DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of identifying based on sensor data regarding movement of a foot, a walking session in which stable walking is performed, extracting from time series data of the sensor data measured for a same walking session, for each gait cycle, a target waveform which is included in an evaluation target segment of dynamic stability of gait, evaluating the dynamic stability of gait in response to a transition of similarity of the target waveform extracted in each gait cycle, and outputting an evaluation result of the dynamic stability of gait.
The limitations of identifying based on sensor data regarding movement of a foot, a walking session in which stable walking is performed, extracting from time series data of the sensor data measured for a same walking session, for each gait cycle, a target waveform which is included in an evaluation target segment of dynamic stability of gait, evaluating the dynamic stability of gait in response to a transition of similarity of the target waveform extracted in each gait cycle, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, “a memory” and outputting digital data (all of which include or involve generic computer components), the claims are directed to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor, communications interface and output language, “identifying” “extracting” and “evaluating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying components in a signal waveform and calculating an evaluation based on those features or components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a measurement unit. This sensor involves mere data gathering and amount to insignificant extra-solutional activity, specifically pre-solutional activity. Additionally, the processor, memory and implied output device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear in the context of the claim what is considered stable walking to identify the session. It is unclear if stable walking is a specific type of walk or if it is just normal walking. It is unclear what is meant by a target waveform which is included in an evaluation target segment of dynamic stability of gait. The target waveform seems to be a normal gait waveform but it is not clear what the evaluation target segment is as it is not clear when and where it is determined. It is unclear what a transition of similarity is. Is it referring to determining similarity between the measured and target waveforms or when one waveform becomes more similar to another?
Claim 2 is 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. The recites that the target waveform is extracted from the generated gait waveform but claim 1 recites that the target waveform is extracted from the times series data. The generated gait waveform is normalized using the time series data but it not the time series data so it seems claim 2 performs a different extraction of the target waveform than recited in claim 1. Do the steps of claim 2 replace those of claim 1?
Claim 3 is 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. It is unclear what amount of time or steps is considered an initial stage as the determination of an initial stage is not recited. It is unclear if the reference target waveform is determined the same was as the target waveform in claims 1 and 2 or if this is a different type of target waveform.
Claim 5 is 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. It is unclear how the similarity is calculated in a brute-force manner. Typically, brute-force is used in relation to hacking where all possible combinations are cycled through but in this context it is not clear what brute-force means.
Claim 6 is 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. It is unclear how the area of the matrix is analyzed. It appears from the specification that the similarity matrix is some visual representation rather than a numerical matrix but this is not clear.
Claim 7 is 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. It is unclear what “a type of muscle of a determination target of a fatigue level” is. Is this just stating that a particular muscle is evaluated and this how the target waveform or parameters are chosen based on that?
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anwary et al. “Gait Evaluation Using Procrustes and Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis” in view of Huang et al. US 2022/0260609.
Regarding claim 1, 9 and 10, Anwary discloses a gait evaluation device comprising:
a memory storing instructions: and
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to ([pg. 2022] the processing is performed by an android app which requires some form of memory and processor);
extract, from time series data of the sensor data measured for a same walking session, for each gait cycle, a target waveform which is included in an evaluation target segment of dynamic stability of gait ([pg. 2024] a normal mean gait is determined and used to compare the other features of the gait signal to in order to determine abnormality); and
evaluate the dynamic stability of gait in response to a transition of similarity of the target waveform extracted in each gait cycle ([pg. 2027-2028] abnormalities in the gait are determined based on the difference of the NMGF to various features of the gait signal), and
output an evaluation result of the dynamic stability of gait ([pg. 2028] resulting data or the determinations is shown).
Anwary does not specifically disclose identifying based on sensor data regarding movement of a foot, a walking session in which stable walking is performed. Huang teaches a similar gait measuring system that determines when stable walking is underway ([¶64-65] time and acceleration are used to determine a stable walking period). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Anwary with the teachings of Huang in order to log the walking session without having to have the sensors in a high energy sampling state all the time.
Regarding claim 2, Anwary discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
generate a gait waveform in which a gait cycle and intensity are normalized using time series data of the sensor data ([pg. 2024] the obtained signal is normalized), and
extract the target waveform included in the evaluation target segment from the generated gait waveform ([pg. 2024] the normal mean gait shape is determined as a reference waveform).
Regarding claim 3, Anwary discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to evaluate the dynamic stability of gait in response to a transition of the similarity between a reference target waveform in an initial stage of the walking session and a series of the target waveforms included in the walking session ([pg. 2024-2025] the distance between the normal waveform feature matrix and the collected signal are determined and abnormality is determined from that. The abnormal gait being an indication of stability).
Regarding claim 4, Anwary discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to compare a representative value of the similarity between the reference target waveform and the target waveform in a first stage where a number of steps is less than a predetermined number of steps with a representative value of the similarity between the reference target waveform and the target waveform in a second stage where the number of steps is equal to or greater than the predetermined number of steps, and evaluate the dynamic stability of gait according to a comparison result between a representative value of the similarity in the first stage and a representative value of the similarity in the second stage ([pg. 2023-2025] the difference between the NMG and the collected data is determine across time periods and compared as a trend over time so the similarity/difference is compared from a first stage and a second stage. What the metes and bounds of a stage is are not specified so under a broadest reasonable interpretation comparing the similarity across the time series meets the recited claim language because earlier in the signal inherently has less steps than later in the times series).
Regarding claim 5, Anwary discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to a matrix generation means configured to extract a plurality of pairs of the target waveforms included in a same walking session, calculate the similarity in a brute-force manner for the plurality of extracted pairs of the target waveforms, and generate a similarity matrix obtained by two-dimensionally mapping a magnitude relationship of the similarity for the plurality of pairs of the target waveforms, wherein ([pg. 2025] a difference matrix is determined) and evaluate the dynamic stability of gait based on a feature appearing in the similarity matrix ([pg. 2025-2027] the abnormality or stability is determines from the differences in the matrix, the difference being a measure of similarity).
Regarding claim 6, Anwary discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the dynamic stability of gait is low in a case where an area of a region having the similarity lower than a reference in the similarity matrix exceeds a predetermined ratio with respect to an entire area of the similarity matrix ([pg. 2022,2025] a ratio of the similarity of features is determined and used to evaluate abnormality).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract the target waveform from the evaluation target segment set according to a type of a muscle of a determination target of a fatigue level, and determine a fatigue level of a muscle of the determination target in response to a long-term transition of the similarity of the target waveform, and output a determination result of a fatigue level of a muscle of the determination target ([¶176] the system is able to determine fatigue from changes in the feature trends).
Regarding claim 8, Anwary discloses a measurement device that is disposed on footwear of a user, measures a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular velocity according to walking of the user, generates sensor data based on the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and outputs the generated sensor data to the gait evaluation device ([pg. 2022] data is collected with an accelerometer and gyroscope).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791