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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply received 3/16/2026.
Claims 1-10 were elected without traverse and claims 11-16 were withdrawn 3/16/2026.
Claims 17-20 were added 8/30/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-10 and 17-20 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 1-10 and 17-20 are drawn to a method and a device which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1 and 7 recite: estimating a health score, the health score being used to quantitatively evaluate a health status related to walking of a user, and the health score including a knee condition score [gait age] for quantitatively evaluating a knee condition [gait age] of the user, the estimating method comprising: acquiring a data provider feature that is a feature related to a gait condition of each of multiple data providers and is a feature correlated with the knee condition [gait condition] from measurement information indicating temporal changes in forces applied to multiple parts of a sole of each of the multiple data providers; generating by learning a correlation between the acquired data provider feature and the knee condition [gait age] from the data provider feature and data on the knee condition [gait age] of each data provider; acquiring a user feature that is a feature of the same type as the data provider feature from measurement information indicating temporal changes in forces applied to multiple parts of a sole of the user; and estimating the knee condition [gait age] of the user as the knee condition [gait age score] by providing with the acquired user feature.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a user and a data provider, as reflected in the specification, which states that “when each of multiple data providers walks, temporal changes in forces applied to multiple parts of a sole of the data provider using a measurement device; measuring, in synchronization with the measurement of the temporal changes in the forces, temporal changes in positions of multiple parts of the upper body of the data provider; generating a learning model by learning a correlation between the measured temporal changes in the forces and the measured temporal changes in the positions of the multiple parts; measuring, when a user walks, temporal changes in forces applied to multiple parts of a sole of the user by using the same measurement device used for measurement for the data provider; and estimating temporal changes in positions of multiple parts of the upper body of the user by providing the learning model with the temporal changes” in the forces measured for the user.” (see: specification paragraph 11). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “The user can detect early signs of lumbar diseases, which allows for the possibility to halt
the progression of the disease. This enables the user to become aware of necessary
improvements much earlier than if the signs were unnoticed.” (see: specification paragraph 150). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “learning model”, are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the generating, estimating, and displaying is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic c
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 3, Figure 6 and
Paragraph 62, where “Additionally, the information processing unit 23 includes a knee condition learning model generation unit 40, a gait age learning model generation unit 41, and a first display processing unit 42. The information processing unit 23 may be, for example, processing circuitry such as a computer including a CPU”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10 and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2-6, 8-10 and 17-20 recite obtaining, analyzing, and displaying health data on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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) 1, 3-6, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin (US 2023/0022710 A1) in view of Agrawal (US 2020/0000373 A1).
CLAIM 1-
Aubin teaches the limitations of:
A method of estimating a health score, the health score being used to quantitatively evaluate a health status related to walking of a user, and the health score including a knee condition score for quantitatively evaluating a knee condition of the user, the estimating method comprising: (Aubin teaches a risk score that determines the health of the user to determine their knee joint health related to their gait when walking and includes a likelihood of patient outcomes on a scale value based on their knee and gait (para [0392, 0347, 0289, 0318, 0457, 0391-0392]))
acquiring a data provider feature that is a feature related to a gait condition of each of multiple data providers and is a feature correlated with the knee condition from measurement information indicating temporal changes in forces applied to multiple parts of a sole of each of the multiple data providers; (Aubin teaches monitoring the gait cycles to obtain data parameters (i.e., data providers) including features of the cycle time and knee range of motion (i.e., knee condition measurement data) that indicate forces applied to the foot (i.e., sole) (para [0195-0197, 0134, 0130-0131] Table 6))
generating a learning model by learning a correlation between the acquired data provider feature and the knee condition from the data provider feature and data on the knee condition of each data provider; (Aubin teaches analyzing the data using machine learning on the pre-operative and post-operative data sets to monitor the knee condition in classifying the movement type of the monitored gait cycles (i.e., data providers) (para [0128, 0326, 0195-0197, 0334, 0391-0392]))
estimating the knee condition of the user as the knee condition score by providing the learning model with the acquired user feature (Aubin teaches analyzing the data using machine learning on the pre-operative and post-operative data sets from training the system using data points to monitor the knee condition in classifying the movement type of the monitored gait cycles (i.e., data providers) with a condition score to determine user clinical outcome (para [0128, 0326, 0195-0197, 0334, 0391-0392, 0326]))
Aubin teaches acquiring a user feature, but does not explicitly teach, however Agrawal teaches:
acquiring a user feature that is a feature of the same type as the data provider feature from measurement information indicating temporal changes in forces applied to multiple parts of a sole of the user; and (Agrawal teaches that the data is trained using subjects (i.e., data providers) so that the system can compare the analysis to the user to provide real-time status of the gait and knee condition of the user using temporal changes in pressure (i.e., forces) to multiple parts of the sole of the user (para [0308, 0305, 0270, 0218-0219, 0251, 0094]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin to integrate the application of monitoring different parts of the sole of Agrawal with the motivation of improving patient outcomes outside a laboratory setting (see: Agrawal, paragraph 3).
CLAIM 3-
Aubin in view of Agrawal teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Aubin further teaches:
wherein the data on the knee condition of the data providers includes information regarding a classification indicating a degree of progress of knee disease (Aubin teaches analyzing the data using machine learning on the pre-operative and post-operative data sets to monitor the knee condition and gait in classifying the movement type of the monitored gait cycles and knee joints (i.e., data providers) (para [0128, 0326, 0195-0197, 0334, 0391-0392]))
CLAIM 4-
Aubin in view of Agrawal teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Aubin further teaches:
further comprising displaying the estimated knee condition as the knee condition score on a display in a form of a map (Aubin teaches that the data and abnormality of the gait is classified as well as the probability of the knee condition (i.e., limping) by mapping it on a display (Figure 39A)
CLAIM 5-
Aubin in view of Agrawal teach the limitations of claim 4. Regarding claim 5, Aubin further teaches:
multiple regions for indicating a varying degree of the knee condition are set in the map, (Aubin teaches that multiple regions on the screen indicate different degrees of the knee condition such as stride length and swing velocity (Figure 39A, 39B))
and displaying the estimated knee condition on the display includes indicating which region the estimated knee condition is in or which region the estimated knee condition is near by a marker superimposed on the map (Aubin teaches that the display indicates the knee ROM and the gait cycle analytics (i.e., region of the knee joint) that is affected by the abnormality of the gait (Figure 39B, para [0132, 0131)).
CLAIM 6-
Aubin in view of Agrawal teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Aubin further teaches:
wherein the forces are pressures (Aubin teaches that the forces are pressure (para [0130]))
CLAIM 17-
Aubin in view of Agrawal teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 17, Aubin further teaches:
wherein the multiple parts of the sole of each of the multiple data providers and the multiple parts of the sole of the user each include a heel portion, a toe portion, (Aubin teaches using multiple parts of the foot such as the heel and toe of the patient to analyze data (para [0519, 0700, Figure 12J)
Aubin teaches different parts of the sole but does not explicitly teach, however Agrawal teaches:
an inner side portion, and an outer side portion of the sole (Agarwal teaches using side portions of the foot including inner and outer portions in its data analysis (Figure 2A, Figure 2B, para [0058]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin to integrate the application of monitoring different parts of the sole of Agrawal with the motivation of improving patient outcomes outside a laboratory setting (see: Agrawal, paragraph 3).
CLAIM 18-
Aubin in view of Agrawal teach the limitations of claim 17. Regarding claim 18, Aubin further teaches:
wherein the data provider feature and the user feature each include a femorotibial angle estimated based on a pressure distribution of the sole detected using the heel portion, the toe portion, (Aubin teaches using multiple parts of the foot such as the heel and toe of the patient to analyze data including femur-tibia angle data (para [0519, 0700, 0798, 0272, Figure 12J)
Aubin teaches different parts of the sole but does not explicitly teach, however Agrawal teaches:
the inner side portion, and the outer side portion (Agarwal teaches using side portions of the foot including inner and outer portions in its data analysis for feedback of pressure which includes femur-tibial angle calculations (Figure 2A, Figure 2B, para [0058, 0082, 0088]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin to integrate the application of monitoring different parts of the sole of Agrawal with the motivation of improving patient outcomes outside a laboratory setting (see: Agrawal, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin (US 2023/0022710 A1) in view of Agrawal (US 2020/0000373 A1) and further in view of Xiaoyi (CN 112329716 A)
CLAIM 7-
Claim 7 is significantly similar to claim 1 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 1. Claim 7 further recites “gait age”, “gait age score” and “gait condition” which is taught by Xiaoyi (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin in view of Agrawal to integrate the application of monitoring gait age and scoring the gait of Xiaoyi to improve patient medical treatment (see: Xiaoyi, abstract).
CLAIMS 8-10-
Claims 8-10 are significantly similar to claims 4-6 and are rejected upon the same prior art as claims 8-10 respectively. Claims 8-10 further recite “gait age”, “gait age score” and “gait condition” which is taught by Xiaoyi (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin in view of Agrawal to integrate the application of monitoring gait age and scoring the gait of Xiaoyi to improve patient medical treatment (see: Xiaoyi, abstract).
CLAIM 19-
Claim 19 relies on claim 7 and are significantly similar to claim 17 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 17 respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin in view of Agrawal to integrate the application of monitoring gait age and scoring the gait of Xiaoyi to improve patient medical treatment (see: Xiaoyi, abstract).
CLAIM 20-
Aubin in view of Agrawal and further in view of Xiaoyi teach the limitations of claim 19. Regarding claim 20, Aubin further teaches:
wherein the data provider feature and the user feature each include a swing value indicating a swing (Aubin teaches calculating swing values includes centers of the gait cycle that includes foot pressure (para [0363, 0198], Figure 18C))
the swing value being calculated based on two-dimensional coordinates of the center of the foot pressure acquired from the heel portion, the toe portion (Aubin teaches using multiple parts of the foot such as the heel and toe of the patient to analyze data including femur-tibia angle data based on two-dimensional angle data in the y-z plane (para [0519, 0700, 0798, 0272, 0222, 0314 Figure 12J)
Aubin teaches different parts of the sole and foot pressure but does not explicitly teach, however Agrawal teaches:
of a center of foot pressure (Agrawal teaches calculating the center of the foot pressure using the different portions of the foot (para [0061]))
the inner side portion, and the outer side portion (Agarwal teaches using side portions of the foot including inner and outer portions in its data analysis for feedback of pressure which includes femur-tibial angle calculations (Figure 2A, Figure 2B, para [0058, 0082, 0088]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin to integrate the application of monitoring different parts of the sole of Agrawal with the motivation of improving patient outcomes outside a laboratory setting (see: Agrawal, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin (US 2023/0022710 A1) in view of Agrawal (US 2020/0000373 A1) and further in view of Borgue (US 10984893 B2).
CLAIM 2-
Aubin in view of Agrawal teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Aubin in view of Agrawal does not explicitly teach, however Bogue teaches:
wherein the data on the knee condition of the data providers includes information on results of responses made by the data providers to a questionnaire about the knee condition (Bogue teaches the use of a questionnaire to assess knee pre-operative values (abstract))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient condition and gait monitoring system of Aubin in view of Agrawal to integrate the application of assessment knee condition questionnaire of Bogue to improve patient medical satisfaction (see: Bogue, abstract).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 8/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the rejection has not identified a proper abstract-ide grouping for the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claimed invention is directed towards “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” between a user and a data provider as shown in the specification and claims above. The data acquisition recited is completed by a data provider interacting with the user on a generic computing device.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides a practical application similar to McRo by having specific, non-generic technical implementation of a physical measurement device and a trained machine learning model. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claimed invention is dissimilar to McRo as it does not provide a technological improvement to overcome the abstract idea. The computing devices and trained machine learning model are recited generically in the specification and do not provide significantly more to overcome the abstract idea. Inputting specific data sets does not constitute an improvement to technology to overcome the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that in claims 19-20 the specific sensor arrangement would provide a practical application, however the claimed invention does not provide a specific improvement of technology but rather focuses on the calculations of data of the portions of the foot pressures. Data input/output through calculations on a generic computing device does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
The functions argued are representative of the abstract idea. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality that amount to a practical application. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to a technical problem presented by combining the two. In the present case, the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea.
Further, not every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry. (See, e.g., Alice, 134). It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components that are generic is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. In order to amount to an inventive concept, the components must involve more than performance of “’well-understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)). The originally filed specification was investigated and found to support this conclusion.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the proper KSR rationales were not met. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the obviousness statements follow USPTO guidelines.
Applicant further argues that Aubin does not teach a sole-mounted, multi-location sensor arrangement and that Aubin does not recite the word “sole”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not recite a sole-mounted, multi-location sensor in the claimed invention. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Aubin teaches the claimed invention by calculating knee condition scores based on measurement information gathered from temporal changes of the foot areas striking the ground (i.e., soles). The foot areas of Aubin are, under broadest reasonable interpretation, soles of the foot as described in the specification paragraph 42. The stance phase, where the soles touch the ground are the same terminal stance phase of Aubin in Figure 18C. This applies to the toe-off and mid-swing described in paragraphs 42 and paragraph 44 of the specification. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the analysis of the foot areas including the pressures of Aubin teach the claimed invention as recited.
Applicant further argues that Agarwal does not teach a sole-based, multi-location pressure sensor arrangement. Examiner respectfully points out that nowhere in the claimed invention is a sole-based, multi-location pressure sensor arrangement claimed. The claimed invention gathers data from multiple parts of the sole using markers that are described as dots on a display (paragraph 127) but is silent on the use of sensors.
Applicant further argues that it would not have been obvious to combine Aubin in view of Agarwal in view of their different architectures. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Aubin teaches using pressures of a foot to analyze data, however Agarwal teaches using pressures of different specific areas of the foot and both using a computing system. The obviousness combination is through the use of the data of the system and a proper obviousness prima facie case was provided in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues that Xiaoyi does not teach a sensor mounted on or near a sole, no force or pressure sensing of any kind and no wearable or implantable measurement device. Examiner respectfully points out that the claimed invention does not recite a sensor mounted nor a wearable or implantable measurement device. The pressure data is taught by Aubin and Agarwal.
Applicant further argues that the gait age score in the claimed invention is different than Xiaoyi dividing the age of the person into a plurality of age groups. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The gait age score of the claimed invention separates between young and old categories on a y-axis of higher scores representing a youthful gait while lower scores indicate an older gait (Figure 1, paragraph 120). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the gait age score recited is taught by Xiaoyi’s scoring of dividing people into a plurality of age groups. The claimed invention does not recite that the gait age deviates towards an older age relative to the actual age and the user can become aware of potential health issues. The claimed invention recites a “gait age score” and “gait age” which are recited as grouping people into old and young categories (Figure 1, paragraph 120). The steps of what is used for the gait age to analyze the presence or absence of symptoms is not recited in the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues that it would not have been obvious to combine Aubin in view of Agarwal and further in view of Xiaoyi in view of their different hardware. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Aubin teaches using pressures of a foot to analyze data, Agarwal teaches using pressures of different specific areas of the foot and Xiaoyi teaches analyzing gait all using a computing system. The obviousness combination is through the use of the data of the system and a proper obviousness prima facie case was provided in the rejection above.
The dependent claims rely on the arguments of the independent claims and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asada (WO 2013181605 A1) teaches analyzing gait based on different gait accelerations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (EST).
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 DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/KIMBERLY A. SASS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3686
