DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are hereby the present claims under consideration.
Examiner’s Note: all references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US Publication of the present application US 20240423502 A1.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7, and 13 it appears that “acquires sensor outputs from the sensors” should read “acquires sensor outputs from the plurality of sensors”
Claims 6 and 12 it appears that “CNN” should read “convolutional neural network (CNN)”
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:
A sensor output acquisition unit of claim 1
A correction unit of claim 1
A value-of-load calculation unit of claim 1
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.
A sensor output acquisition unit of claim 1 is interpreted as the corresponding structure for carrying out the recited function of acquiring the sensor output from the load distribution sensor. Paragraphs 0069 and 0071-0072 recite that the sensor output acquisition unit may be part of a main control unit and comprise an analog to digital converter. The sensor acquisition unit is interpreted as a processor and analog to digital converter and their equivalents.
A correction unit of claim 1 is interpreted as the particular algorithm which carries out the recited function of correcting the sensor outputs based on a moving speed of the belt. Paragraphs 0073-0085 describe the particular equations and method steps involved in correcting the outputs of the sensor array including how the correction coefficient changes based on the position of the sensor. The correction unit of claim 1 is interpreted as the recited algorithm and method steps of paragraphs 0073-0085 and their equivalents.
A value-of-load calculation unit of claim 1 is interpreted as the particular algorithm which carries out the recited function of calculating a load value for the user based on the corrected values. Paragraph 0088 recites that the value-of-load calculation unit calculates the value of load by summing or integrating the two dimensional load data received from the correction unit. Paragraphs 0093, 0096-0103 further recite that the value-of-load calculation unit may have a CNN that performs a convolutional process using the two dimensional corrected data to estimate a value of the load. It is unclear whether the algorithm of the value of load calculation unit should be interpreted as the summing algorithm, or the integration algorithm of paragraph 0088, or the CNN algorithm of paragraphs 0096-0103. It is noted that the CNN algorithm does not recite a specific training method or the specific method steps taken by the algorithm to generate the recited output and thus lacks sufficient support for 112f interpretation.
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 § 112(b)
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 1-6, 8, 9, and 12 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.
Claim 1, the limitation “a value-of-load calculation unit that calculates a value of a load received from the user based on corrected values corrected by the correction unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, there are multiple described algorithms for carrying out the recited function and it is unclear which of these algorithms the language should be interpreted as referring to. Additionally the CNN algorithm lacks sufficient written description to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a sensor at a front end of a region on which the user has landed” but it is unclear what relationship if any, is present between this limitation and “a plurality of sensors arranged in a two-dimensional array” of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a sensor of the plurality of sensors. This rejection and interpretation are similarly applied to claim 8.
Claim 2 recites that “a sensor” at a front end region on which the user has landed is determined. “the sensor” output is then corrected based on “a sensor address” with reference to “a sensor address of the sensor at the front end”. It would seem that since “a sensor” at the front end is determined, then “the sensor” output (the output of the sensor at the front end) is corrected according to “a sensor address in a front-rear direction” but this address is with reference to “a sensor address of the sensor at the front end”. It would seem that since “a sensor” is the sensor at the front end then both instances of “a sensor address” are referring to the same address and thus it is unclear if these limitations are meant to be the same or different. Additionally, the limitation it is unclear if the limitation “a sensor address of the sensor at the front end” is intended to refer to the front end of the region on which the user has landed or the front end of the sensor matrix. For the purposes of this examination, the addresses are interpreted as referring to the same address and the front end will be interpreted as the front end of the region in which the user has landed. This rejection and interpretation are similarly applied to claim 8.
Examiner’s Note: It would seem that amending the claim language to “wherein the correction unit determines: for each line of the plurality of sensors arranged in the two-dimensional array, a sensor at a front end of a region on which the user has landed on a front-rear line-by-line basis, and corrects each of the respective sensors of the plurality of sensors in the region on which the user has landed according to a respective sensor address in a front-rear direction with reference to a sensor address of the sensor at the front end of the region on which the user has landed” or the like would convey that each sensor in the region is corrected based on its address with respect to the front end sensor of the respective line which appears to be consistent with the specification.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sensor address" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection is further applied to the similar limitations claim 9.
Claim 6 recites “the value-of-load calculation unit has a CNN that performs a convolution process using two-dimensional data including the corrected values of the plurality of cells as an input” but it is unclear how this limitation relates to the rest of the claimed system. It is unclear what the outcome of the convolution operation is and how it relates to the claimed system and/or the other recited functions of the value-of-load calculation unit. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the value of load calculation being performed using the CNN and convolution process. This rejection is further applied to the similar limitations claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, the limitation “a value-of-load calculation unit that calculates a value of a load received from the user based on corrected values corrected by the correction unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, there are multiple described algorithms for carrying out the recited function and it is unclear which of these algorithms the language should be interpreted as referring to. Additionally the CNN algorithm lacks sufficient written description to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the claim lacks sufficient written description and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the correction unit corrects the sensor outputs of the sensors in one row along the front-rear direction using a correction factor according to the sensor address in the front-rear direction” which appears to indicate that the correction factor is based on the cell address in the front-read direction. However this limitation seemingly conflicts with paragraphs 0075 and 0082 which indicate that the correction factor is based on the cell address with respect to the leading cell. The specification is not considered to teach or provide support for the correction factor being based on the cell address alone but rather the cell address with respect to the leading cell of each front-rear row. This rejection is further applied to claim 9.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 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. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 are directed to a method of processing load signals using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019) and the 2024 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol 89, No. 137, page 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] corrects the sensor outputs from the respective sensors based on a moving speed of the belt
[B1] calculates a value of a load received from the user based on corrected values corrected by the correction unit
These elements [A1]-[B1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] a treadmill having a belt on which a user lands
[B2] a load distribution sensor that has a plurality of sensors arranged in a two-dimensional array and detects a load applied through the belt
[C2] a sensor output acquisition unit
[D2] acquires sensor outputs from the sensors of the load distribution sensor
[E2] a correction unit
[F2] a value-of-load calculation unit
These elements [A2]-[C2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the elements [A2]-[B2] and [D2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the elements [C2] and [E2]-[F2] are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation “a treadmill having a belt on which a user lands; a load distribution sensor that has a plurality of sensors arranged in a two-dimensional array and detects a load applied through the belt; a sensor output acquisition unit that acquires sensor outputs from the sensors of the load distribution sensor” is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the sensor acquisition unit is merely a recitation of receiving the sensor output at a computing device and the treadmill having the load distribution sensor integrated therein is conventional as evidenced by:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0124938 A1 (Brunner) discloses that treadmills having a matrix, or two dimensional array of force sensors are known in the art and cites references that teach such treadmills including US Patent Number 6010465 and PCT/EP2006/01 04 71 (Published as WO2007131542). Brunner teaches the use of such known treadmills. (paragraphs 0001-0007 and 0015 of Brunner);
Further, the elements [C2] and [E2]-[F2] do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). In particular, these limitations are mere recitations to perform the abstract idea on a computer.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 2-4 and 6 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions:
Claim 4: the load distribution sensor sequentially reads outputs of the sensors in one row arranged in the front-rear direction;
Each of these claim limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the elements of claims 4 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). In particular, the limitation of claim 4 is drawn towards a particular order of reading the sensor outputs but does not further limit the load distribution sensor itself. The particular order of reading sensor outputs is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the limitations drawn to CNN processing of claim 6 are nothing more than the computer implementation/automation of an abstract mental process of performing the value of load calculation of claim 1 and thus only further limits the abstract idea.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claim 5 also depends from claim 1 but implements the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application by implementing a robot leg worn on the user and the control of such a robotic leg based on the determined load values. Thus claim 5 is not rejected on the basis set forth above but is further rejected for claiming a human organism as described below.
Claims 7 and 13 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 and further only recite additional elements that have already been addressed in the above rejection of claim 1. Claims 7 and 13 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claims 8-10 and 12 recite similar limitations to claims 2-4 and 6 and are rejected on the same basis as claims 2-4 and 6 as described above.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is not rejected for claiming an abstract idea as described above but is rejected for claiming a human organism as described below.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claims 5 and 11 each recite “a robot leg worn on a leg of the user” which encompasses both the robot leg and the leg of the user on which the robot leg is worn, thus the claim encompasses a human organism.
Examiner’s Note: it would seem that an amendment to “a robot leg configured to be worn on a leg of the user” or the like would be sufficient to overcome this rejection.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record is considered to be:
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20200405189 A1 hereinafter Otsuki teaches a walking training system, a method, a program, and a trained model for performing walking training at appropriate setting parameters are provided. A learning system according to an embodiment includes: a data acquisition unit configured to acquire rehabilitation data from a walking training system including an actuator configured to assist a walking motion of a trainee and a control unit configured to control the actuator in accordance with a setting parameter; a data generation unit configured to generate the rehabilitation data including detection data and the setting parameter as learning data; and a learning unit configured to perform machine learning using the learning data, thereby generating a learning model that receives the detection data and outputs a recommended value of the setting parameter (Abstract). Otsuki teaches a system including a treadmill with a belt on which the user lands (Paragraph 0048), and a load distribution sensor that has a plurality of sensors in a two dimensional array that detects the load of the user on the belt (Paragraphs 0060, 0066, and 0071). Otsuki further teaches a method of acquiring sensor data from the load sensor, calculating a load placed by the user, and using the calculated load values to control a robotic leg worn by the user (Paragraphs 0071-0072, 0077-0078, 0088-0089).
Similar systems which utilize a treadmill and a robotic leg and control the robotic leg based on measured force values are taught in US 20200410892 A1, and US 20200411195 A1.
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20100035727 A1 hereinafter Brunner teaches a gait analysis apparatus using a treadmill, comprising an endless belt, which is guided over at least two rollers and the upper surface of which serves as walking surface, a sensor system for determining a pressure/force distribution on a measurement plate located underneath the endless belt and having a plurality of pressure/force sensors arranged in a matrix on the side facing the treadmill belt, wherein the measurement plate comprising the plurality of pressure/force sensors arranged in a matrix is itself supported by at least one base force sensor and the analyzing unit comprises an additional signal input connected to a signal output of the base force sensor as well as an additional signal processing stage for processing the output signal of the or each base force sensor in terms of a calibration or correction signal processing of the output signals of the pressure/force sensors arranged in a matrix, respectively (Abstract). Brunner further teaches a treadmill having a measuring platform comprised of a plurality of sensors in a two dimensional array for detecting load through the belt of the treadmill (Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0045-0050). Brunner further teaches the correction of the sensed load signals. However this correction is calculated for each sensor based on the pressure distribution image history to determine which sensors were acted on particularly frequency and thus may have suffered from temperature rise which affects their measurement accuracy. The speed of the belt is not considered in the sensor correction (Paragraphs 0066-0068). Brunner does teach that the speed of the belt may be calculated from the pressure distribution images, but the speed calculation is separate and distinct from the sensor correction as it takes place after the sensor correction as illustrated by Figs. 8 and 9 references 5, 20, and 27 which illustrates the sensor compensation occurs at correction stage 27 and the compensated pressure distribution values are sent to the control unit 5 which sends the compensated values to speed indicator stage 20. Thus the speed is not utilized in the sensor compensation operation (Paragraphs 0052-0054 and 0066-0068).
Similar systems which teach the compensating of pressure sensors in a treadmill application based on temperature are taught by WO 2007131542 A1.
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20210245009 A1 hereianfter Shintani teaches a balance training system including a riding plate; a load distribution sensor; a load sensor; a mobile body on which the riding plate, the load distribution sensor, and the load sensor are disposed; and a control unit configured to calculate a reference position based on positions of feet of a trainee detected by the load distribution sensor, then calculate a center of gravity position of the trainee based on the load detected by the load sensor, and control a movement of the mobile body based on a change of the center of gravity position with respect to the reference position. The control unit is configured to update the reference position based on the changed positions of the feet of the trainee when the change of the position of at least one of the feet of the trainee is detected by the load distribution sensor (Abstract). Shintani teaches a rehabilitation device with a force plate on which the user stands. The force plate rides on top of a belt of a treadmill and detects the user’s center of gravity. The treadmill is operated to move based on the user’s detected center of gravity to provide balance training (Paragraphs 0024-0027 and 0031-0034).
None of Otsuki, Brunner, Shintani, or the other referenced similar publications either alone or in combination teach or reasonably suggest the correction of load sensor values from a load sensor which detects a load through a treadmill belt on the basis of the belt speed. As required by the limitation “a treadmill having a belt on which a user lands; a load distribution sensor that has a plurality of sensors arranged in a two-dimensional array and detects a load applied through the belt; … ; a correction unit that corrects the sensor outputs from the respective sensors based on a moving speed of the belt” in combination with the other claimed elements of claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are not rejected over the prior art in light of their dependency on claims 1 and 7 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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 ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights