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 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 1-10 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 1, the limitation “duration” of the knee joint renders the claimed indefinite, because a knee joint doesn’t have a “duration” (e.g., duration of what?). For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the duration of the knee joint at a particular bending angle.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, the limitation “through” the mount parts and fitting part renders the claim indefinite. The term “through” is ambiguous and makes it unclear the how these particular limitations or disposed on or with or in the aid and fitting part. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that through actually intends to mean where the “by” (i.e., via or by way of the respective mounting parts and fitting part).
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 are 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.
Each of Claims 1-10 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-10 recites at least one step or instruction for judging and providing an alarm if a bending angle is outside of a particular threshold based on the measurements of IMUs and associated processors, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-10 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1-10 recite a first thigh IMU and a second calf IMU, the collection and processing of IMU data and then controlling as alarm based on activity information of a knee joint (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG). Further, dependent Claims 2-10 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-10) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: IMUs and processors are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., IMUs and processors as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-10 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: IMUs and microprocessors.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the IMUs and microprocessors are generic IMUs and microprocesses that are used to achieve the functions of the claims (paragraph 19). Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term IMU and microprocessor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the IMUs and microprocessors. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional 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 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-10 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of Claims 1-10 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-10 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-10 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-10amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-10are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 3-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IMU-based Smart Knee Pad for Walking Distance and Stride Count Measurement to Wang et al. (hereinafter, Wang) in view of An IMU-aided Fitness System to Lin et al. (hereinafter, Lin).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a gait monitoring and healthcare system (Abstract “… calculate the knee angle, stride counts, and walking distance … calculate walking distance … provides feedback to users … when conducting rehabilitation …”), comprising inter alia:
a first IMU (under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “… sensor contains a microcontroller … 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, 3-axis magnetometer …”) to be mounted on a thigh of a user (under II. METHOD, C. The angles on thigh and shank segments definition “… sensors on the thigh …”), wherein the first IMU senses an activity state of the thigh and generates a first activity signal
(under II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement “Knee angle = Thigh angle – Shank angle … [for] measuring knee angle, we use two sensors … on the thigh and shank segments.”) (under II. METHOD E. Stride length calculation “… monitor angles of thigh and shank …”);
a second IMU (under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “… sensor contains a microcontroller … 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, 3-acis magnetometer …”) to be mounted on a calf of the user (under Method, C. The angles on thigh and shank segments definition “… sensors on the … shank …”), wherein the second IMU senses an activity state of the calf and generates a second activity signal (under II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement “Knee angle = Thigh angle – Shank angle … [for] measuring knee angle, we use two sensors … on the thigh and shank segments.”) (under II. METHOD E. Stride length calculation “… monitor angles of thigh and shank …”); and
a local host electrically connected to the first IMU and the second IMU, wherein the local host comprises a microprocessor (the combination of the microprocessor that is part of the sensors and the Android APP under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “… synchronization of the sensors is controlled by the APP under the master (APP) and slave (sensor) mechanism … APP receives data from the sensors at every sampling time … connect the sensors to the Android APP … APP can show the knee angle, stride count, and the walking distance in real time.”), and performs operations of:
calculating a first pitch angle between the first IMU (thigh) and a horizontal plane (under II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement and also under the description of FIG. 2, where (α) is the pitch angle between the first IMU placed on the thigh and the respective movement of the thigh out of the calibrated 0-degree value from the gravity direction, i.e., horizontal plane is defined as the gravity direction, defined by the 0-degree angle or green arrow in FIG. 2, and the (α) is the pitch angle is the respective pitch angle movement out of this plane) and a second pitch angle between the second IMU (calf) and the horizontal plane according to the first activity signal and the second activity signal (under II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement and also under the description of FIG. 2, where (β) is the pitch angle between the first IMU placed on the calf and the respective movement of the calf out of the calibrated 0-degree value from the gravity direction, i.e., horizontal plane is defined as the gravity direction, defined by the 0-degree angle or green arrow in FIG. 2, and the (β) is the pitch angle is the respective pitch angle movement out of this plane)
calculating activity information of a knee joint of the user according to the first pitch angle and the second pitch angle, wherein the activity information comprises:
a bending angle (under II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement “Knee angle = Thigh angle – Shank angle …”, i.e., Wang calculates the knee angle by subtracting the shank angle from the thigh angle),
an angular velocity (under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “… the integration of angular velocity …” and under II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement “roll angle will be positive by integrating the angular velocity when we counterclockwise rotate the sensors with respect to the X-axis”, i.e, Wang measures angular velocity to device the angles, via integration, and uses the changing rate (integration) to detect motion phases); and
a duration of the knee joint (under II. METHOD, F. Stride count calculation “… use changing rates of knee and thigh angles to determine the beginning and the ending of a stride … we regard 40-degree knee angle as the beginning of a stride and -2-degree/sample thigh angle changing rate as the ending of a stride.” i.e., Wang determines beginning and end of the stride based on the knee angle, and the system calculates the duration of the knee joint activity (the gait cycle)); and
where the local host is programmed to judge whether the bending angle of the knee joint falls within a dangerous range or not according to activity information and is able to output a warning signal if yes. Wang discloses a system programmed to detect specific knee angle thresholds to judge the user’s motion state and determines if the user is performing a valid stride or movement based on whether they cross an angular threshold (under METHOD II., Stride count calculation “First, we set 40-degree of knee angle as the threshold of a stride since knee angle is usually within the range of 40-degree to 60-degree during swing for healthy people … we can lower the threshold”), this demonstrates that device’s ability to be programmed with different ranges depending on a user condition and where the processor determines if the angle is in the active range (above the threshold) to count the stride. Wang discloses determining whether the current posture state is in a dangerous range or not according to activity information) (under III. RESULTS, D. Application and limitations “… the knee angle can be used as an index or an indicator for posture optimization …) (under IV DETAILS, D. Application and limitations “… utilize the system to monitor the knee angle flexion during rehabilitation …”). Wang discloses the ability to output a warning single if “yes” simply by displaying (V. CONCLUSION “… the gait features using the thigh, shank, and knee angles can be displayed and recorded on the APP …”)
Wang discloses the claimed invention as set forth and cited above except for expressly disclosing where the local host also comprises an alarm that occurs upon their judgement that the bending angle of the knee joint in a walking state falls within a dangerous range or not according to the activity information, and controlling the alarm to output a warning signal if yes.
However, Lin teaches 9-axis IMU sensors connected to a smartphone that instantly report correctness of body movements (under page 225, II. IMU SENSOR) which are attached to the thigh and shank and each detect a roll angle (under page 225, III. METHOD, A. Squat with barbells “… three 9-axis IMU sensors are attached to the … thigh … and shank …”) and determines if conditions of the roll angles are met to determine if a motion was correct or incorrect (i.e., dangerous range or not according the activity information, such as intended motion) (under page 226, III. METHOD, A. Squat with barbells “If users do not receive both the warnings … the motion is recognized as a correct squat; otherwise, it is an incorrect motion.”). Lin discloses incorrect/dangerous conditions of a knee joint angle that are not according to an intended body position (under page 225, III. METHOD, A. Squat with barbells “… good morning, hip joint deactivation … incorrect motions …” or generally any motion that is not a complete squat) and recognition of a knee angle that indicates proper conditions that are according to an intended body position (under page 225, III. METHOD, A. Squat with barbells “…recognition of a complete squat…”). Lin teaches real-time haptic and audio alarms that provide feedback occurs when incorrect motions occur (under IV ANDROID APPLICATION, C. Real-time haptic and audio feedback).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the local host that makes a judgment of bending angle of Wang with the real-time haptic and audio feedback of Lin, as Lin criticizes prior systems because they “only recognize the motion but not judge its correctness” and therefore “systems do not tell whether the motion is standard one or … improper” (under page 225, I. INTRODUCTION) and explains that by providing real-time haptic and audio feedback “the chance of getting injured can be degraded…” (under page 229, VII. CONCLUSION).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Lin teach the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 1, including where the bending angle is an included angle between an extension line of the thigh and the calf (under II. METHOD, C. The angles on tight and shank segments definition). Wang in view of Lin teach the claimed invention except for explicitly teaching wherein the dangerous range ranges from 60 to 120 degrees. However, Wang teaches that the knee angle is usually within a range of 40-degrees to 60-degrees (under II. METHOD, F. Stride count calculation “… we set 40-degree of knee angle as the threshold of a stride since knee angle is usually within the range of 40-degrees to 60-degrees during swing for healthy people.”). Wang clearly contemplates that a normal knee angle is up to 60-degrees, and a skilled artisan would have found it notoriously obvious to understand that degree above the normal 60-degree knee angle would have been a dangerous. Therefore, while not expressly stated, Wang teaches the normal non-dangerous angle of a knee, and a skilled artisan would have readily understood that any angle over 60-degrees would have fallen into the “dangerous range”, effectively teaching a dangerous range from 60 to 120 degrees.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang in view of Lin teach an aid (Wang: iKneePad, FIG. 1), wherein the first IMU is disposed on the thigh through a first mounting part of the aid, the second IMU is disposed on the calf through a second mounting part of the aid (Wang: the white housings that each encapsulate the first and second IMU sensing components in FIG. 1 are being interpreted as the first and second mounting parts, the mounting parts can be seen in FIG. 1 located above and below the hole that accommodates the knee joint in FIG. 1), a fitting part of the aid accommodates the knee joint (Wang: the raised fabric around the hole that accommodates the knee joint in FIG. 1 and/or the hole in the knee of the iKneePad in FIG. 1). Wang does not expressly disclose a first distance from a center point of the fitting part to the first IMU, and a second distance from the center point of the fitting part to the second IMU are greater than or equal to 15 cm. However, Lin teaches under III. METHOD, A. Squat with barbells that the sensor on the thigh part of the knee pad is approximately 9 centimeters above the knee and that the sensor on the shank part of the knee pad is approximately 8 centimeters below the knee, which yields a distance between the two sensors are great than 15 cm apart. One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the thigh and shank sensors of Wang at the distances as set forth in Lin because both prior arts teach that knee angles are determined from relative angles of the thigh and shank, and selecting practical mounting offsets along each segment above and below the knee are a predictable, finite-choice placement optimization and a routine design choice to obtain thigh and shank orientation measurements while keeping the sensors physically accommodated by the knee pad.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang in view of Lin teach the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 4, wherein the local host (“microprocessor”, under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “The sensor contains a microcontroller (TI CC2640) …”) is mounted on the knee joint (Wang: the white housings that each encapsulate the first and second IMU sensing components and microprocessor mount the local host to the knee joint (FIG. 1)), through the fitting part (each of the sensors on either side of the fitting part of located “through” the fitting part because they are mounted nearby and placement is influences by the side of the raised fabric and sized of the hole that accommodates the knee), and the aid further has a first connection part between the first mounting part and the fitting part, and a second connection part between the second mounting part and the fitting part (respective black fabric backings on the sensors as seen in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang in view of Lin teach the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 1, including the local host as interpreted above in Claim 1, and a second host (Wang: under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “… sensor contains a microprocessor…”) where the local host and the second host communicate with one another (Wang: under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “The APP receives the data from the sensors at every sampling time.”). Wang in view of Lin further teach where the local host performs a statistical analysis on the activity information (Wang: see all of II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement), and is capable of providing an activity correction solution to the user according to the activity information (under I. INTRODUCTION, “When the knee bends during walking … the real-time knee angle … will be shown on the APP.” and V. CONCLUSION “… the gait features using the thigh, shank, and knee angles can be displayed …), especially because the user is capable of viewing the APP display. Wang in view of Lin do not expressly teach where the local host is actually the microprocessor embedded with the sensors and where the remote host is the Androit App. It is noted that Wang in view of Lin teaches all of the functionalities and programming as set forth in the claims, it just not expressly state what is done at the local host and what is done at the remote host as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to further consider the local host to be Wang’s sensor microprocessor and to consider the remote host to be the Android APP. To reallocate the taught functions of the local and remote host would have been obvious, because Wang in view of Lin already teach the functions performed and distributed computer components and the particular division of functions among the components is a matter of design choice and implementation based on routine considerations, where moving a function from one processor to another would have been a predictable variation that achieves the same overall system operations.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20020103610 A1 to Bachmann et al. (hereinafter, Bachmann).
Wang in view of Lin discloses the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 1 except for expressly disclosing wherein the microprocessor performs the operation (a) using a quaternion method.
However, Bachmann teaches multi-axis magnetometers and accelerometers (paragraph [0037]) used for body posture tracking (paragraph [0035]), where the signals from the multi-axis magnetometers and accelerometers are input into a estimation filter that uses a quaternion method (paragraph [0036]).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the signal processing operations of Wang in view of Lin to use the quaternion method of Bachmann, as Wang in view of Lin already teach the use of Euler angles (Wang under II. METHOD) and Bachmann sets forth advantage of eliminating the Euler angle singularity program with the use of the quaternion method, which would have reduced the computational complexity of the gait monitoring and healthcare system (paragraph [0035]) and further states the using quaternion mathematics results in a 100-fold increase in processing efficiency (paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20090054814 A1 to Schnapp et al. (hereinafter, Schnapp).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of Lin teach the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 1, except for expressly disclosing wherein if the bending angle falls within the dangerous range, then the microprocessor further counts the duration of the bending angle to obtain a stay time, wherein if the stay time is longer than a threshold time, then the microprocessor further controls the alarm to output another warning signal.
However, Schnapp teaches a device for identification of incorrect posture and alarming a user to correct their posture (paragraph [0004]). Schnapp specifically teaches monitoring a threshold and if a threshold has been exceeded for more than a minute, providing an alarm to correct a posture to return below the threshold (paragraph [0040]).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the microprocess or Wang in view of Lin to include the stay time alarm of Schnapp, as Schnapp teaches this would have helped prevent false notifications for the user (paragraph 0017).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin and Schnapp as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20090260426 A1 to Lieberman et al. (Lieberman).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang in view of Lin and Schnapp teach the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 6, except for expressly disclosing wherein the microprocessor determines the threshold time according to an age, activity information and an activity state of the user.
However, Lieberman teaches that posture stability can be a preset parameter that is based on a person’s age, activity level or posture (paragraph 0071), defines safe-zones (thresholds and ranges or postural stability) (paragraphs [0073] and [0074]) and further contemplates determining how long an individual has spent in a particular posture (time spent running, outer range of stability, etc., paragraph [0063]).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the microprocessor of Wang in view of Lin and Schnapp to be based on an age, activity information and an activity state of the user because Lieberman teaches at paragraph [0068] that posture stability is unique for each person because it can be affected by age, activity level and posture, and a skilled artisan would have recognized that determining a unique threshold for unique individuals would have provide more accurate results tailored for each person individually.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin and Schnapp as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20140202229 A1 to Stanley.
Regarding Claim 8, Wang in view of Lin teach the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 1, wherein the first IMU and the second IMU are nine-axis IMUs, each of the nine-axis IMUs comprises an accelerometer, a magnetometer and a gyroscope (under II. METHOD, A. iKneePad design and hardware setup “… 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, 3-axis magnetometer…”), where the microprocessor calibrates sensing values (see calibration scheme under II. METHOD, D. Knee angle measurement) and then performs the operation (a) to increase precision (operation (a) is disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1 by Wang, therefore, Wang performs operation (a) “to increase precision”. Wang in view of Lin do not expressly teach where the microprocessor calibrates sensing values of the gyroscope according to sensing values of one or two of the accelerometer and the magnetometer.
However, Stanely teaches using rotational data acquired from sensors to calibrate a gyroscope (paragraph [0002]), where the sensor is gyroscope sensor, accelerometer and a magnetometer (paragraph [0016]). Stanely teaches where an acceleration vector from an accelerometer and a magnetic vector from a magnetometer are used to as trim parameters (i.e, “calibration”) to trim gyroscopic trim from a gyroscope (paragraph [0015]).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to calibrate the gyroscope of Wang in view of Lin according to values of the accelerometer and the magnetometer as set forth in Stanely, as Stanely teaches that gyroscopes can be susceptible to bias errors that can result in significant errors, and their instant invention is used to prevent such errors via trimming (paragraph [0005], [0006] and [0015]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin as applied to claim 1above, and further in view of US 20100113980 A1 to Herr et al. (hereinafter, Herr).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang in view of Lin teach the gait monitoring and healthcare system according to claim 1, wherein the walking state comprises a state of walking upstairs, walking downstairs, and walking horizontally (under II. METHOD, F. Stride count calculation “… six conditions, including (1) knee angle calculation, the stride count calculation of (2) walking, (3) upstairs, and (4) downstairs, and the measurement of (5) short walking distance (10m), (6) long walking distance (33m).”). Wang in view of Lin do not expressly disclose where the activity information is inputted to a machine learning model of the microprocessor, which further classifies the walking state of the user, wherein the walking state comprises a state of walking upstairs, a state of walking downstairs, a state of walking uphill, a state of walking downhill, and a state of walking horizontally.
However, Herr teaches IMUs coupled to the thigh and calf of a wearer of an orthosis, where the IMUs are used determine trajectory of the wearer of the orthosis (paragraph [0042] “… the orthosis includes an inertial measurement unit coupled to the thigh member or lower leg member for determining an inertial pose trajectory…”) where the activity information is inputted to a machine learning model of the microprocessor, which further classifies the walking state of the user (paragraph [0094] “… the at least one pattern recognition technique is performed using a processor coupled to at least one sensor … the at least one pattern recognition technique is selected from the group techniques consisting of Bayesian pattern classification, neural nets, fuzzy logic or hierarchical temporal memory.”), wherein the walking state comprises a state of walking upstairs, a state of walking downstairs, a state of walking uphill, a state of walking downhill, and a state of walking horizontally (paragraph [0076] “… predetermined condition is representative of levels ground, an ascending ramp … a descending ramp … ascending stair or a descending stair …”). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the microprocessor with the machine leaning model classification of walking state of Herr as Her teaches it would have been helpful to know the walking state and gait cycle of a subject to understand the requirements of an orthotic (paragraph [0004]) and further states that such classified walking states would have been helpful to determine terrain irregularities to further understand how the user is walking. A skilled artisan would have recognized that walking state information would have further allowed safe and unsafe conditions to be determined to protect the wearer of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791