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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The limitations encompassing the ‘data acquisition device’ in claim(s) 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim(s) 1 recites
A detection device comprising:
a memory storing instructions, and
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
generate time-series data associated with walking using sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor installed in one foot portion of a user;
extract a gait waveform from the time-series data;
detect a gait event of both feet of the user from the gait waveform;
specify an occurrence time of the gait event detected from the gait waveform of the user;
calculate a time factor related to a gait based on the occurrence time of the gait event;
estimate a physical condition of the user based on the time factor;
and display information recommending that the user be examined in a hospital according to the physical condition of the user on a screen of a mobile terminal used by the user.
(abstract portions shown in emphasis)
Step 2A Prong One
The recitation of generating data, extracting a waveform, specifying and calculating time parameters, and estimating a condition of a user encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of mere extrasolutionary activity (i.e., mere data gathering and/or nominal output) and/or otherwise nominal and generic computer elements (2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance – hereafter ‘2019 PEG’ - p. 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a), (d) and (g)) (e.g., processing ‘units’).
For example, but for the recitation of obtaining/acquiring data and/or generic processing ‘units’ / functional steps to perform abstract limitations, the steps of ‘generating’, ‘extracting’, ‘detecting’, ‘specifying’, ‘calculating’, and ‘estimating’ encompasses a clinician (mentally) reviewing sensor data to (mentally) diagnose / assess a condition of a patient using (mental) calculations / analyses.
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extrasolutionary activity (and/or otherwise generic computing elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong one of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 only recites additional elements of extrasolutionary activity — in particular, a generic display on a mobile terminal — and/or generic computing structures / elements without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 - the instant claim, for example, does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection — via the claimed data obtaining, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing/processing architecture / structure).
Independent claim(s) 9 and 10 encounter the same issues as claim(s) 1 mutatis mutandis.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application / integration (the dependent claim(s) reciting generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea).
Dependent claim(s) 7-8 encounter substantially the same issues as the independent claim(s) from which they depend in that they encompass further generic extrasolutionary activity (generic data gathering and nominal display) and/or generic computing elements (storage, memory per se).
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under step 2A prong two.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extrasolutionary activity (data gathering and display outputting) and generic computing elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extrasolutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).
Examiners should carefully consider each claim on its own merits, as well as evaluate all other relevant considerations, before making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, evaluation of the particular machine and particular transformation considerations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c), respectively), the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) may assist examiners in making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is insignificant extra-solution activity. Note, however, that examiners should not evaluate the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, because that consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B.
This consideration is similar to factors used in past Office guidance (for example, the now superseded Bilski and Mayo analyses) that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); Flook, 437 U.S. at 593-95, 198 USPQ at 197 (a formula would not be patentable by only indicating that is could be usefully applied to existing surveying techniques); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity). Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis.
(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
Mere Data Gathering:
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
Some cases have identified insignificant computer implementation as an example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323-24, 101 USPQ2d 1785, 1789-90 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1280-81, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Other cases have considered these types of limitations as mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about insignificant computer implementation.
For claim limitations that add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea), examiners should explain in an eligibility rejection why they do not meaningfully limit the claim. For example, an examiner could explain that adding a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space (a mathematical relationship) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area. For more information on formulating a subject matter eligibility rejection, see MPEP § 2106.07(a).
The extrasolutionary activity/step(s) of displaying information on a mobile terminal and a data acquisition device to measure spatial and angular signals as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and activity (memory/storage, processing units), MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well‐understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the computer elements, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s). The claim(s) are not patent eligible under step 2B.
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.
Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims may be addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 20160100801 A1) in view of Maeda (US 20220192581 A1).
For claim(s) 1, 9, and 10, Clark teaches A detection device, medium, and method comprising:
a memory storing instructions, and a processor [computer in Fig(s). 7] connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
generate time-series data associated with walking using sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor installed in one foot portion of a user; [Fig(s). 3]
extract a gait waveform from the time-series data; [Fig(s). 3]
detect a gait event of both feet of the user from the gait waveform; [events A to A’ in Fig(s). 3 for data from both feet as in ¶¶71-72]
specify an occurrence time of the gait event detected from the gait waveform of the user; [timings in ¶¶43-59]
calculate a time factor related to a gait based on the occurrence time of the gait event; [timings in ¶¶43-59 then for metrics in ¶¶71-78]
estimate a physical condition of the user based on the time factor. [metrics in ¶¶71-78]
Clark fails to teach displaying information recommending the user be examined at a hospital. However, consider that the Clark reference is generally concerned with monitoring the rehabilitation progress and ensuring the prevention of injury in a subject as in Clark ¶¶2-6.
Maeda teaches a gait analysis system which displays a recommendation to visit a hospital based on a user’s gait. [¶¶68-69]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the device and method of Clark to incorporate the hospital recommendation display of Maeda in order to aid a subject who needs further medical attention and to ensure the subject’s successful rehabilitation / injury prevention. As motivated by Maeda ¶¶10-11 ¶¶68-69 and Clark ¶¶2-6.
For claim 2, Clark teaches The detection device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
generate time-series data of an acceleration in a traveling direction of the user, [Fig(s). 3]
extract a gait waveform of the acceleration in the traveling direction for one gait cycle from the generated time-series data of the acceleration in the traveling direction, [Fig(s). 3]
detect a timing at which a trough is detected between two peaks included in a maximum peak as a timing of a toe-off in the extracted gait waveform of the acceleration in the traveling direction for one gait cycle, [toe off C in Fig(s). 3] and
detect a timing of a midpoint between a timing at which a minimum peak is detected and a timing at which a maximum peak appearing after the minimum peak is detected as a timing of a heel-strike. [foot strike A in Fig(s). 3]
For claim 3, Clark teaches The detection device according to claim 2,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
generate time-series data of a roll angular velocity of the user, [Fig(s). 3]
extract, from the generated time-series data of the roll angular velocity, a gait waveform of the roll angular velocity for one gait cycle starting from a start timing of a terminal stance stage, [Fig(s). 3]
divide the extracted gait waveform of the roll angular velocity for one gait cycle into a first gait waveform, a second gait waveform, and a third gait waveform at the timing of the toe-off and the timing of the heel-strike, [multiple waves in Fig(s). 3 and/or as Fig(s). 3 applies for multiple footsteps]
detect a timing of an opposite heel-strike from the first gait waveform of the roll angular velocity, [Fig(s). 3 for subsequent steps (e.g., an opposite foot after a first foot)]
and detect a timing of an opposite toe-off from the third gait waveform of the roll angular velocity. [Fig(s). 3 for subsequent steps (e.g., an opposite foot after a first foot)]
For claim 6, Clark teaches The detection device according to claim 5,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
generate time-series data of an acceleration in a gravity direction of the user, [Fig(s). 3 is at least some form of time series data of acceleration in a gravity direction of the user (e.g., signal data from the vertical movement of a shoe as depicted at the top of Fig(s). 3)]
extract, from the generated time-series data of the acceleration in the gravity direction, a gait waveform of the acceleration in the gravity direction for one gait cycle starting from a start timing of a terminal stance stage, [waveform of Fig(s). 3 is a walking waveform and thus starts from a stance phase (even if beginning with foot strike at event A)]
divide the extracted gait waveform of the acceleration in the gravity direction for one gait cycle into a first gait waveform, a second gait waveform, and a third gait waveform at the timing of the toe-off and the timing of the heel-strike, [multiple waves in Fig(s). 3 and/or as Fig(s). 3 applies for multiple footsteps]
and detect a timing at which the second gait waveform of the acceleration in the gravity direction becomes maximum as a timing of a tibia-vertical. [swing event D in Fig(s). 3]
For claim 8, Clark teaches A detection system comprising:
the detection device according to claim 1;
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 detection device. [shoe with sensor 10 in Fig(s). 1 then for system of Fig(s). 7 with gyroscopes and accelerometers as per ¶79]
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Maeda and Barth (US 20190150793 A1).
For claim 7, Clark teaches The detection device according to claim 6,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
display information related to the estimated physical condition of the user on the screen of the mobile terminal used by the user with content optimized for healthcare use. [Fig(s). 16-20]
For claim(s) 7, Clark fails to teach the use of a machine learning model.
Barth teaches a gait evaluation system [abstract] where an estimation of a physical condition of a user from gait data (including a gait waveform) occurs by inputting feature amounts into a machine learning model. [¶¶91-101]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Clark to incorporate the machine learning model of Barth (e.g., as part of the waveform feature extraction of Clark Fig(s). 3) in order to increase the accuracy and usefulness of the gait analyses. As motivated by Barth ¶¶14-31.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eTerminal-disclaimer
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12357242 in view of Maeda.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12408878 in view of Maeda.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 of this application are substantially anticipated by claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 of each of the ‘242 and ‘878 patents but for the recitation of a display step / function. Maeda teaches a display step / function as detailed above for the art rejections in Maeda ¶¶68-69.
In view of the teachings of Maeda, the claim(s) of the present application would be an obvious variant of the ‘242 and ‘878 patents (obvious in scope).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S MELHUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 Chen can be reached on 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.
/BENJAMIN S MELHUS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791