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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 30, 2026 was considered by the examiner. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 7: “a” should be inserted before “foot”;
in claim 9, line 4: “a” should be inserted before “foot”; and
in claim 10, line 5: “a” should be inserted before “foot”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data” in lines 11-12. However, the specification details that “[t]he sensor data includes a time stamp relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired. The time stamp is a time-series number assigned to the sensor data”. Based on the description of the specification, the time stamp comprises the number assigned to the sensor data relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed. Amending the recitation to “a number of a time stamp relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data” in lines 8-9. However, the specification details that “[t]he sensor data includes a time stamp relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired. The time stamp is a time-series number assigned to the sensor data”. Based on the description of the specification, the time stamp comprises the number assigned to the sensor data relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed. Amending the recitation to “a number of a time stamp relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 10 recites “a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data” in line 10. However, the specification details that “[t]he sensor data includes a time stamp relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired. The time stamp is a time-series number assigned to the sensor data”. Based on the description of the specification, the time stamp comprises the number assigned to the sensor data relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed. Amending the recitation to “a number of a time stamp relevant to a time at which the sensor data is acquired” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a foot” in line 9, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “foot” in line 7. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the foot”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “a gait waveform” in line 22, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a gait waveform” in line 18. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. Furthermore, the gait waveform of line 22 appears to include a normal waveform and the restoration waveform, which suggest that the recitations are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the gait waveform”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as different. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the gait waveform” in line 4, but it is not clear the relationship of this recitation to the recitations of “gait waveform in claim 1, lines 18 and 22. It is not clear to which recitation of claim 1 the recitation of claim 2 is referring to, or to both. It appears as if this recitation is referring to the recitation in claim 1, line 18. The claim is being interpreted as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “select data for the missing section from a gait waveform for a section in which the data for the missing section is not missing and generate the interpolation data using data of the selected gait phase” in lines 6-8, which is grammatically awkward and unclear. It is not clear what the sections and modality are referring to, as they appear to be describing the gait phase and the second amount of data variation modality. It is not clear the relationship of “a gait waveform” in line 6 to the recitations of “gait waveform in claim 1, lines 18 and 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the selected gait phase” in line 8. These inconsistencies render claim 3 indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “a section” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a gait phase” in claim 1, line 7. The different phraseology and the indefinite article “a” suggest that they are different, but the context of the claim suggests that they are the same/related (i.e., the gait phase corresponds to the time stamps of missing data, line 5 of the claim details calculating an average of the data of the gait phase selected from the plurality of gait waveforms). Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites “generate the interpolation data of the missing section based on a representative value of data for gait phases included in the missing section in data of gait waveforms of a plurality of gait cycles used for interpolation of the missing section” in lines 3-5. In claim 6, “each of the gait phases” indicates multiple phases; however, claim 1, lines 11 “determine a gait phase of the missing section” indicates a singular phase. The gait phase appears to be a singular range of time stamps corresponding to a singular missing section. This inconsistency renders claim 6 indefinite. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “generate the interpolation data of the missing section using a deviation value of data for gait phases included in the missing section” in lines 3-4 which is grammatically awkward and unclear. In claim 7, “each of the gait phases” indicates multiple phases; however, claim 1, lines 8-9 “calculate a gait phase of the specified missing section” indicates a singular phase. There is confusion as to whether the “data” recited in line 5 is related to “data” in claim 1, line 11. These inconsistencies render claim 7 indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “a foot” in line 6, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “foot” in line 4. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the foot”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites “a gait waveform” in line 19, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a gait waveform” in line 15. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. Furthermore, the gait waveform of line 19 appears to include a normal waveform and the restoration waveform, which suggest that the recitations are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the gait waveform”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as different. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “a foot” in line 7, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “foot” in line 5. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the foot”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “gait waveform” in line 21 (this appears as if it should read “a gait waveform”), but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a gait waveform” in line 17. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the lack of the definite article “the” suggests that they are different. Furthermore, the gait waveform of line 21 appears to include a normal waveform and the restoration waveform, which suggest that the recitations are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the gait waveform”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as different. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “generate a gait waveform for one gait cycle by using time-series data of the sensor data regarding a movement of a foot of the user” (see specification ¶[0056]-[0057], ¶[0111], and ¶[0124]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements; and “specify a missing section of data in the time-series data” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (see specification ¶[0031] and ¶[0059]-[0060]). The recitation “determine a gait phase of the missing section based on a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (see specification ¶[0059]-[0060]). The recitation “generate interpolation data for interpolating the missing section including: generating the interpolation data using an analytical method; and generating the interpolation data using data of the gait phase of the missing section in a gait waveform with a gait cycle different from a gait cycle including the missing section” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations (see specification ¶[0038], ¶[0064]-[0065], ¶[0113], and ¶[0127]-[0130]). The recitation “interpolate the generated interpolation data to the missing section to generate a restoration waveform” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations (see specification ¶[0067]-[0068]). The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification ¶[0014]-[0015], ¶[0047], ¶[0154]-[0157], and ¶[0161]-[0162]), and in the claim lines 2-4.
Claim 9 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “generating a gait waveform for one gait cycle by using time-series data of the sensor data regarding a movement of a foot of the user” (see specification ¶[0056]-[0057], ¶[0111], and ¶[0124]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements; and “specifying a missing section of data in the time-series data” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (see specification ¶[0031] and ¶[0059]-[0060]). The recitation “determining a gait phase of the missing section based on a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (see specification ¶[0059]-[0060]). The recitation “generating interpolation data for interpolating the missing section including: generating the interpolation data using an analytical method; and generating the interpolation data using data of the gait phase of the missing section in a gait waveform with a gait cycle different from a gait cycle including the missing section” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations (see specification ¶[0038], ¶[0064]-[0065], ¶[0113], and ¶[0127]-[0130]). The recitation “interpolating the generated interpolation data to the missing section to generate a restoration waveform” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations (see specification ¶[0067]-[0068]). The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification ¶[0014]-[0015], ¶[0047], ¶[0154]-[0157], and ¶[0161]-[0162]), and in the claim line 1.
Claim 10 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “generating a gait waveform for one gait cycle by using time-series data of the sensor data regarding a movement of a foot of the user” (see specification ¶[0056]-[0057], ¶[0111], and ¶[0124]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements; and “specifying a missing section of data in the time-series data” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (see specification ¶[0031] and ¶[0059]-[0060]). The recitation “determining a gait phase of the missing section based on a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (see specification ¶[0059]-[0060]). The recitation “generating interpolation data for interpolating the missing section including: generating the interpolation data using an analytical method; and generating the interpolation data using data of the gait phase of the missing section in a gait waveform with a gait cycle different from a gait cycle including the missing section” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations (see specification ¶[0038], ¶[0064]-[0065], ¶[0113], and ¶[0127]-[0130]). The recitation “interpolating the generated interpolation data to the missing section” is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations (see specification ¶[0067]-[0068]). The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification ¶[0014]-[0015], ¶[0047], ¶[0154]-[0157], and ¶[0161]-[0162]), and in the claim lines 1-2.
Step 1: This part of eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 recites a device and claim 10 recites a non-volatile recording medium, which are directed towards a machine/manufacture (a statutory category of invention). Claim 9 recites a method, which is directed towards a process (a statutory category of invention). Step 1: YES.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple evaluations and/or judgements/observations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1 and 9-10 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mental process grouping). No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The courts consider mathematical calculations, when the claim is given its BRI in light of the specification, as falling within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. A claim does not have to recite “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using a mathematical method, or “performing” a mathematical operation, may also be considered a mathematical calculation when the BRI of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple mathematical calculations/evaluations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1 and 9-10 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mathematical calculations grouping of mathematical concepts).
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formulas (i.e., calculations to determine a likelihood score) to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts (Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
receive sensor data including space acceleration and space angular velocity;
generate a gait waveform for one gait cycle by using time-series data of the sensor data regarding a movement of a foot of the user;
specify a missing section of data in the time-series data;
determine a gait phase of the missing section based on a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data;
generate interpolation data for interpolating the missing section, including:
in accordance with a determination that the gait phase of the missing section has a first amount of data variation, generating the interpolation data using an analytical method; and
in accordance with a determination that the missing section has a second amount of data variation, wherein the second amount is different from the first amount. generating the interpolation data using data of the gait phase of the missing section in a gait waveform with a gait cycle different from a gait cycle including the missing section;
interpolate the generated interpolation data to the missing section to generate a restoration waveform; and
transmit a gait waveform including a normal waveform that includes no missing section and the restoration waveform to a gait measurement device that uses the gait waveform for gait measurement.
Furthermore, claim 9 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
an interpolation method causing:
receiving sensor data including space acceleration and space angular velocity;
generating a gait waveform for one gait cycle by using time-series data of the sensor data regarding a movement of a foot of the user;
specifying a missing section of data in the time-series data;
determining a gait phase of the missing section based on a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data;
generating interpolation data for interpolating the missing section, including:
in accordance with a determination that the gait phase of the missing section has a first amount of data variation, generating the interpolation data using an analytical method; and
in accordance with a determination that the missing section has a second amount of data variation, wherein the second amount is different from the first amount. generating the interpolation data using data of the gait phase of the missing section in a gait waveform with a gait cycle different from a gait cycle including the missing section;
interpolating the generated interpolation data to the missing section to generate a restoration waveform; and
transmitting a gait waveform including a normal waveform that includes no missing section and the restoration waveform to a gait measurement device that uses the gait waveform for gait measurement.
In addition, claim 10 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
receiving sensor data including space acceleration and space angular velocity;
generating a gait waveform for one gait cycle by using time-series data of the sensor data regarding a movement of a foot of the user;
specifying a missing section of data in the time-series data;
determining a gait phase of the missing section based on a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data;
generating interpolation data for interpolating the missing section, including:
in accordance with a determination that the gait phase of the missing section has a first amount of data variation, generating the interpolation data using an analytical method; and
in accordance with a determination that the missing section has a second amount of data variation, wherein the second amount is different from the first amount. generating the interpolation data using data of the gait phase of the missing section in a gait waveform with a gait cycle different from a gait cycle including the missing section;
interpolating the generated interpolation data to the missing section to generate a restoration waveform;
transmitting a gait waveform including a normal waveform that includes no missing section and the restoration waveform to a gait measurement device that uses the gait waveform for gait measurement.
Step 2A Prong One: YES.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exceptions into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements related to a generic computer (i.e., the processor, memory, non-volatile recording medium). The devices/method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of receiving sensor data from an inertial measurement unit including a three-axis acceleration sensor and a three-axis angular velocity sensor installed under an arch of foot in an insole of footwear worn by a user. As the claims only require receiving the sensor data and do not positively recite the sensors, such that the sensors merely describe the nature of the received data, such sensors do not limit and/or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Alternatively and/or additionally, such sensors is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions, i.e., mere data gathering at a high level of generality – see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the three-axis acceleration sensor and the three-axis angular velocity sensor do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with Step 2A Prong Two, the claims recite additional elements directed towards a generic computer (i.e., the processor, memory, non-volatile recording medium). The devices/method utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The claims recite the additional element of receiving sensor data from an inertial measurement unit including a three-axis acceleration sensor and a three-axis angular velocity sensor installed under an arch of foot in an insole of footwear worn by a user. As the claims only require receiving the sensor data and do not positively recite the sensors, such that the sensors merely describe the nature of the received data, such sensors do not limit and/or amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions. Alternatively and/or additionally, such elements cannot be seen as significantly more because they are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, Carbeck et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0185003 – cited in prior action) teaches a system for monitoring forces that act on a foot or footwear, including sensors positioned about the foot/footwear (see abstract and ¶[0115]; Figs. 2A-2E and 6A-6C), and that the sensors may include a commercially available accelerometers (see ¶[0078]), and that the accelerometers may sense in three axes, which would include the vertical axis (see ¶[0010]-[0012], ¶[0045]-[0048], and ¶[0083]), and movement data may include velocity (see ¶[0135]). Also, Weyand et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0245792 – cited in prior action) teaches that it is typical to use commercial accelerometers mounted in the shoes of an individual (see ¶[0025]). Also see, Ross (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0351665 – cited in prior action) teaches the conventional usage of sensors in insoles of shoes (see abstract and ¶[0019]; Figs. 1-4). Therefore, the sensors cannot be seen as significantly more.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for
example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is
no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based
problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective
functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e.,
the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Step 2B: NO.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are not eligible.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 depend from claim 1, and merely further define the abstract ideas of claim 1. The claims recite no additional element that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The devices/method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite no additional element that adds an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The method/devices utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
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.
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.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US Patent 11,158,422 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Wilson, and in view of Gløersen et al. (“Predicting Missing Marker Trajectories in Human Motion Data Using Marker Intercorrelations”, PLoS ONE 11(3), published March 31, 2016 – cited in prior action), and in view of Amit et al. (US Patent 11,006,860 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Amit.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9-10, Wilson teaches a measurement and testing system including a first and second measurement device (see abstract and Figs. 1-2), in which the first measurement device is a force plate and the second measurement device comprises inertial measurement units (IMUs) disposed on the limbs of the subject (see col. 3 ln. 5-9, col 51 ln. 26-33, and col. 64 ln. 37 – col. 65 ln. 19; Figs. 1-2), so as to measure/determine phases of gait (see col. 51 ln. 34-47, col. 52 ln. 5 – col. 53 ln. 54, and col. 54 ln. 9-24; Figs. 39-41). Wilson teaches an interpolation method/device (see abstract, col. 3 ln. 43-54, and col. 65 ln. 55 – col. 66 ln. 15; Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a computer including a first memory/non-volatile recording medium having stored therein a program for execution by a first processor (col. 12 ln. 39-61, the local computing device 104 including the microprocessor 104a, the memory 104, and the data storage 104c; Fig. 2) to:
receive sensor data from an inertial measurement unit (col. 3 ln. 5-9, col 51 ln. 26-33, and col. 64 ln. 37 – col. 65 ln. 19, the second measurement device that comprises the inertial measurement units (IMUs) disposed on the limbs of the subject, col. 3 ln. 55 – col. 4 ln. 21 and col. 4 ln. 45 – col. 5 ln. 10, the second measurement device (i.e., the IMUs) are configured to output the recorded and time stamped data to the processing device (i.e., the processing device 104) which reconstructs the signals, the electronic data output to the processing device is the generated sensor data, generated from the recorded inertial data; Figs. 1-2);
generate a gait waveform for one gait cycle by using time-series data of the sensor data regarding a movement of a foot of the user (col. 51 ln. 34-47, col. 52 ln. 5 – col. 53 ln. 54, and col. 54 ln. 9-24, the determination of the different events and phases of the gait cycle, such as double stance phase, col 51 ln. 26-33, the IMU may be on the limbs for a motion capture system, here, as the gait is specifically described as being analyzed, the sensor data would still be regarding the movement of the subject’s foot, which would necessarily move during gait; Figs. 39-41);
specify a missing section of data in the time-series data (col. 3 ln. 43-54, and col. 65 ln. 55 – col. 66 ln. 15, the identification of the time stamps that have missing values, such as in the second measurement device (IMU) which has a lower sampling frequency than the first measurement device (force plate); Figs. 1-2);
determine a gait phase of the missing section based on a number of a time stamp relevant to a time assigned to the sensor data (col. 51 ln. 34-47, col. 52 ln. 5 – col. 53 ln. 54, and col. 54 ln. 9-24, the determination of the different events and phases of the gait cycle, such as double stance phase, col. 3 ln. 43-54, and col. 65 ln. 55 – col. 66 ln. 15, the identification of the time stamps that have missing values, here, the stance phases are identified for time stamps, including those missing for the second measurement device; Figs. 39-41);
generate interpolation data for interpolating the missing section and interpolate the generated interpolation data to the missing section to generate a restoration waveform (col. 3 ln. 43-54, and col. 65 ln. 55 – col. 66 ln. 15, the missing values for the second measurement device may be interpolated; Figs. 1-2); and
transmit a gait waveform including a normal waveform that includes no missing section and the restoration waveform to a gait measurement device (col. 12 ln. 39 – col. 13 ln. 20, the remote computing device 136 is operatively coupled to the processing device 104 for data transmission; Fig. 2) that uses the gait waveform for gait measurement (col. 51 ln. 34-47, col. 52 ln. 5 – col. 53 ln. 54, and col. 54 ln. 9-24, the determination of the different events and phases of the gait cycle, such as double stance phase; Figs. 39-41; alternatively and/or additionally, as claimed, the gait measurement is mere intended use).
Wilson teaches that the remote computing device 136 may be utilized to generate one or more testing routine (see col. 21 ln. 11-46), but not that the remote computing device specifically performs data processing. However, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the remote computing device to perform some of the computations of the local computing (processing device 104) based on the needs of the system because changing the data processing from one computer to another is well known in the industry, and that putting more data processing and the remote computer would reduce the computing power needed for the local computer, thus reducing local computer cost and power consumption.
Wilson is silent regarding that in accordance with a determination that the gait phase of the missing section has a first amount of data variation, generating the interpolation data using an analytical method; and that in accordance with a determination that the missing section has a second amount of data variation, wherein the second amount is different from the first amount. generating the interpolation data using data of the gait phase of the missing section in a gait waveform with a gait cycle different from a gait cycle including the missing section.
Gløersen teaches the reconstructions of motion capture markers with missing data for a subject (see abstract), in which the markers are placed on various limbs of the subject, including the ankle (see pg. 4 § Performance testing, ¶1 and Fig. 1), in which datasets were utilized and gaps added in, with a matrix utilized comprising all timeframes without gaps in any markers for computing a reconstruction matrix (see pg. 2-4, § Methods § PCA-based reconstruction of a single missing marker - § Reconstruction strategies for gaps in multiple markers, the reconstruction of gaps in single and multiple markers; Figs. 2-3, see also pg. 6 § Results and Figs. 4-5, an example reconstruction compared to known DynaMMo and spline reconstruction), in which the data sets utilized comprise multiple gait cycles (see pg. 4, § Datasets and performance). Furthermore, the reconstruction algorithm is utilized for both sections of large (i.e., second) and small (i.e., first) variation. In sections of large variation, other gait cycles would be utilized as described above (see Gløersen pg. 4, § Datasets and performance, the data sets utilized comprise multiple gait cycles), as the matrix used to construct the reconstruction (i.e., the filled) matrix includes multiple gait cycles from the dataset, and is constructed from time frames without gaps, it would necessarily include gait cycles different from the current gait cycle missing data, such multiple gait cycles utilized would be necessary for usage of such a reconstruction in the second variation. Furthermore, the reconstruction utilized would also be considered an analytical method. The specification of the present application does not specifically describe what the analytical method is, but includes polynomial interpolation (see specification ¶[0033] and Fig. 6). As Gløersen compares polynomial interpolation to the specific PCA-based reconstruction as alternatives (see Gløersen Figs. 4-5), the PCA-based reconstruction is being interpreted as falling within the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the term analytical method. As the claims do not positively recite a determination and are merely a result of a determination, and both interpolations are not mutually exclusive, the elements of the claims are taught.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the reconstruction strategy of Gløersen as the interpolation of Wilson because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device/method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Wilson requires the usage of an interpolation and Gløersen teaches one such interpolation strategy; and/or (3) the interpolation/reconstruction strategy of Gløersen provides a better reconstruction than the more traditional/routine spline (polynomial) interpolation (see Gløersen also pg. 6 § Results and Figs. 4-5).
The modified Wilson is silent regarding that the inertial measurement unit includes a three-axis acceleration sensor and a three-axis angular velocity sensor installed under an arch of foot in an insole of footwear worn by a user, so as to measure spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and that such data is utilized in the gait analysis.
Amit teaches a computerized method of receiving sensor data from movement of a user and calculating values from the data including strides, kinematic parameters, and classification of the strides (see abstract and Figs. 2-5), in which the sensor data is monitored from one or more sensors, such as IMUs including a 3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyroscope (see col. 1 ln. 50 – col. 2 ln. 36 and col. 6 ln. 27-48; Figs. 1A-1F), within the user’s shoes, such as within the shoe insole (see col. 8 ln. 4-9), in which the IMUs measure parameters such as acceleration (see col. 6 ln. 27-48 and col. 9 ln. 46) and angular velocity (see col. 8 ln. 10-27), so as to determine gait characteristics, such as type and stride (see generally col. 9 ln. 14 – col. 10 ln. 31), including stance phase determination (see col. 8 ln. 10-40; Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the IMU including acceleration and angular velocity with placement in a shoe of Amit with the system of the modified Wilson because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Wilson requires sensor placement on the limbs and Amit teaches one such suitable sensor placement modality; and/or (3) the gait characteristics determination of the modified Wilson would be corroborated/enhanced with the additional gait characteristic determination with the IMU (i.e., the acceleration and angular velocity data) of Amit.
Regarding Claim 3, Wilson in view of Gløersen and Amit teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Wilson further teaches the first processor is configured to execute the instructions to select data for the missing section from a gait waveform for a section in which the data for the missing section is not missing, and generate the interpolation data using data of the selected gait phase (see Gløersen pg. 4, § Datasets and performance, the data sets utilized comprise multiple gait cycles). Here, as the matrix used to construct the reconstruction (i.e., the filled) matrix includes multiple gait cycles from the dataset, and is constructed from time frames without gaps, it would necessarily include gait cycles different from the current gait cycle missing data, and that such data from those other gait cycles is utilized in the matrix calculation.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Gløersen and Amit as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Ahn et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0074272 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Ahn.
Regarding Claim 2, Wilson in view of Gløersen and Amit teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Wilson does not specifically teach to normalize the gait cycles, including to cut out a waveform corresponding to one gait cycle from the time-series data, and generate the gait waveform by normalizing an amplitude of the gait phase included in the cut-out waveform.
Ahn teaches methods and apparatuses for detecting a gait pattern based on sensed data (see abstract and Figs. 7-8), including via a plurality of sensors including an IMU for acceleration data and for angular velocity data (see ¶[0077], ¶[0098], and ¶[0118]), in which the gait cycle may be normalized for time and for data (which would include amplitude), such as based on an average or standard deviation, so that gaits which may have different durations or quantity of motion would be normalized for more efficient data processing (see ¶[0080]-[0083] and ¶[0103]-[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the gait normalization of Ahn with the gaits detected by the modified Wilson because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the time normalization would make the sizes of the gaits stored in the computer uniform, for more efficient processing (see Ahn ¶[0080]); and/or (3) the data normalization would reduce an error between gait patterns (cycles), such as occurring dur to environmental different (see ¶[0105]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wilson in view of Gløersen and Amit teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Wilson further teaches the first processor is configured to execute the instructions to select data for the missing section from a plurality of gait waveforms of a plurality of gait cycles for a section in which the data for the missing section is not missing (see Gløersen pg. 4, § Datasets and performance, the data sets utilized comprise multiple gait cycles). Here, as the matrix used to construct the reconstruction (i.e., the filled) matrix includes multiple gait cycles from the dataset, and is constructed from time frames without gaps, it would necessarily include gait cycles different from the current gait cycle missing data, and that such data from those other gait cycles is utilized in the matrix calculation.
The modified Wilson does not specifically teach to calculate an average value of the data of the gait phase selected from the gait waveforms from the plurality of the gait cycles, and generate the interpolation data using the average value.
Ahn teaches methods and apparatuses for detecting a gait pattern based on sensed data (see abstract and Figs. 7-8), including via a plurality of sensors including an IMU for acceleration data and for angular velocity data (see ¶[0077], ¶[0098], and ¶[0118]), in which the gait cycle may be normalized for time and for data, such as based on an average or standard deviation, so that gaits which may have different durations or quantity of motion would be normalized for more efficient data processing (see ¶[0080]-[0083] and ¶[0103]-[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the gait normalization of Ahn with the gaits detected by the modified Wilson because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the time normalization would make the sizes of the gaits stored in the computer uniform, for more efficient processing (see Ahn ¶[0080]); and/or (3) the data normalization would reduce an error between gait patterns (cycles), such as occurring dur to environmental different (see ¶[0105]).
Here, as the modified Wilson teaches to normalize the gait cycle (pattern) data, and such other gait cycles would be utilized in developing the interpolated/reconstructed data, and the normalization may be based on an average of the sensed data with respect to each of the plurality of gait cycles (patterns) (see Ahn ¶[0082]-[0083]), the modified Wilson teaches to generate the interpolation data based on an average value as required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Wilson in view of Gløersen and Amit teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Wilson does not specifically teach to generate the interpolation data of the missing section based on a representative value of data for gait phases included in the missing section in data of gait waveforms of a plurality of gait cycles used for interpolation of the missing section.
Ahn teaches methods and apparatuses for detecting a gait pattern based on sensed data (see abstract and Figs. 7-8), including via a plurality of sensors including an IMU for acceleration data and for angular velocity data (see ¶[0077], ¶[0098], and ¶[0118]), in which the gait cycle may be normalized for time and for data, such as based on an average or standard deviation, so that gaits which may have different durations or quantity of motion would be normalized for more efficient data processing (see ¶[0080]-[0083] and ¶[0103]-[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the gait normalization of Ahn with the gaits detected by the modified Wilson because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the time normalization would make the sizes of the gaits stored in the computer uniform, for more efficient processing (see Ahn ¶[0080]); and/or (3) the data normalization would reduce an error between gait patterns (cycles), such as occurring dur to environmental different (see ¶[0105]).
Here, the representative value may be a standard deviation (see present application specification ¶[0127]). Furthermore, as the modified Wilson teaches to normalize the gait cycle (pattern) data, and such other gait cycles would be utilized in developing the interpolated/reconstructed data, and the normalization may be based on an average and standard deviation of the sensed data with respect to each of the plurality of gait cycles (patterns) (see Ahn ¶[0082]-[0083]), the modified Wilson teaches to generate the interpolation data based on the standard deviation as required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Wilson in view of Gløersen and Amit teaches the device of claim 6 as stated above. The modified Wilson does not specifically teach to generate the interpolation data of the missing section using a deviation value of data for gait phases included in the missing section.
Ahn teaches methods and apparatuses for detecting a gait pattern based on sensed data (see abstract and Figs. 7-8), including via a plurality of sensors including an IMU for acceleration data and for angular velocity data (see ¶[0077], ¶[0098], and ¶[0118]), in which the gait cycle may be normalized for time and for data, such as based on an average or standard deviation, so that gaits which may have different durations or quantity of motion would be normalized for more efficient data processing (see ¶[0080]-[0083] and ¶[0103]-[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the gait normalization of Ahn with the gaits detected by the modified Wilson because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the time normalization would make the sizes of the gaits stored in the computer uniform, for more efficient processing (see Ahn ¶[0080]); and/or (3) the data normalization would reduce an error between gait patterns (cycles), such as occurring dur to environmental different (see ¶[0105]).
Here, as the modified Wilson teaches to normalize the gait cycle (pattern) data, and such other gait cycles would be utilized in developing the interpolated/reconstructed data, and the normalization may be based on an average and standard deviation of the sensed data with respect to each of the plurality of gait cycles (patterns) (see Ahn ¶[0082]-[0083]), the modified Wilson teaches to generate the interpolation data based on the standard deviation as required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on March 30, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. The Applicant first argues that “the interpolation device for measuring gait in amended claim 1 constitutes a technical improvement in gait waveform measuring systems, because the interpolation device dynamically updates parameters used for interpolation based on sensor measurements over time”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claim does not include “dynamically updates parameters used for interpolation based on sensor measurements over time”. The bold text does not correlate to dynamic updates over time, and such language is not found in the claim.
The bold text said to be the improvement is directed towards the abstract ideas themselves. An improved mental process is still a mental process even if such a mental process results in more accurate results.1,2 Also, having the claims focus on generating the interpolation is not itself limiting the claims to improving the technology because cases that involve practical, technological improvements extend beyond simply improving the accuracy of a value.3 See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been “cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans”); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing patent eligible claims directed to “an innovative logical model for a computer database” that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery” (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)). Therefore, the improvement cannot integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the improvement is directed towards the abstract ideas.
Next, Applicant argues that, similarly to Example 40, the present claims are patent eligible because the “dynamic updating of interpolation improves the functioning of the interpolation device by automatically managing computation resources while ensuring data robustness”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the claim does not recite “dynamic updating of interpolation”. The claim merely states that as a result of a determination of data variation (not positively recited), a specific interpolation modality is utilized (is positively recited). There is no automatic management of computational resources positively recited in the claim. As such, the claims are not similar to Example 40. Furthermore, as explained above, the interpolation modalities are themselves directed towards abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive, and the rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Amit et al. (US Patent 11,006,860 – cited in prior action).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 “[T]he improvement in computational accuracy alleged here does not qualify as an improvement to a technological
process; rather, it is merely an enhancement to the abstract mathematical calculation of haplotype phase itself...The
different use of a mathematical calculation, even one that yields different or better results, does not render patent
eligible subject matter.” In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2021).
2 “[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839 F.3d 1138
(Fec. Cir. 2016).
3 See In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Prosecution Insights