NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to a computer program. Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations (MPEP 2106.03). As signals are not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, a claim directed merely to a computer program is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 146, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushi et al. (US 2020/0054249 A1, “Fukushi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Fukushi teaches an information processing system (Fig.1-4) comprising: a controller (fig.2; element 4000) configured to estimate a value of a ground reaction force (via the floor reaction force estimation unit 3100) applied to a user by using sensor data representing movement of a body part of the user (via motion measurement device 1000) and a trained model (fig.2; element 4100) [0055]-[0056], wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data ([0075] Floor Reaction Force Model Storage Unit 4100; [0076]: “For example, a physical model based on a dynamic characteristic of a body may be considered as a floor reaction force model. In addition, a table indicating a correspondence relation between a floor reaction force, and a motion and a lower limb vertical load of the walker, a regression model (such as … a neural network …).” Also, see sections of First Embodiment: [0055]-[0084]”).
Regarding Claim 2, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to acquire the sensor data from at least one sensor device worn on the body part of the user ([0071]; [0087]-[0088] describe attaching an IMU, which is a motion measurement device 1000, to a foot, thigh, or lower leg).
Regarding Claim 12, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to evaluate a gait of the user based on the value of the ground reaction force ([0116] indicates that a walking state calculation unit 3200 receives motion data and floor reaction force data, calculates the walking state of a walker 6000, and supplies the calculated walking state (corresponding to the “evaluation of the walking of the user”) to a display device 5000 as walking state data (corresponding to the “information about the walking of the user”).
Regarding Claim 13, the information processing system according to claim 11 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to acquire information about a gait of the user based on the value of the ground reaction force ([0116] indicates that a walking state calculation unit 3200 receives motion data and floor reaction force data, calculates the walking state of a walker 6000, and supplies the calculated walking state (corresponding to the “evaluation of the walking of the user”) to a display device 5000 as walking state data (corresponding to the “information about the walking of the user”).
Regarding Claim 16, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi further teaches wherein the trained model is generated using, as training data, a data set including data on ground reaction forces of multiple subjects detected by a floor reaction force meter and data representing movements of subjects detected by a motion capture system ([0057] describes using an optical motion capturing device as the motion measurement device 1000. Further, [0066] describes comprising a display device 5000 that displays walking state data, motion data, lower limb vertical load data, and data relating to the floor reaction force.).
Regarding Claim 17, Fukushi teaches an electronic system comprising: a notification unit ([0066] describes comprising a display device 5000 that displays walking state data, motion data, lower limb vertical load data, and data relating to the floor reaction force) configured to report the value of the ground reaction force acquired by the information processing device according to claim 1 as taught by Fukushi.
Regarding Claim 19, Fukushi teaches an information processing method (Fig.1-4) comprising: estimating a value of a ground reaction force (via the floor reaction force estimation unit 3100) applied to a user by using sensor data representing movement of a body part of the user (via motion measurement device 1000) and a trained model (fig.2; element 4100) [0055]-[0056], wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data ([0075] Floor Reaction Force Model Storage Unit 4100; [0076]: “For example, a physical model based on a dynamic characteristic of a body may be considered as a floor reaction force model. In addition, a table indicating a correspondence relation between a floor reaction force, and a motion and a lower limb vertical load of the walker, a regression model (such as … a neural network …).” Also, see sections of First Embodiment: [0055]-[0084]”).
Regarding Claim 20, Fukushi teaches a program [0139] configured to cause a computer (fig.12; element 1000) to execute estimating a value of a ground reaction force (via the floor reaction force estimation unit 3100) applied to a user by using sensor data representing movement of a body part of the user (via motion measurement device 1000) and a trained model (fig.2; element 4100) [0055]-[0056], wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data ([0075] Floor Reaction Force Model Storage Unit 4100; [0076]: “For example, a physical model based on a dynamic characteristic of a body may be considered as a floor reaction force model. In addition, a table indicating a correspondence relation between a floor reaction force, and a motion and a lower limb vertical load of the walker, a regression model (such as … a neural network …).” Also, see sections of First Embodiment: [0055]-[0084]”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3, 5-6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (US 2020/355721 A1, cited by the applicants).
Regarding Claim 3, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi does not explicitly teach wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user.
However, Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user ([0040]-[0042], [0047], [0081]) describes calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on a head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movement in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, wherein an acceleration sensor is worn on the head and the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from the acceleration sensor worn on the head, and this would provide an important measure for evaluating whether or not a subject may maintain normal daily life.
Regarding Claim 5, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi further teaches wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of either one of two feet of the user ([0032], [0065], [0068] describe attaching IMUs, which are motion measurement devices 1000, to a foot, thigh, and lower leg, and receiving an acceleration and an angular velocity from each IMU).
Fukushi does not explicitly teach that the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user.
However, Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user ([0040]-[0042], [0047], [0081]) describes calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on a head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movement in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, wherein an acceleration sensor is worn on the head and the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from the acceleration sensor worn on the head, and this would provide an important measure for evaluating whether or not a subject may maintain normal daily life.
Regarding Claim 6, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi further teaches wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of either one of two thighs of the user ([0032], [0065], [0068] describe attaching IMUs, which are motion measurement devices 1000, to a foot, thigh, and lower leg, and receiving an acceleration and an angular velocity from each IMU).
Fukushi does not explicitly teach that the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user.
However, Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user ([0040]-[0042], [0047], [0081]) describes calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on a head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movement in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, wherein an acceleration sensor is worn on the head and the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from the acceleration sensor worn on the head, and this would provide an important measure for evaluating whether or not a subject may maintain normal daily life.
Regarding Claim 14, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi does not explicitly teach the system further comprising: a communication unit, wherein the controller is configured to generate a measurement signal representing at least any of the value of the ground reaction force, an evaluation of a gait of the user, and information about the gait of the user, and to transmit the measurement signal to an external device by using the communication unit.
However, Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the system comprising: a communication unit, wherein the controller is configured to generate a measurement signal representing at least any of the value of the ground reaction force, an evaluation of a gait of the user, and information about the gait of the user, and to transmit the measurement signal to an external device by using the communication unit ([0047] describes outputting information relating to walking analysis to, for example, a speaker or wireless earphones (corresponding to the "external device").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movemen in the system of Fukushi since the communication unit is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 15, the information processing system according to claim 14 is taught by Fukushi in view of Jung.
Jung further teaches wherein the external device is an earphone [0047].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung and Sakai et al. (JP 2011041752 A, cited by the applicants, “Sakai”).
Regarding Claim 4, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi does not explicitly teach wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user and sensor data representing movement of either one of two ankles of the user.
As to “the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user,” Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user ([0040]-[0042], [0047], [0081]) describes calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on a head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movement in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, wherein an acceleration sensor is worn on the head and the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from the acceleration sensor worn on the head, and this would provide an important measure for evaluating whether or not a subject may maintain normal daily life.
As to, “sensor data representing movement of either one of two ankles of the user,” Sakai teaches in [0060] regarding using ankle joint angles and moment data to ascertain walking motion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sakai regarding movement of either one of two ankles in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, and this would accurately improve the walking movement of a subject with a simple configuration.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung and Ronchi et al. (US 2015/201868 A1, “Ronchi”).
Regarding Claim 7, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi does not explicitly teach wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user and sensor data representing movement of either one of two fore arm of the user.
As to “the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user,” Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user ([0040]-[0042], [0047], [0081]) describes calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on a head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movement in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, wherein an acceleration sensor is worn on the head and the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from the acceleration sensor worn on the head, and this would provide an important measure for evaluating whether or not a subject may maintain normal daily life.
As to, “the sensor data representing movement of either one of two fore arm of the user,” Ronchi teaches an apparatus for monitoring, measuring and/or estimating a force applied to a body or body part of a vertebral mammal wherein the sensor data representing movement of either one of two fore arm of the user ([0031]; [0044]-[0046]) describe calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on an arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ronchi regarding movement of arms in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model based on floor reaction force estimation such that the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from an acceleration sensor worn on an arm which is suitable for monitoring acceleration of the body as a whole.
Regarding Claim 9, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi further teaches wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, sensor data representing movement of either one of two feet of the user ([0032], [0065], [0068] describe attaching IMUs, which are motion measurement devices 1000, to a foot, thigh, and lower leg, and receiving an acceleration and an angular velocity from each IMU).
Fukushi does not explicitly teach wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user, sensor data representing movement of either one of two forearms of the user.
As to “the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user,” Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user ([0040]-[0042], [0047], [0081]) describes calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on a head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movement in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, wherein an acceleration sensor is worn on the head and the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from the acceleration sensor worn on the head, and this would provide an important measure for evaluating whether or not a subject may maintain normal daily life.
As to, “sensor data representing movement of either one of two forearms of the user, and sensor data representing movement of either one of two feet of the user,” Ronchi teaches an apparatus for monitoring, measuring and/or estimating a force applied to a body or body part of a vertebral mammal wherein the sensor data representing movement of either one of two fore arm of the user ([0031]; [0044]-[0046]) describe calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on an arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ronchi regarding movement of arms in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model based on floor reaction force estimation such that the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from an acceleration sensor worn on an arm which is suitable for monitoring acceleration of the body as a whole.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung, Ronchi, and Sakai.
Regarding Claim 8, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi does not explicitly teach wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user, sensor data representing movement of either one of two forearms of the user, and sensor data representing movement of either one of two ankles of the user.
As to, “the sensor data including sensor data representing movement of a head of the user,” Jung teaches a method of detecting a gait parameter through a head part acceleration sensor wherein the trained model is trained and outputs the value of the ground reaction force when input with the sensor data, the sensor data representing movement of a head of the user ([0040]-[0042], [0047], [0081]) describes calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on a head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung regarding head movement in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, wherein an acceleration sensor is worn on the head and the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from the acceleration sensor worn on the head, and this would provide an important measure for evaluating whether or not a subject may maintain normal daily life.
As to, “sensor data representing movement of either one of two forearms of the user,” Ronchi teaches an apparatus for monitoring, measuring and/or estimating a force applied to a body or body part of a vertebral mammal wherein the sensor data representing movement of either one of two fore arm of the user ([0031]; [0044]-[0046]) describe calculating a ground reaction force on the basis of data from an acceleration sensor worn on an arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ronchi regarding movement of arms in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model based on floor reaction force estimation such that the floor reaction force is estimated on the basis of motion data from an acceleration sensor worn on an arm which is suitable for monitoring acceleration of the body as a whole.
As to, “sensor data representing movement of either one of two ankles of the user,” Sakai teaches in [0060] regarding using ankle joint angles and moment data to ascertain walking motion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sakai regarding movement of either one of two ankles in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, and this would accurately improve the walking movement of a subject with a simple configuration.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (JP 2019195633 A, cited by the applicants, “Jung’633”).
Regarding Claim 10, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi does not explicitly teach wherein the trained model is configured to estimate a value of a normalized ground reaction force obtained by normalizing a ground reaction force, and the controller is configured to calculate a calculated value of the ground reaction force by multiplying the value of the normalized ground reaction force by a weight of the user.
However, Jung’633 teaches the trained model is configured to estimate a value of a normalized ground reaction force obtained by normalizing a ground reaction force, and the controller is configured to calculate a calculated value of the ground reaction force by multiplying the value of the normalized ground reaction force by a weight of the user ([0086]-[0088]) describe regarding calculating a ground reaction force from vertical acceleration and user mass (corresponding to the "weight")).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jung’633 in the system of Fukushi to have the trained model since the same technique is used in both arts to acquire body movement information, and this would reduce the risk of injury.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi.
Regarding Claim 11, the information processing system according to claim 1 is taught by Fukushi.
Fukushi does not explicitly teach wherein the trained model is a transformer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Fukushi to arrive at the instant invention. In [0076] Fukushi discloses linear regression, a neural network, and support vector regression as examples of floor reaction force models and indicates that the floor reaction force model is not limited to being one of these types of models. Utilizing the teaching of Fukushi, one of ordinary skill in the art may use a well-known trained model such as a transformer as the floor reaction force model of the invention disclosed in Fukushi. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught in Fukushi.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Berme et al. (US 12,372,547 B1) teaches a force and/or motion measurement system is disclosed herein. In one or more embodiments, the force and/or motion measurement system includes at least one kinematic sensor device configured to detect a position and/or movement of a body portion of a person, the at least one kinematic sensor device being mounted in a floor of a room or in a force measurement assembly; and at least one data processing device operatively coupled to the at least one kinematic sensor device, the at least one data processing device including at least one hardware component storing computer executable instructions, and the at least one data processing device configured to execute the computer executable instructions. The computer executable instructions comprise instructions for determining a position and/or movement of the person based upon output data from the at least one kinematic sensor device [Absrtact].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855