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 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 limitations are:
a first cadence acquirer that acquires in claim 1.
a second cadence acquirer that acquires in claim 1.
a judgement unit that makes judgement in claim 1.
a result output unit in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A running style analysis device, comprising:
a first cadence acquirer that acquires, with regard to running of a subject, a cadence at a first running speed as a first cadence;
a second cadence acquirer that acquires, with regard to running of the subject, a cadence at a second running speed that is different from the first running speed, as a second cadence;
a judgement unit that makes judgement as to which of a plurality of running style types, which include a long stride type and a high cadence type, running of the subject falls under, based on the difference between the first cadence and the second cadence with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; and
a result output unit that outputs a result of the judgment.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses acquires, with regard to running of a subject, a cadence at a first running speed as a first cadence; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; acquires, with regard to running of the subject, a cadence at a second running speed that is different from the first running speed, as a second cadence; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; makes judgement as to which of a plurality of running style types, which include a long stride type and a high cadence type, running of the subject falls under, based on the difference between the first cadence and the second cadence with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
a first cadence acquirer that
a second cadence acquirer that
a judgement unit that
a result output unit that
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of 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 component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
outputs a result of the judgement.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. 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, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. 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, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-14 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 6 is directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 6 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A running style analysis method, comprising:
acquiring, with regard to running of a subject, a cadence at a first running speed as a first cadence;
acquiring, with regard to running of the subject, a cadence at a second running speed that is different from the first running speed, as a second cadence;
making judgement as to which of a plurality of running style types, which include a long stride type and a high cadence type, running of the subject falls under, based on the difference between the first cadence and the second cadence with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; and
outputting a result of the judgement.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 6 discloses acquiring, with regard to running of a subject, a cadence at a first running speed as a first cadence; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; acquiring, with regard to running of the subject, a cadence at a second running speed that is different from the first running speed, as a second cadence; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; making judgement as to which of a plurality of running style types, which include a long stride type and a high cadence type, running of the subject falls under, based on the difference between the first cadence and the second cadence with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 6 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 6 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 6 further recites:
outputting a result of the judgement.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 6 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. 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, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. 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, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 6 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations; e.g., see MPEP 2106.03.I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sazuka et al. (US 10,876,013 B2), hereinafter Sazuka, in further view of Stirling et al. (US 2008/0214360 A1), hereinafter Stirling.
Regarding claim 1, Sazuka discloses A running style analysis device, comprising:
a pitch acquirer that acquires, with regard to running of a subject, a pitch at a first running speed as a first pitch; (Sazuka; e.g., see fig. 5 illustrating a diagram of an example of estimating the running state based on the running characteristics, wherein the abscissa represents speed in (m/s) and the ordinate represents the pitch/cadence in (step/min); see also fig. 6 illustrating a diagram of an example of estimating the running state based on the running characteristics wherein the abscissa represents speed in (m/s) and the ordinate represents the strike in (m); see also fig. 7 illustrating mobile terminal (121-1) … (121-n); see also fig. 12 illustrating the same wearable terminal, also disclosing the measurement unit (406) connected to CPU (401); construed as a cadence acquirer; see also col. 10, lines 3-8 disclosing each individual has a unique running characteristic. In other words, when a person runs, the person exhibits a running characteristic, which is unique to the person, having a high degree of reproduction in a short term. Meanwhile, there is an individual difference in the running characteristic; see also col. 10, line 53 – col. 11, line 18 disclosing figs. 5 and 6 illustrate an example of the running characteristic of a certain person. Fig. 5 illustrates the speed-pitch characteristic, and fig. 6 illustrates the speed-stride characteristic. For example, in a case where the actually-measured values of the speed, the pitch, and the stride are values representing at a point PA1 illustrated in fig. 5 and a point PB1 illustrated in fig. 6, the current running state can be perceived).
the pitch acquirer that acquires, with regard to running of the subject, a pitch at a second running speed that is different from the first running speed, as a second pitch; (Sazuka; e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 5 illustrating point (PA2) and also fig. 6 illustrating (PB2); examiner notes that figs. 5-6 explicitly illustrating that (PA2), which corresponds to (PB2) is at a different running speed in (m/s); see also col. 11, lines 19-43 disclosing in addition, for example, in a case where the actually-measured values of the speed, the pitch, and the stride are values represented by a point (PA2) illustrated in fig. 5 and a point (PB2) illustrated in fig. 6; examiner notes that point (PA2) of fig. 5, which corresponds to point (PB2) of fig. 6 explicitly illustrates a second cadence of a second running speed which is different from the first running speed of (PA1)/(PB1)).
a judgment unit that makes judgment as to which of a plurality of running style types, which include a long stride type and a high pitch type, running of the subject falls under, based on the difference between the first pitch and the second pitch with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; and (Sazuka, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically to figs. 5-6; see also fig. 16 illustrating a flowchart representative of the running characteristic analyzing process performed by the information processing system (101) of fig. 7 which also discloses the mobile terminals (121-1)…(121-n); see also col. 19, line 58 – col. 20, line 17 describing the steps of fig. 16, specifically to step S(6), which discloses the running characteristic analyzing unit (261) estimates a cluster to which the speed-pitch-stride characteristic curve of the target user belongs based on the measurement results of the speed, the pitch, and the stride of the target user at the time of low-speed running, at the time of standard-speed running, and at the time of high-speed running. The running characteristic analyzing unit (261) estimates a cluster for which a distance between the speed-pitch-stride characteristic curve of the cluster and the measured values of the speed, the pitch, and the stride at the time of low-speed running, at the time of standard-speed running, and at the time of high-speed running is minimal as a cluster to which the speed-pitch-stride characteristic curve of the target user belongs; examiner notes that a curve is created based at least upon the minimal distance between at least two points created by the measurement of the speed, the pitch and the stride of the target user at different running speeds, which is construed as based on the difference between the first cadence and the second cadence with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; see also figs. 31-33; see also col. 10, lines 25-33 disclosing there is an individual difference in the running characteristics due to differences of the following items. Pitch switching speed, Stride Switching speed, pitch change rate, stride change rate, minimum value and maximum value of pitch, minimum value and maximum value of stride, and maximum value of speed; see also col. 30, lines 38-47 disclosing in step (S301), the mobile terminal (121) acquires a latest running characteristic; see also col. 30, lines 65-67 disclosing the running state analyzing unit (361); examiner notes that both characteristic analyzing unit (261) of fig. 9 and state analyzing unit (361) are a component of CPU (201/301) and are construed as the judgement unit; e.g., see , starts calculating a speed, a pitch, and a stride based on the received measurement data; see also col. 32, lines 53 – col. 33, line 50 disclosing in step (S303), the running state analyzing unit (361) of the mobile terminal (121) compares the current running state with the running characteristic. The running state analyzing unit (361), first, calculates a defect parameter (b0) representing balance of the current pitch and the current stride with respect to the running characteristic by using the following equation; e.g., see eqn. 1. Next, the running state analyzing unit (361) makes a sensible correction of the defect parameter by using the following equation; e.g., see eqn. 2, thereby calculating pitch-stride balance (br). In a case where the stride is longer than that of the neutral state, and the pitch is smaller than that of the neutral state, the pitch-stride balance (br) has a positive value. On the other hand, in case where the stride is shorter than that of the neutral state, the pitch is larger than that of the neutral state, the pitch-stride balance (br) has a negative value. A state in which the stride is longer than that of the neutral state, and the pitch is smaller than that of the neutral state will be referred also as a state inclining toward the stride, a stride approach state, or a state in which the stride is dominant. A state in which the pitch is larger than that of the neutral state, and the stride is shorter than that of the neutral state will be referred also as a state inclining toward the pitch, a pitch approach state, or a state in which the pitch is dominant; construed as a plurality of running style types).
a result output unit that outputs a result of the judgment. (Sazuka, e.g., see rejection as applied above; e.g., see figs. 32-33 illustrating a screen display output; construed as a result output unit, of a speed meter (801), balance meter (802), and ballon (803n); see also col. 33, line 51 – col. 34, line 42 disclosing the embodiment of the resulting output).
Sazuka may be relied upon as utilizing a CPU to perform the functions of a first and second cadence acquirer, which is implicitly capable of performing these functions. Further Sazuka also discloses in col. 7, lines 10-15 that a pitch is the number of rotations of legs of a person and is represented in units of step/min (step per minute) or the like. While a term called cadence is frequently used in technical papers, in this specification, a pitch having a high degree of recognition in Japan will be mainly used, which is also implicitly disclosing a cadence. However, Sazuka is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: a cadence and a first and second cadence acquirer.
However, Stirling further discloses a cadence and (Stirling, e.g., see fig. 19 illustrating a cadence produced in (stride/s) of the abscissa and speed produces as (m/s); see also para. [0102] disclosing classification of the user’s motion as cyclical enables the processing system (16) to calculate cadence. Cyclical components can be found in, for example, walking, jogging, running, cycling, exercising on an elliptical trainer, rowing, etc.)
a first and second cadence acquirer (Stirling, e.g., see para. [0138] disclosing a first cadence-to-speed motion model may be generated and stored to estimate speed from cadence, and a second cadence-to-energy model may be generated and stored to estimate energy from cadence. Subsequently, either or both models may be used independently or concurrently to estimate speed and or energy from cadence).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Sazuka with Stirling’s cadence and first and second cadence acquirer for at least the reasons that multiple motion models are required for generation and storage by a processing system to accommodate estimation of multiple parameter types, as taught by Stirling; e.g., see para. [0139], wherein cadence-to-speed motion models provides a correlation between speed and cadence; e.g., see para. [0129].
Regarding claim 2, Sazuka in view of Stirling discloses The running style analysis device according to claim 1, wherein, when at least one of the first cadence or the second cadence is greater than or equal to a judgment criterion value obtained based on a predetermined criterion, the judgment unit judges that running of the subject falls under the high cadence type, regardless of the difference in cadence. (Sazuka, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see col. 9, lines 31-58 disclosing the pitch change rate is low in a range less than the pitch switching speed; construed as a judgement criterion, and the pitch change rate is high in a range of the pitch switching speed or more. Until the speed arrives at the pitch switching speed, growth of the pitch with respect to the speed is small, and, when the speed is the pitch switching speed or more, growth of the pitch with respect to the speed is large. The stride change rate is high in a range less than the stride switching speed, and the stride change rate is low in a range of the stride switching speed or more. The pitch switching speed and the stride switching speed may have mutually-different values; construed as a predetermined criterion, for many persons when actually measured; e.g., see col. 9, lines 31-42).
Regarding claim 3, Sakura in view of Stirling discloses The running style analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the judgment unit judges that running of the subject falls under the high cadence type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined first reference range and judges that running of the subject falls under the long stride type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined second reference range, which is lower than the first reference range. (Sazuka; e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1 to state/character analyzing unit (361/261) of CPU (301/201) which is construed as the judgement unit, wherein col. 13, lines 11-23 disclose the running characteristic analyzing unit (261) and col. 15, lines 4-14 disclose the running state analyzing unit (361); see also fig. 17 illustrating a steep increase of cadence; construed as a high cadence type, between the speeds of 6 m/s and 8.5 m/s; construed as a difference within a predetermined first reference range; e.g., see col. 66, lines 52-57; see also fig. 18 illustrating a steep increase in stride; construed as a long stride type, between 2.8 m/s and 5.4 m/s; construed as a difference in a cadence within a predetermined second reference range, which is lower than the first reference range; e.g., 6 m/s to 8.5 m/s; see also col. 21, line 1-51 disclosing the embodiments of figs. 17-18 with regard to the fitting of lines/curves as a function pitch, stride, and speed).
Regarding claim 4, Sakura in view of Stirling discloses The running style analysis device according to claim l, wherein the judgment unit judges that running of the subject falls under the high cadence type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined first reference range, judges that running of the subject falls under the long stride type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined second reference range, which is lower than the first reference range, and judges that running of the subject falls under an intermediate type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined third reference range, which is lower than the first reference range and higher than the second reference range. (Sazuka; e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1 to state/character analyzing unit (361/261) of CPU (301/201) which is construed as the judgement unit, wherein col. 13, lines 11-23 disclose the running characteristic analyzing unit (261) and col. 15, lines 4-14 disclose the running state analyzing unit (361); see also fig. 17 illustrating a steep increase of cadence; construed as a high cadence type, between the speeds of 6.2 m/s and 8.5 m/s; construed as a difference within a predetermined first reference range; e.g., see col. 66, lines 52-57; see also fig. 18 illustrating a steep increase in stride; construed as a long stride type, between 2.8 m/s and 5 m/s; construed as a difference in a cadence within a predetermined second reference range, which is lower than the first reference range; e.g., 6.2 m/s to 8.5 m/s. Both figs. 17-18 illustrating points (P1) and (P2), wherein (P1) is lower than the first reference range of 6.2 m/s to 8.5 m/s, but higher than a second reference range of 2.8 m/s and 5 m/s; see also col. 21, lines 13-16 disclosing the running characteristic analyzing unit (261), while moving a junction (P1) in the direction of the horizontal axis (speed), individually performs fitting of a straight line or a curved line in an area in which the speed is lower than that at the junction (P1) and a straight line or a curved line in an area in which the speed is higher than that at the junction (P1); see also col. 21, lines 21-27 disclosing the running characteristic analyzing unit (261), while moving a junction (P2) in the direction of the horizontal axis (speed), individually performs fitting of a straight line or a curved line in an area in which the speed is lower than that at the junction (P2) and a straight line or a curved line in an area in which the speed is higher than that at the junction (P2); examiner notes that (P1), which corresponds to (P2) is construed as an intermediate and third reference range; e.g., 5 m/s to 6.2 m/s); see also col. 21, line 1-51 disclosing the embodiments of figs. 17-18 with regard to the fitting of lines/curves as a function pitch, stride, and speed).
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 recites A running style analysis method, comprising: acquiring, with regard to running of a subject, a cadence at a first running speed as a first cadence; acquiring, with regard to running of the subject, a cadence at a second running speed that is different from the first running speed, as a second cadence; making judgment as to which of a plurality of running style types, which include a long stride type and a high cadence type, running of the subject falls under, based on the difference between the first cadence and the second cadence with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; and outputting a result of the judgment., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sazuka in view of Stirling for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Claim 7 recites A running style analysis program causing a computer to implement: acquiring, with regard to running of a subject, a cadence at a first running speed as a first cadence; acquiring, with regard to running of the subject, a cadence at a second running speed that is different from the first running speed, as a second cadence; making judgment as to which of a plurality of running style types, which include a long stride type and a high cadence type, running of the subject falls under, based on the difference between the first cadence and the second cadence with respect to the difference between the first running speed and the second running speed; and outputting a result of the judgment., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sazuka in view of Stirling for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites The running style analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the judgment unit judges that running of the subject falls under the high cadence type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined first reference range and judges that running of the subject falls under the long stride type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined second reference range, which is lower than the first reference range., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sazuka in view of Stirling for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites The running style analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the judgment unit judges that running of the subject falls under the high cadence type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined first reference range, judges that running of the subject falls under the long stride type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined second reference range, which is lower than the first reference range, and judges that running of the subject falls under an intermediate type when the difference in cadence is within a predetermined third reference range, which is lower than the first reference range and higher than the second reference range., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sazuka in view of Stirling for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 4.
Conclusion
Claims 5 and 10-14 do not stand rejected on the ground(s) of prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 9,700,241 B2 to Eastman et al. relates to a gait analysis system and method.
US 2020/0221975 A1 to Basta et al. relates to a method of gait evaluation and training with differential pressure system.
US 2020/0146592 A1 to Tsukada et al. relates to a foot sole pressure measurement instrument, information provision device, and information provision method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857