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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/10/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, the cited non-patent literature documents are not provided with an English translation, and therefore have not been considered. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “which is performed in a computing device equipped with at least one processor and a memory for storing at least one program to be executed by the at least one processor” is unclear whether this limitation is part of the claimed invention, as this limitation is in the preamble of a method and prior to the transitional phrase “comprising”. For the purpose of examination, examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that the method is capable of being “performed in a computing device equipped with at least one processor and a memory for storing at least one program to be executed by the at least one processor”, and thus the components are not requirements of the claimed invention.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao (CN 112617807).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses (Figs. 1-4) an apparatus for forestalling and preventing freezing of gait, comprising:
a sensing unit comprising at least one sensor (pressure sensor 111 and acceleration sensor 101, Abstract);
a vibration unit comprising at least one vibration generator (vibration node 112); and
a controller (mobile terminal 12) connected with the sensing unit and the vibration unit,
wherein the controller receives from the sensing unit measurement values of the at least one sensor to determine freezing of gait (page 7 paragraphs 4-6) and controls the vibration unit to generate vibrations using the at least one vibration generator when it is determined as freezing of gait (page 8 paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Yao discloses the sensing unit comprises at least one of a pressure sensor and an inertial measurement unit (pressure sensor 111 and acceleration sensor 101).
Regarding claim 3, Yao discloses the controller determines based on measurement values of the pressure sensor whether a user's foot is in contact with the ground or separates from the ground (page 8 paragraphs 3-8).
Regarding claim 4, Yao discloses wherein the controller obtains movement information of a user's foot based on measurement values of the inertial measurement unit (page 2 paragraphs 11-12) and determine whether freezing of gait occurs based on at least one of the size, period, tempo, direction, and duration of a movement (page 2 paragraphs 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, Yao discloses wherein the controller applies different criteria for determining whether freezing of gait occurs depending on whether both of a user's feet are in contact with the ground or one of the user's feet separates from the ground (pre-FOG and FOG, see claims 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yao discloses wherein, when both of a user's feet are in contact with the ground, the controller controls the vibration unit to generate vibrations after a predetermined time has passed regardless of determination of freezing of gait (generates vibrations when further deterioration of gait or to help patient unfreeze gait as soon as possible, claim 4 and page 8 paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 7, Yao discloses wherein the duration, during which both of a user's feet are in contact with the ground, has exceeded a predetermined time and vibrations have been generated, the controller determines whether to continue generating vibrations based on a specific motion of the user (determines whether necessary to continue vibrations or not, page 8 paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 8, Yao discloses wherein, when the specific motion of the user is detected after the duration, during which both of the user's feet are in contact with the ground, has exceeded a predetermined time and vibrations have been generated, the controller stops generating vibrations (stops vibrations if deemed no longer necessary, page 8 paragraph 14),
and when the specific motion of the user is not detected after the duration, during which both of the user's feet are in contact with the ground, has exceeded a predetermined time and vibrations have been generated, the controller continues generating vibrations (continues vibrations to held unfreeze or prevent further deterioration of gait, page 8 paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 9, Yao discloses wherein, when one of the user's feet separates from the ground and at least one of the size, period, tempo, direction, and duration of a movement of the foot separating from the ground is within a predetermined range, the controller determines it as freezing of gait (determines ground off posture and duration/tempo of lifting to determine whether FOG, pre FOG, or no FOG, page 3 paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, Yao discloses wherein the controller calculates a stride or a step speed based on at least one of the size, period, tempo, direction, and duration of a movement (determines whether user in walking mode and thus calculates a stride or step speed (relative step speed), page 3 paragraphs 3-4), and when the stride or step speed is less than at least one of an average stride and an average step speed during a predetermined time, the controller determines it as a precursor state of freezing of gait and generate vibrations (determines pre-FOG if average plantar pressure less than threshold, page 7 paragraphs 5-6, and vibrates if determines pre-FOG, page 8 paragraphs 4 and 13).
Regarding claim 11, Yao discloses (Figs. 1-4) a method for forestalling and preventing freezing of gait, which is performed in a computing device equipped with at least one processor and a memory for storing at least one program to be executed by the at least one processor, comprising:
determining freezing of gait by receiving measurement values from at least one sensor (page 7 paragraphs 4-6); and
generating vibrations by controlling at least one vibration generator when it is determined as freezing of gait (page 8 paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Yao discloses the sensing unit comprises at least one of a pressure sensor and an inertial measurement unit (pressure sensor 111 and acceleration sensor 101).
Regarding claim 13, Yao discloses the controller determines based on measurement values of the pressure sensor whether a user's foot is in contact with the ground or separates from the ground (page 8 paragraphs 3-8).
Regarding claim 14, Yao discloses wherein the controller obtains movement information of a user's foot based on measurement values of the inertial measurement unit (page 2 paragraphs 11-12) and determine whether freezing of gait occurs based on at least one of the size, period, tempo, direction, and duration of a movement (page 2 paragraphs 11-12).
Regarding claim 15, Yao discloses wherein the controller applies different criteria for determining whether freezing of gait occurs depending on whether both of a user's feet are in contact with the ground or one of the user's feet separates from the ground (pre-FOG and FOG, see claims 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, Yao discloses wherein, when both of a user's feet are in contact with the ground, the controller controls the vibration unit to generate vibrations after a predetermined time has passed regardless of determination of freezing of gait (generates vibrations when further deterioration of gait or to help patient unfreeze gait as soon as possible, claim 4 and page 8 paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 17, Yao discloses wherein the duration, during which both of a user's feet are in contact with the ground, has exceeded a predetermined time and vibrations have been generated, the controller determines whether to continue generating vibrations based on a specific motion of the user (determines whether necessary to continue vibrations or not, page 8 paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 18, Yao discloses wherein, when the specific motion of the user is detected after the duration, during which both of the user's feet are in contact with the ground, has exceeded a predetermined time and vibrations have been generated, the controller stops generating vibrations (stops vibrations if deemed no longer necessary, page 8 paragraph 14),
and when the specific motion of the user is not detected after the duration, during which both of the user's feet are in contact with the ground, has exceeded a predetermined time and vibrations have been generated, the controller continues generating vibrations (continues vibrations to held unfreeze or prevent further deterioration of gait, page 8 paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 19, Yao discloses wherein, when one of the user's feet separates from the ground and at least one of the size, period, tempo, direction, and duration of a movement of the foot separating from the ground is within a predetermined range, the controller determines it as freezing of gait (determines ground off posture and duration/tempo of lifting to determine whether FOG, pre FOG, or no FOG, page 3 paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 20, Yao discloses wherein the controller calculates a stride or a step speed based on at least one of the size, period, tempo, direction, and duration of a movement (determines whether user in walking mode and thus calculates a stride or step speed (relative step speed), page 3 paragraphs 3-4), and when the stride or step speed is less than at least one of an average stride and an average step speed during a predetermined time, the controller determines it as a precursor state of freezing of gait and generate vibrations (determines pre-FOG if average plantar pressure less than threshold, page 7 paragraphs 5-6, and vibrates if determines pre-FOG, page 8 paragraphs 4 and 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pretzer-Aboff (US 12,648,715) discloses a vibrational device for mitigating freeze of gait.
Olaighin (US 20220118256) discloses a freezing of gait detection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights