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 § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: Claim 1 line 1 recites “A computer-implemented”. This recitation lacks essential elements pertaining to what is actually computer-implemented. It appears that the claim intended to recite “A computer-implemented method”.
2) Claim 2 recites the limitation "The computer-implemented method" in claims 2,9, and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
3) Claim 6 has improper dependency, because it is dependent on itself;
4) Claim 6 line 2, the information database has no antecedent basis;
5) Claim 6 line 3, the respective foot of the end user has no antecedent basis;
6) Claims 10 and 17, line 2, the term “comprise” should be removed, since it is followed by the phrase “characterized by”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
1) sensor processing unit in claim 2;
2) active feedback unit in claim 2.
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 § 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the following:
-- Claims 1,13, and 18 recites the steps of,
1) receiving by one or more processors, podiatry data associated with a foot of an end user……….
2) generating, by the one or more processors and based at least in part on the podiatry data, summary data related to foot activity………
3) providing, by the one or more processors, the summary data for an end device……….
The steps listed in claim 1 would not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because they include abstract ideas in the form of mental processes. Mental processes constitute concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, and judgement. Although the claim recites the use of a processor to perform the steps, the human brain would very well constitute the processor that could perform the steps of the claimed invention.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1,9-11,13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazou et al(USPGPUB 2022/0202365 A1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Lazou et al(Lazou) includes:
1) receiving, by one or more processors, podiatry data associated with a foot of an end user, wherein the podiatry data is generated by one or more podiatry-related sensors is met by the remote computing device(306), remote machine learning processor(307), user computing device(308), and processor(536) of the PCB(430), all receiving motion data generated by the therapy boot(100)(see: Lazou, sec[0066;0097]), and wherein the data received from the boot(100) is collected from various sensors(108,110,112,120), and the sensors on the sole portion(114) of the boot(see: Lazou, sec[0058;0067]);
2) generating, by the one or more processors and based at least in part on the podiatry data, summary data related to foot activity related to the respective foot of the end user is met by the computing device(306), machine learning processor(307), user computing device(308), and processor(536)providing interactive visualizations on the motion of the user and/or providing predictive feedback on the motion of the feet of the user by performing a data analytics method based on data related to foot activity(see: Lazou, sec[0067; 0097]);
3) providing, by the one or more processors, the summary data for an end device associated with the end user is met by the user computing device(308), including a display configured to present interactive visualizations and output data relating to a predictive feedback on the motion of the user(see: Lazou, sec[0069])
4) wherein the end devices is configured to generate active feedback based at least in part on the summary data is met by the display of the user computing device(308), providing predictive feedback on the motion of the user(see: Lazou, sec[0069]);
5) wherein active feedback is configured to encourage or discourage a particular foot activity related to the foot of the end user is met by the remote machine learning processor(307) being configured to process large amounts of data generated by the sensors in the therapy boot(100), using machine learning algorithms, and wherein the predictive feedbacks provided to the user, including information related to likelihood of injury, and recommended courses of action to prevent an injury to the user(see: Lazou, sec[0071]).
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) determining, based at least in part on image data captured by a camera associated with the end device, one or more locations of the one or more respective MOPTs relative to the respective foot of the end user is met by the camera(304), which are communicatively coupled to external computing devices(306,307,308), such that the devices utilize the data from the camera to process the motion data(see: Lazou, sec[0070]). With regards to the location, it would have been inherent that the one or more locations of the respective MOPT relative to the respective foot of the end user would have been included in the camera data, since the camera(304) communicates through communication channel(C), wherein the communication channels(A,B,C,D,E,F) form networks, including a GPS system, which would have inherently determined location.
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) a podiatric data central(PODAC) module is met by the processor(536) including a microcontroller having built-in wireless capabilities(see: Lazou, sec[0091]);
2) the one or more respective movable podiatry trackers(MOPTs) comprise are characterized by a multi-layered construction,
3) wherein the multi-layered construction comprises at least one of one or more of:
i) electronic-safe epoxy is met by the epoxy resin(see: Lazou, sec[0093]);
ii) one or more surface mount components is met by the central enclosure including frame(542/544) and covering plate(546)(see: Lazou, sec[0093]);
iii) one or more flexible printed circuit board(PCB) substrates is met by the printed circuit board(430)
iv) or one or more adhesives is met by the adhesive film(590)(see: Lazou, sec[0086]).
-- With regards to claim 11,
1) the PODAC module or the one or more MOPTs are configured to be embedded in existing footwear is met by the sole portion being embedded in the boot, as discussed in claim 1 above.
-- Claim 13 recites a system that substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, as well as:
1) the memory communicatively coupled to the processor is met by the computing device(306) including a non-transitory processor-readable memory(see: Lazou, sec[0067]); computing device(308) a processor and memory device(see: Lazou, sec[0069]); processor(536) including an associated memory device(535)(see: Lazou, sec[0091]).
-- Claim 18 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, as well as:
1) One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that are executed by one or more processors processor is met by the computing device(306) including a non-transitory processor-readable memory(see: Lazou, sec[0067]); computing device(308) a processor and memory device(see: Lazou, sec[0069]); processor(536) including an associated memory device(535)(see: Lazou, sec[0091]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al(USPGPUB 2022/0031241).
-- In considering claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Li et al(Li) includes: 1) generating, based at least in part on one or more portions of data comprised in the information database, a heatmap associated with the respective foot of the end user is met by a user interface(200), which displays several visualizations of data gathered by a sensor pad, and processed by computing server(120) or application(130) so as to display heatmaps(202) to demonstrate pressure differential at various locations of a persons foot when they walk or stand(see: Li, sec[0036]). Since claim 6 is dependent on itself, as outlined in the 112 rejection above, the claim has been treated as an independent claim, since it is not depended on a previous claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5,7-8,14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazou et al(Lazou) in view of Machanian(USPGPUB 2023/0354952).
-- Claims 2 and 4 recites subject matter that is met as discussed in claim 1 above, as well as:
1) one or more respective movable podiatry trackers(MOPTs) comprise a sensor processing unit is met by the removable therapy boot(100), including foot(105), shank(104) and sole(114) portions(see: Lazou, sec[0051]), and wherein the sole portion(114) has a printed circuit board(PCB)(430) that includes a processor(536) and other electrical components(see: Lazou, sec[0089]) and as well, front(510) and rear(520) sensor modules attached to the PCB(430)(see: Lazou, sec[0084]).
- Lazou does not disclose:
1) the active feedback unit(claim 2);
2) the active feedback unit is configured to provide one or more types of physical feedback, wherein the one or more types of physical feedback comprise at least one of vibration, heat, or sound(claim 4).
Although not specifically taught by Lazou, use of systems which monitor foot activity of a user, and include active feedback to that user in the form of physical feedback, is well known. In related art, Machanian discloses an insole system, including an insole(10), including a diagnostic layer(11), deploying a plurality of sensors(111) within diagnostic layer. As well, the insole(10) also includes layer(12) which includes a stimulation source(e.g. vibrator)(see: Machanian, secs[0076-0077]). As well, the stimulation module includes at least one of a physical stimulator, a laser, a vibrator and a source of electric current(see: Machanian, sec[0033]).
Since the use of stimulation sources, as a means of feedback to a user of a insole device for a foot is well known, as taught by Machanian, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the insole(10) including diagnostic layer(11) and layer(12), into the sole portion(114) of Lazou, since this would have enhanced the ability of the system to utilize active feedback to help analyze and prevent injuries, by providing physical stimulation to alert the user by indicating stimula6tion to reduce gait and balance impairments.
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the sensor processing unit is configured to collect raw data from the one or more podiatry-related sensors is met by the processor(536) of the PCB(430), in which the processor(536) is substantially similar to the processor in the remote computing device(306), and wherein the processor(536) is configured to receive motion data generated by the sensors in the sole portion(114)(see: Lazou, sec[0091]).
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) at least one of the one or more portions of the active feedback or the one or more types of the physical feedback are determined at least in part by a recommendation system associated with the end device is met by the stimulation as taught by Machanian, being part of a treatment plan and contributing to early prevention to reduce targeted symptoms and improve mobility of a user(see: Machanian, sec[0104]).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the end device is configured to generate one or more predictions related to at least one of a current foot activity or a future foot activity is met by the data analytics routine performed by the processors of Lazou, providing predictive feedback(see: Lazou, sec[0049;0069]).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the end device is configured to provide one or more recommendations based at least on the one or more predictions, wherein the one or more recommendations comprise at least one of a recommendation to sustain a current foot activity, a recommendation to cease a current foot activity, a recommendation to adjust a stance, or a recommendation to adjust a gait is met by the one or more machine learning algorithms of the boot(100) of Lazou, providing predictive feedbacks that includes a recommended course of action to prevent injuries and compute injury probabilities for the potential mitigation of recurring injuries.
-- Claim 14 depends from claim 13, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 13 above.
-- Claim 15 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 14 above.
-- Claim 16 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 14 above.
-- Claim 17 depends from claim 16, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 10. Therefore, claim 17 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 10 and 16 above
-- Claim 19 depends from claim 18, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 2. Therefore, claim 19 is met for the reasons as discussed in claims 2 and 18 above.
-- Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 3. Therefore, claim 20 is met for the reasons as discussed in claims 3 and 19 above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazou et al(Lazou) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burch et al(USPGPUB 2023/0320625 A1).
-- With regards to claim 12, Lazou does not teach:
1) the one or more MOPTs are constructed to feature a plurality of functional extensions of various lengths,
2) wherein the plurality of functional extensions of various lengths comprise one or more podiatry-related sensors.
Although not specifically taught by Lazou, use of foot garments which are designed to monitor aspects of the wearer, while also being able to accommodate wearers of different sizes, is well known. In related art, Burch et al(Chahine) teaches an ankle sock embodiment, including electrodes and sensors(13) to monitor various conditions of a human foot, and wherein the sensors stretch for accurate proper fit to accommodate various sizes and fits(see: Burch, secs[0056-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the stretch sensors and sock of Burch, into the boot of Lazou, since this would have enhanced the fit of the system by allowing it to be adapted to be worn by users of various foot sizes and lengths.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In related art, Chahine et al(USPGPUB 2020/0367823 A1) teaches a multi-functional tubular worn garment, which includes various sensors and detectors to monitor the activity of users of the worn garment.
Esposito et al(USPGPUB 2016/0367191 A1) teaches a system to evaluate gate, footwear and garment fitting, by monitoring the pressure applied to sensors of a worn footwear, so as to evaluate movement and activity of the user of the garment.
Glukhovsky et al(USPGPUB 2015/0265834 A1) teaches a apparatus for gait modulation, wherein a worn device monitors various walking activities of the wearer, and transmits the collected data to be evaluated by remote devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686