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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 13, and 14, in the reply filed on 10 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the first processor is configured to execute the instructions to” in each claim should be amended to include a colon after the phrase “instructions to”; the extra space between the “o” and “f” in line 19 of claim 6 should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the dataset” in the second to last line lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is requested as to what dataset the phrase is referring.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the “a plurality of pieces of the pair data” recited in the claim is the same as or different than the “a plurality of pieces of the pair data” recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase in claim 2 is being interpreted as “the plurality of pieces of the pair data”. The same indefiniteness issue and interpretation apply to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the pseudo feature amounts” (plural) lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a pseudo feature amount” (singular).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the feature amounts” (plural) lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recite “a feature amount” (singular). The phrases “each gait cycle” and “each piece of the measurement gait data” also lack proper antecedent basis. Further regarding claim 5, the phrase “the response variable associated with the measurement gait data” lacks proper antecedent basis as claim 1 recites that the response variable is “relevant to” the measurement gait data.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the feature amount vectors” (plural) in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a feature amount vector” (singular). The same issue applies to the phrase “the measurement data vectors” in lines 7-8, and to the phrase “the response variables” in lines 11 and 23. The phrase “a plurality of pieces of the pair data” in lines 11-12 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear if the phrase is referring back to the “a plurality of pieces of the pair data” recited in claim 1. The phrase “the average vector of the feature amount” in line 13 lacks proper antecedent basis. The phrase “a plurality of pieces of the pseudo gait data” in lines 14-15 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear if the phrase is referring back to the “a plurality of pieces of the pseudo gait data” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim. The phrase “the pseudo response variable relevant to the pseudo gait data” in line 21 lacks proper antecedent basis. Further regarding claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “integrate a column at an end of the upper triangular matrix to each of a plurality of the generated pseudo variance vectors”. Clarification is requested as to what it means to integrate a column of a matrix “to each of a plurality of vectors”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the generated dataset” lacks proper antecedent basis. Is the phrase referring to the generated measurement dataset vector, the generated pseudo gait data, the generated pseudo dataset vector, or a combination thereof?
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the covariance matrix relating to the pseudo feature amount vector” in lines 12-13 lacks proper antecedent basis. The same indefiniteness issue applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 14, the phrases “processing of acquiring”, “processing of generating”, processing of generating”, “processing of generating”, “processing of generating”, and “processing of outputting” are not understood. The phrases are being interpreted as “a process of acquiring”, “a process of generating”, “a process of generating”, “a process of generating”, “a process of generating”, and “a process of outputting”, respectively.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of Charalambous et al. (A data augmentation methodology…), Hu et al. (Deep Generative Models…), Khokhlova et al. (Kinematic Covariance…), Lopez-Nava et al. (Gait Activity Classification…), Renani et al. (The Use of Synthetic IMU Signals…), Tran et al. (Multi-Model Long Short-Term Memory Network…), and Tran et al. (Data Augmentation for Inertial Sensor-Based… – cited by Applicant) teach a data generation method that includes acquiring pair data by combining measurement gait data relating to sensor data measured in accordance with the movement of a user’s feet and a response variable relevant to the measurement gait data, and generating pseudo gait data using the measurement gait data. Each of the references discusses in detail a method for generating pseudo gait data from measurement gait data, with some references teaching adding fluctuation and/or noise to a plurality of pieces of the measurement gait data to generate a plurality of pieces of the pseudo gait data.
The following is a statement of reasons for the lack of prior art rejections:
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a data generating device comprising a first processor configured to generate a pseudo dataset vector by combining a pseudo feature amount vector calculated using a pseudo feature amount extracted from pseudo gait data and a pseudo response variable generated using a covariance matrix relating to the pseudo feature amount vector, in combination with the other claimed functions.
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a data generating method comprising generating a pseudo dataset vector by combining a pseudo feature amount vector calculated using a pseudo feature amount extracted from pseudo gait data and a pseudo response variable generated using a covariance matrix relating to the pseudo feature amount vector, in combination with the other claimed steps.
Regarding claim 14, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program causing a computer to: generate a pseudo dataset vector by combining a pseudo feature amount vector calculated using a pseudo feature amount extracted from pseudo gait data and a pseudo response variable generated using a covariance matrix relating to the pseudo feature amount vector, in combination with the other claimed functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights