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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 04/09/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-23 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-20, and 22, as well as the cancellation of claims 4 and 6 and the addition of new claim 23.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing device” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11, and 14, the acronyms COG and COP are not defined. Thus, their meaning is unclear.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether the COP measurements include any one of the four elements separated by semicolons, or whether they include any one item from each element. Further, the phrase “any one of at least one of” is contradictory – specifying both one and one or more. In one interpretation, the measurements include any one of the groups. However, there is still redundancy within the groups. For example, the second item from the first element, i.e., “root mean square distance of the COP from the origin,” is a type of the first item from the first element, “time-domain “distance” measurements of the mean distance of the COP from the origin,” as described in the specification. It is unclear how you can have both together. It may be that Applicant intends to specify that the measurements are any one “from” one of the following groups, but this is not claimed.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “a deep convolutional neural network” is unclear since one has already been recited in claim 5. Is this the same or a new/different neural network? For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same.
Claims 2, 3, and 7-23 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 12 repeats what is already found in claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of non-patent publication S. Begej, “Planar and finger-shaped optical tactile sensors for robotic applications,” IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation, October 1988, vol. 4, no. 5, pages 472-484 (“Begej”) in view of US Patent 4,858,621 (“Franks”), US Patent Application Publication 2017/0000387 (“Forth”), US Patent Application Publication 2019/0232113 (“Zets”), and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0135625 (“Deng”).
Regarding claim 1, Begej teaches [a device] …, comprising: a transparent glass plate with flat upper and lower surfaces (Fig. 8, glass plate), … ; a [] sheet located on the top surface of the glass plate (membranes shown in Figs. 1 and 2) adapted so as to receive on a top surface of the [] sheet a foot of the standing user during operation (anything is able to be placed thereon, as shown in Fig. 3, but the third paragraph of § II(B) also describes pressure distribution associated with a human foot. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device for measuring the foot, as the simple application of the technology to more fields); a light source located so as to inject light into the glass plate from its edge (as shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 8); a camera located below the lower surface of the glass plate so as to capture light diffused from the glass plate when pressure is applied to the glass plate by the user's foot (Figs. 2 and 8 – also see the third paragraph of § II(B), describing a high resolution camera, which would have been obvious to use for the purpose of capturing better and larger images), …; and whereby, based on the principle of Frustrated Total Internal Reflection (FTIR) (Abstract), when user stands with his foot on the glass plate (a) the [] sheet is pressed onto the upper surface of the glass plate (Fig. 1), (b) a condition of total internal reflection is eliminated at the pressure locations due to the foot (page 472, right column, first full paragraph, § II(B) (especially the second paragraph), etc.), and (c) diffused reflection of the light passes from the bottom surface of the glass plate and is focused onto an image plane of the camera to form a haptic image of the contact area of the foot with different pixel intensities based on different pressures from the foot at different locations on the glass plate (Abstract, tactile image, Fig. 1, etc.).
Begej does not appear to explicitly teach the glass plate of the device having a refractive index larger than that of air, or the sheet on the top surface of the glass plate being a latex sheet. Begej is not explicit that the camera records a series of haptic images over a time period (e.g. to form a video. But see: Abstract, tactile image, Fig. 1, etc.).
Franks teaches that air has a lower refractive index than glass (Fig. 2a and related description), and that in a similar device, a latex sheet can be used as the membrane (Fig. 4c and related description, using natural latex rubber for reflective material 3). Franks teaches recording a video of pedography data (col. 8, lines 7-45, Fig. 3, video camera 5 and microprocessor 8, Figs. 9a-9h, col. 6, lines 16-22, col. 8, lines 7-20).It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a latex sheet in Begej as in Franks (the glass having the higher refractive index than air already being used), as the simple substitution of one membrane/sheet material for another, with predictable results (Franks: Figs. 4a-4d and related description, this material having been previously used for the same application). It would have been obvious to record a video, as in Franks, for the purpose of being able to monitor changes over time (Franks: col. 8, lines 7-45).
Begej-Franks does not appear to explicitly teach the device being a human balance sensor for assessing the risk of the user falling
Forth teaches using a glass plate on which a user stands to measure human balance and assess risk of falling (Figs. 11, 12, etc., glass 1210, Abstract, ¶ 0010, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of the combination to measure balance and risk of falling, as in Forth, as the simple substitution of one sensing modality for another with predictable results (Forth: ¶ 0010, using load cells to measure pressure, vs. Begej: Fig. 1, using light to measure pressure), and for the purpose of improving postural stability representation (Forth: ¶¶s 0008-0010, etc.).
Begej-Franks-Forth does not appear to explicitly teach a microprocessor that analyzes changes in the series of haptic images and determines human balance ability based on a regression model that integrates COP measurement, pedography analysis, COG measurement, and a deep convolutional neural network output to determine a fall assessment (although Begej does teach pedography analysis (Fig. 1, sensing force or pressure distributions), Franks teaches a microprocessor, and Forth teaches using artificial intelligence techniques including neural network and support vector machine strategies (¶ 0011)).
Zets teaches using force plates to obtain center of gravity and center of pressure measurements for the purpose of fall risk assessment (¶¶s 0006, 0050, 0053, 0063, 0070, 0071, 0097, etc.).
Deng teaches a machine learning classification method that uses a regression algorithm to obtain a fusion model that fuses a deep convolutional neural network output with a support vector machine output (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze the pedography data of Begej together with other data important to fall risk assessment, including center of gravity and center of pressure as identified by Forth and Zets, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating fall risk (Forth: ¶¶s 0010, 0045, etc.; Zets: ¶¶s 0050, 0097, etc.). It would have been obvious to use the machine learning method of Deng (regression that includes a deep convolutional neural network) to fuse different features to obtain a classification, for the purpose of being able to make an accurate classification based on different types of data (Deng: Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Begej teaches [a device] …, comprising: a housing (Fig. 8, sensor body); [a] transparent glass [plate] with flat upper and lower surfaces (Fig. 8, glass plate), … ; [a sheet located on the top surface of the glass plate] (membranes shown in Figs. 1 and 2) adapted such that during operation they receive the feet of the standing user on top of the [sheet] (anything is able to be placed thereon, as shown in Fig. 3, but the third paragraph of § II(B) also describes pressure distribution associated with a human foot. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device for measuring the foot, as the simple application of the technology to more fields); a light source located so as to inject light into the glass [plate from its edge] (as shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 8); a camera located below the lower surface of the glass [plate] so as to capture light diffused from the glass [plate] when pressure is applied to the glass [plate] (Figs. 2 and 8 – also see the third paragraph of § II(B), describing a high resolution camera, which would have been obvious to use for the purpose of capturing better and larger images), …; whereby, based on the principle of Frustrated Total Internal Reflection (FTIR) (Abstract), when the user stands with his feet on the glass [plate] (a) the [sheet is] pressed onto the upper surface of the [glass plate] (Fig. 1), (b) a condition of total internal reflection is eliminated at the pressure locations due to the feet (page 472, right column, first full paragraph, § II(B) (especially the second paragraph), etc.), and (c) diffused reflection of the light passes from the bottom [surface] of the glass [plate] and is focused onto an image plane of the camera to form a haptic image of the contact area of the feet with different pixel intensities based on different pressures from the feet at different locations on the glass [plate] (Abstract, tactile image, Fig. 1, etc.); … .
Begej does not appear to explicitly teach the glass plate of the device having a refractive index larger than that of air, or the sheet on the top surface of the glass plate being a latex sheet. Begej is not explicit that the camera records a series of haptic images over a time period (e.g. to form a video. But see: Abstract, tactile image, Fig. 1, etc.).
Franks teaches that air has a lower refractive index than glass (Fig. 2a and related description), and that in a similar device, a latex sheet can be used as the membrane (Fig. 4c and related description, using natural latex rubber for reflective material 3). Franks teaches recording a video of pedography data (col. 8, lines 7-45, Fig. 3, video camera 5 and microprocessor 8, Figs. 9a-9h, col. 6, lines 16-22, col. 8, lines 7-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a latex sheet in Begej as in Franks (the glass having the higher refractive index than air already being used), as the simple substitution of one membrane/sheet material for another, with predictable results (Franks: Figs. 4a-4d and related description, this material having been previously used for the same application). It would have been obvious to record a video, as in Franks, for the purpose of being able to monitor changes over time (Franks: col. 8, lines 7-45).
Begej-Franks does not appear to explicitly teach the device being a human balance sensor for assessing the risk of the user falling
Forth teaches using a glass plate on which a user stands to measure human balance and assess risk of falling (Figs. 11, 12, etc., glass 1210, Abstract, ¶ 0010, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of the combination to measure balance and risk of falling, as in Forth, as the simple substitution of one sensing modality for another with predictable results (Forth: ¶ 0010, using load cells to measure pressure, vs. Begej: Fig. 1, using light to measure pressure), and for the purpose of improving postural stability representation (Forth: ¶¶s 0008-0010, etc.).
Begej-Franks-Forth does not appear to explicitly teach the use of two glass plates, located side-by-side on a top of the housing and spaced from each other by about the spacing of the feet of a standing human.
Zets teaches the use of two force plates, one for each foot, to measure body sway (Fig. 1, ¶¶s 0051, 0053, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two glass plates in the combination, like the foot-specific sensors of Zets, for the purpose of being able to monitor each foot individually, leading to straightforward center of pressure and center of gravity measurements (Zets: ¶ 0053), and since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. A mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets does not appear to explicitly teach a microprocessor that analyzes changes in the series of haptic images and determines human balance ability based on a regression model that integrates COP measurement, pedography analysis, COG measurement, and a deep convolutional neural network output to determine a fall assessment (although Begej does teach pedography analysis (Fig. 1, sensing force or pressure distributions), Franks teaches a microprocessor, Forth teaches using artificial intelligence techniques including neural network and support vector machine strategies (¶ 0011), and Zets teaches using force plates to obtain center of gravity and center of pressure measurements for the purpose of fall risk assessment (¶¶s 0006, 0050, 0053, 0063, 0070, 0071, 0097, etc.).
Deng teaches a machine learning classification method that uses a regression algorithm to obtain a fusion model that fuses a deep convolutional neural network output with a support vector machine output (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze the pedography data of Begej together with other data important to fall risk assessment, including center of gravity and center of pressure as identified by Forth and Zets, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating fall risk (Forth: ¶¶s 0010, 0045, etc.; Zets: ¶¶s 0050, 0097, etc.). It would have been obvious to use the machine learning method of Deng (regression that includes a deep convolutional neural network) to fuse different features to obtain a classification, for the purpose of being able to make an accurate classification based on different types of data (Deng: Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches wherein the microprocessor analyzes the changes in the series of haptic images and determines human balance ability based on measurement of different coordinates of the center of pressure (COP) over time (Forth: ¶ 0010, Fig. 3, etc.).
Regarding claim 11, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 10, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches wherein the COP measurements include any one of at least one of the following groups: time-domain “distance” measurements of the mean distance of the COP from origin, root mean square distance of the COP from the origin, total length of the COP path and mean velocity of the COP; time-domain “area” measurements of 95% confidence circle area, 95% confidence limit of the RD time series and 95% confidence ellipse area; time-domain “hybrid” measurements of sway area estimates, the mean rotational frequency and the fractal dimension; and frequency-domain measurements of power spectral moments, total power, 50% power frequency, 95% power frequency, centroidal frequency and frequency dispersion (Forth: ¶¶s 0050, 0051, distance of sway, mean distance of COP from equilibrium, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches wherein the microprocessor analyzes the changes in the series of haptic images and determines human balance ability based on pedography analysis (Franks: Figs. 9a-9h; Forth: ¶ 0010, Fig. 3, etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches wherein the microprocessor analyzes the changes in the series of haptic images and determines human balance ability based on different coordinates of a series of center of gravity (COG) based measurements over time (Zets: ¶¶s 0050, 0053, 0060, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches means for manually extracting certain features are from the haptic images prior to the microprocessor analyzing the changes in the series of haptic images (Forth: ¶ 0043, adding metrics beyond the base PEM stability metrics).
Regarding claim 16, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches means for training a deep learning algorithm, such as a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN), to generate a classification model prior to the microprocessor analyzing the changes in the series of haptic images (Forth: ¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 17, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 15, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches means for training a deep learning algorithm, such as a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN), to generate a classification model after the manual extraction and prior to the microprocessor analyzing the changes in the series of haptic images (Forth: Fig. 4, ¶¶s 0043, 0046, etc., basing the deep learning model on all PEM stability metrics).
Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0260645 (“Roberson”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the light source is an LED light source, wherein the LED light source is a strip of red LED lights located about the periphery of the glass.
Roberson teaches, in a similar device, using a strip of LED lights located about the periphery of the glass as the light source (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶¶s 0043, 0044, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a strip of LED lights in the combination as in Roberson, as the simple substitution of one type of light source for another with predictable results (Roberson: ¶ 0043, enabling analysis via FTIR). It would have been obvious to use red LEDs as a matter of design choice, since the color is not critical (e.g. Begej: using light generally; Franks: Fig. 3, conventional fluorescent strip lights 1, etc.), i.e., since total internal reflection would still be maintained based on the refractive index of glass being higher than air, and fractured otherwise. Further, red is close to the near-infrared contemplated by Roberson, and would behave similarly (¶ 0044).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the light given by the light source is invisible, wherein the light given by the light source is an infrared light.
Roberson teaches, in a similar device, using a strip of infrared LED lights located about the periphery of the glass as the light source (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶¶s 0043, 0044, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a strip of infrared LED lights in the combination as in Roberson, as the simple substitution of one type of light source for another with predictable results (Roberson: ¶ 0043, enabling analysis via FTIR).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets--Deng in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0070074 (“Won”).
Regarding claim 7, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches wherein the camera has a frame rate of 30 fps (Franks: col. 13, lines 36-40, obvious to use for the purpose of improving data visualization), but does not appear to explicitly teach the camera having a resolution of 1920×1440.
Won teaches, in a tactile imaging device (Title), using a camera having a resolution of 1392x1042 pixels or even 4301x6415 or 2041x3061 pixels (¶¶s 0135, 0172, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the resolution of the camera of the combination, based on newer technology as taught by Won, for the purpose of capturing the data in more detail (Won: ¶¶s 0135, 0172, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng-Won teaches all the features with respect to claim 7, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng-Won further teaches wherein the camera has the ability to wirelessly transmit images to another computing device (Won: ¶¶s 0139-0142, wireless communication links 165).
Regarding claim 9, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng-Won teaches all the features with respect to claim 7, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng-Won further teaches a display on the upper surface of the housing for displaying fall assessment results as human balance ability (Forth: Fig. 15, ¶¶s 0012, 0013, 0069, etc.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0228495 (“Leuthardt”).
Regarding claim 18, Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Begej-Franks-Forth-Zets-Deng further teaches wherein the microprocessor analysis is based on a model of the human body that comprises multiple differential equations associated with the pressure distribution variation process under the feet of the user, and the analysis is based on solution of the equations to obtain detailed body motion processes (although Zets does teach modeling the human body in e.g. ¶¶s 0063, 0064, etc.).
Leuthardt teaches modeling human body motion using differential equations (¶ 0079).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use differential equations to model human body motion in the combination as in Leuthardt, for the purpose of being able to determine COG, COP, etc., by accounting for human body geometry and other parameters (Leuthardt: ¶ 0079), and as already contemplated by Zets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 19-21 are allowable over the prior art, but are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims. Therefore, they will be allowed if related 35 USC 112 rejections are overcome, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest:
with respect to claim 14, analyzing changes in the series of images based on a regression model that integrates COP measurement, pedography analysis, COG measurement, and a deep convolutional neural network output to determine a fall assessment, in combination with all other recited limitations (e.g. the structure of the regression model).
with respect to claims 19-21, solving the specific differential equations based on a generative adversarial tri (GAT) model approach, in combination with all other recited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding allowable subject matter, the Office notes that the subject matter of claim 14 was not incorporated into the independent claims, and that allowability depended on certain highlighted features “in combination with all other recited limitations.” Thus, the claims remain rejected in view of the additional teachings of Deng, which is analogous art at least because it solves the same problem faced by the inventor (how to obtain a classification from different types of measurements/data).
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 ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights