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 (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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “performing second-order integral” (line 3) appears that it should be “performing a second-order integral”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a user, includes” (line 3) appears that it should be “a user and includes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet” is ambiguous. How equivalent does the distance between the center lines of the heels need to be to be considered “substantially” equivalent? The claim is examined as meaning “a sum of a heel center distance equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state.”
For claim 1, the claim language “calculate, as a step width, a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state and a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance,” is ambiguous. How is a single value, such as the claimed “step width,” two values (i.e., “a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state” and “a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance”)? The claim is examined as meaning that the step width is calculated as a sum of the total increments of lateral distance, the lateral distance being based on a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state.
For claim 10, the claim language “a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet” is ambiguous. How equivalent does the distance between the center lines of the heels need to be to be considered “substantially” equivalent? The claim is examined as meaning “a sum of a heel center distance equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state.”
For claim 10, the claim language “calculating, as a step width, a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet and a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance” is ambiguous. How is a single value, such as the claimed “step width,” two values (i.e., “a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state” and “a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance”)? The claim is examined as meaning that the step width is calculated as a sum of the total increments of lateral distance, the lateral distance being based on a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state.
For claim 11, the claim language “a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet” is ambiguous. How equivalent does the distance between the center lines of the heels need to be to be considered “substantially” equivalent? The claim is examined as meaning “a sum of a heel center distance equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state.”
For claim 11, the claim language “a process of calculating, as a step width, a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet and a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance” is ambiguous. How is a single value, such as the claimed “step width,” two values (i.e., “a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state” and “a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance”)? The claim is examined as meaning that the step width is calculated as a sum of the total increments of lateral distance, the lateral distance being based on a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “acquire sensor data measured in response to a motion of a foot,” “calculate an increment of a lateral distance by using lateral acceleration included in the sensor data,” “calculate, as a step width, a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state and a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance, and generates gait information related to the calculated step width,” and “output the generated gait information.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a memory storing instructions” and “a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are generic computer structure that has been held to not otherwise transform patent-ineligible subject matter into patentable subject matter according to Alice and Bilski. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 10 and 11 fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for similar, if not the exact same, reasoning as that of independent claim 1. Dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 9 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Dependent claim 8 fails to recite “significantly more” because “a sensor data measurement device that is installed in footwear of a user, includes sensors including an acceleration sensor that measures acceleration in three axial directions and an angular velocity sensor that measures angular velocities around three axes, and outputs sensor data based on physical quantities measured by the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor to the gait information generation device” is well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0035] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0150793 to Barth et al. Thus, claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 6307673 to Rikizo et al. (hereinafter “Rikizo”).
For claim 1, Rikizo disclose a gait information generation device (Abstract), comprising:
a memory storing instructions (B10) (Fig. 1) (para [0019]), and
a processor (A70) (Fig. 1) (para [0018]) connected to the memory (as can be seen in Fig. 1) and configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire sensor data measured in response to a motion of a foot (via A10/A30/A50) (Fig. 1) (para [0018] and [0024]-[0026]);
calculate an increment of a lateral distance (see Figs. 4 and 6) (para [0034], [0036], [0041], and [0045]) by using lateral acceleration included in the sensor data (i.e., via the “accelerometer,” para [0062]-[0063]);
calculate, as a step width, a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet in an initial state and a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance (see Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 11) (para [0034], [0037], [0043], [0045], and [0070]), and generates gait information related to the calculated step width (para [0018], [0021], [0023], and/or [0052]); and
output the generated gait information (para [0021]).
For claim 7, Rikizo further discloses wherein the gait information is configured to be generated by machine learning (para [0018] and [0037]), and includes information used for decision making according to the step width (para [0018] and [0037]).
For claim 10, Rikizo discloses a gait information generation method (Abstract) causing a computer (A70) (Fig. 1) (para [0018]) to execute:
acquiring sensor data measured in response to a motion of a foot (via A10/A30/A50) (Fig. 1) (para [0018] and [0024]-[0026]);
calculating an increment of a lateral distance (see Figs. 4 and 6) (para [0034], [0036], [0041], and [0045]) by using lateral acceleration included in the sensor data (i.e., via the “accelerometer,” para [0062]-[0063]);
calculating, as a step width, a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet and a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance (see Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 11) (para [0034], [0037], [0043], [0045], and [0070]);
generating gait information related to the calculated step width (para [0018], [0021], [0023], and/or [0052]); and
outputting the generated gait information (para [0021]).
For claim 11, Rikizo discloses a non-transitory recording medium having a program stored therein (B10) (Fig. 1) (para [0019]), the program causing a computer (A70) (Fig. 1) (para [0018]) to execute:
a process of acquiring sensor data measured in response to a motion of a foot (via A10/A30/A50) (Fig. 1) (para [0018] and [0024]-[0026]);
a process of calculating an increment of a lateral distance (see Figs. 4 and 6) (para [0034], [0036], [0041], and [0045]) by using lateral acceleration included in the sensor data (i.e., via the “accelerometer,” para [0062]-[0063]);
a process of calculating, as a step width, a sum of a heel center distance substantially equivalent to a distance between center lines of heels of both feet and a sum total of the increments of the lateral distance (see Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 11) (para [0034], [0037], [0043], [0045], and [0070]);
a process of generating gait information related to the calculated step width (para [0018], [0021], [0023], and/or [0052]); and
a process of outputting the generated gait information (para [0021]).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikizo in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0040601 to Fyfe et al. (hereinafter “Fyfe”).
For claim 6, Rikizo further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the gait information related to the calculated step length (para [0018], [0021], [0023], and/or [0052]).
Rikizo does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate loci in a traveling direction by performing second-order integral on an acceleration in a traveling direction included in the sensor data, calculate a step length by using the calculated loci in the traveling direction.
However, Fyfe teaches calculating loci in a traveling direction by performing second-order integral on an acceleration in a traveling direction included in the sensor data (para [0015]), calculate a step length by using the calculated loci in the traveling direction (para [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Rikizo wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate loci in a traveling direction by performing second-order integral on an acceleration in a traveling direction included in the sensor data, calculate a step length by using the calculated loci in the traveling direction, in view of the teachings of Fyfe, because such a modification is a suitable way to arrive at distance and Rikizo already wants to calculate distance so that step length may be calculated so that an analysis of a user’s gait may be performed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikizo in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0146968 to Hanwaka et al. (hereinafter “Hanawaka”).
For claim 8, Rikizo further discloses a gait measurement system, comprising: the gait information generation device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1); and a sensor data measurement device that is installed in footwear of a user (para [0009])
Rikizo does not expressly disclose that the sensor data measurement device includes sensors including an acceleration sensor that measures acceleration in three axial directions and an angular velocity sensor that measures angular velocities around three axes, and outputs sensor data based on physical quantities measured by the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor to the gait information generation device.
However, Hanawaka teaches an acceleration sensor that measures acceleration in three axial directions and an angular velocity sensor that measures angular velocities around three axes (para [0017]), and outputs sensor data based on physical quantities measured by the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor to a gait information generation device (para [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Rikizo such that the sensor data measurement device includes sensors including an acceleration sensor that measures acceleration in three axial directions and an angular velocity sensor that measures angular velocities around three axes, and outputs sensor data based on physical quantities measured by the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor to the gait information generation device, in view of the teachings of Hanwaka, because such a modification would just be the modification of Rikizo’s sensor to include the structure/function of Hanawaka’s sensor and would lead to the predictable result of analyzing motion parameters of the individual so that gait features can be analyzed, which is what Rikizo wants to do.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-5 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791