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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1,3,6-14 are pending
Claims 1,3,6-14 are amended
Claims 2,4,5 are cancelled
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Response to Applicant Remarks
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant asserts that the claimed foot sensor arrangement associated data processing is patent eligible subject matter. (Applicant’s 6/03/26 remarks, p.8). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that Applicant also relies on the Thales Visionix decision. (Id. p.11). In Thales , the claims required an inertial sensor to be mounted on a tracked object and another sensor on a "moving reference frame," with mathematics then used to track the motion of the object relative to the reference frame. In contrast the claims at issue here only require a sensor in footwear. Based upon further research, such an arrangement was well known and commercialized before the filing of the invention. (See e.g., (Dominguez, “Study for the validation of the FeetMe integrated sensor insole system compared to GAITRite system to assess gait characteristics in patients with multiple sclerosis”, 2/2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9910712/pdf/pone.0272596.pdf, abstract, “To determine the concordance and statistical precision in gait velocity in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS), measured with FeetMe (insoles with pressure and motion sensors) compared with GAITRite (classic reference system of gait analysis) in the timed 25-Feet Walk test (T25WT)”)). Accordingly, the additional elements of the foot sensors appear to be part of an insignificant data gathering step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1,12,13 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of estimating care for a user which is a mental process. Other than reciting a foot sensor, memory and processor nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the foot sensor, memory and processor the limitations on receive sensor data according to walking, acquire physical data, generate walking waveform using sensor data, detect walking event, calculate walking speed, calculate numerical value related to distribution of walking speed, input speed and age to a model that outputs care information in response to input to estimate care, estimate frailty probability, estimate frail age and output estimated care is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. The limitations foot sensors are considered by the examiner to be extra solution activity. Applicant has not invented foot sensors. The addition of insignificant activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 g). If claim limitations, under the 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. Further the above limitations related to estimating care stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (See e.g. In re: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, 989 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021), Data analysis to determine haplotype phase held to be ineligible). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers 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. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element a foot sensor, processor and memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the additional elements of foot sensors were considered by the examiner to be extra solution activity above. Applicant has not invented storing, inputting and displaying data. The addition of insignificant activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 g; Dominguez, “Study for the validation of the FeetMe integrated sensor insole system compared to GAITRite system to assess gait characteristics in patients with multiple sclerosis”, 2/2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9910712/pdf/pone.0272596.pdf, abstract, “To determine the concordance and statistical precision in gait velocity in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS), measured with FeetMe (insoles with pressure and motion sensors) compared with GAITRite (classic reference system of gait analysis) in the timed 25-Feet Walk test (T25WT)”). Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the care estimation steps. The subject matter of 3 (generate walking waveform using sensor data, detect toe off and heel strike, extract spatial positions, calculate stride length, calculate time from toe off to heel strike, calculate walking speed, 6 (output care information in response to inputs, calculate walking speed, calculate numerical value, calculate walking variation in stance phase, calculate numerical value, input numerical value and estimate care), 7 (generate walking waveform, detect heel strike and toe off, calculate time from heel strike to toe off as stride time), 8 (acquire age and gender, output falling easiness in response to input of numerical value to the model), 9 (estimate frail age based on estimated falling easiness and correlation between age and falling easiness), 10 (output care to device), 14 (model is constructed by machine learning appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. To the extent that these claims recite various calculations and machine learning, the examiner notes that mathematical calculation is also a category of patent ineligible abstract idea. Further, at the high level the machine learning is claimed, it does not appear to amount to be more than a generic computer. These claims do not introduce additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights