
estimating a degree of pronation/supination of the foot by using the feature amount extracted from the angular waveform in the coronal plane (see Figure 6 and p. 6, 8th ¶ - “Looking at the 3D movement of each body part in the horizontal plane, the sagittal plane, and the coronal plane in more detail, the movement of the foot based on the horizontal plane is the first angle change (Inversion) inside the body and the second angle change (Eversion) outside the body. ). For example, for the right foot, the first angle change (Inversion) may be an angle change in the -y direction, and for the left foot, the first angle change (Inversion) may be an angle change in the +y direction”).
It is noted Bae et al. does not specifically teach accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database installed at a data center. However, Winter teaches accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database (140) installed at a data center (see Figures 1 and 11 and col. 8, line 65-col. 9, line 9 – “Running analyzer 602 may also send at least part of sensor data 210, or results from processing sensor data 210, to server 140 for further analysis. For example, server 140 may implement a website that allows more detailed analysis of the run, and comparison of that run to previous runs and run made by other runners. The web site may also generate recommendations for improving the runner's performance (e.g., bettering stride length and running efficiency). The website may also provide exercises and coaching to help the runner eliminate the changes identified by running analyzer 602 during the run, and thereby further improve the runner's performance and help prevent injuries” and col. 16, lines 57-66 – “Sensor data 210 is collected and stored within communication device 120 and may be processed to further adjust model 234. This data may also be sent to server 140 and used to determine adjustment for different types of user. For example, when a user has five consecutive runs (or a predefined number of steps) over a particular threshold (e.g., loading rate, peak impact, pronation rate, and/or pronation degree), an alarm is tripped and the user is alerted to the detected higher risk of injury and may be advised to replace shoes or change stride”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory program recording medium of Bae et al. to include accumulating the estimation result regarding the degree of pronation/supination of the foot of the user in a database installed at a data center, as disclosed in Winter, so as to generate recommendations for improving the user’s performance, provide exercises and coaching, and help prevent injuries (see Winter: col. 9, lines 3-9).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. and Winter, further in view of Solinsky (US Patent No. 10,105,571 B2) (cited by Applicant) and Yang et al. (US Publication No. 2012/0253234 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted neither Bae et al. nor Winter does not specifically teach the processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract a gait waveform for one gait cycle stating from heel strike, from the time-series data of the sensor data, detect a period of 30 to 50% of the extracted gait waveform as the terminal stance period, detect timing of heel lift and timing of an opposite heel strike from the time-series data of the sensor data, and detect a period from the timing of heel lift to the timing of the opposite heel strike is detected as the terminal stance period. However, Solinsky teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract a gait waveform for one gait cycle stating from heel strike, from the time-series data of the sensor data, and detect a period of 30 to 50% of the extracted gait waveform as the terminal stance period (see Figure 1A and col. 5, lines 56-60 – “3) mid stance from single limb support, and 4) terminal stance, of heel-off, and then moving on into the next component of 5) toe off (TO) that leads into pre-swing”). Yang et al. teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect timing of heel lift and timing of an opposite heel strike from the time-series data of the sensor data, and detect a period from the timing of heel lift to the timing of the opposite heel strike is detected as the terminal stance period (see Figure 6 and [0046] – “For the stance phase, embodiments of the present invention may complete with digital sensors installed on the toes and heels of both feet (sensors 5, 8, 9, 12), as shown in FIG. 6. Take (a) and (f) as the initial contact of the right foot, (b) as the left toe tip being lift off, (c) as the right heel being lift off, (d) as the left heel touching the ground and (e) as the left toe tip touching the ground. As sensed by sensors 5, 8, 9 and 12, (a) to (b) demonstrates loading response; (b) to (c) is the mid-stance; (c) to (d) is the terminal stance; (d) to (e) is the pre-swing; and (e) to (f) is the swing phase (see details in the next paragraph)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae et al. and Winter to include the processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract a gait waveform for one gait cycle stating from heel strike, from the time-series data of the sensor data, and detect a period of 30 to 50% of the extracted gait waveform as the terminal stance period, as disclosed in Solinsky, so as to identify the terminal stance as the period of time between mid-stance/single limb support until toe off that leads into pre-swing (see Solinksy: col. 5, lines 56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae et al. and Winter to include the processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect timing of heel lift and timing of an opposite heel strike from the time-series data of the sensor data, and detect a period from the timing of heel lift to the timing of the opposite heel strike is detected as the terminal stance period, as disclosed in Yang et al., so as to identify the terminal stance as the period of time between the right heel being lift off and the left heel touching the ground (see Yang et al.: [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791