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 .
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 5-7 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 5, the phrase “each piece of the measurement gait data” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a the feature amount vectors” in line 3 is unclear, and “the feature amount vectors” (plural) lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a feature amount vector” (singular). The same issue applies to the phrase “the measurement dataset vectors” in lines 6-7, and to the phrase “the response variables” in lines 10 and 24.
Further regarding claim 6, the phrase “the plurality of pieces of the measurement gait data” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 6, the phrase “the pseudo feature amount vectors calculated from the plurality of pieces of the pseudo gait data” in lines 13-14 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 6, the phrase “the plurality of pseudo feature amount vectors” in lines 14-15 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 6, the phrase “each of the pseudo variance vectors” (plural) in lines 19-20 lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites generating “a pseudo variance vector” (singular).
Further regarding claim 6, the phrase “the pseudo response variable relevant to the pseudo gait data” in line 22 lacks proper antecedent basis.
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?
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… – previously cited), Hu et al. (Deep Generative Models… – previously cited), Khokhlova et al. (Kinematic Covariance… – previously cited), Lopez-Nava et al. (Gait Activity Classification… – previously cited), Renani et al. (The Use of Synthetic IMU Signals… – previously cited), Tran et al. (Multi-Model Long Short-Term Memory Network… – previously cited), and Tran et al. (Data Augmentation for Inertial Sensor-Based… – previously cited) 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.
Claims 1-4, 13, and 14 are allowed.
The following suggested amendments to claim 5 would put the claim in condition for allowance:
5. The data generation device according to claim 1, wherein the first processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
extract at least one feature amount from the measurement gait data derived using the sensor data for each of a plurality of gait cycles of the user;
generate the feature amount vector [for each piece of the measurement gait data] using the at least one feature amount extracted from the measurement gait data [for each gait cycle, of the plurality of gait cycles], and
add the response variable relevant to the measurement gait data to an end of the generated feature amount vector [generated for each piece of the measurement gait data] to generate the measurement dataset vector [for each piece of the measurement gait data].
The Examiner has no suggestions at this time for amendments to claim 6 that would put the claim in condition for allowance.
The Examiner suggests amending claim 7 to replace the phrase “the generated dataset” with the phrase - - the output dataset - - in order to put the claim in condition for allowance.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that line 7 of the claim would need to be amended to replace the phrase “a dataset output” with the phrase - - the dataset output - - to put the claim in condition for allowance.
Regarding claims 9-12 and 15, it is noted that the claims would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being drawn to an Abstract Idea (estimating a physical condition of a user in accordance with a response variable output from an estimation model is a process that can be performed mentally). The cancellation of claims 9-12 and 15 would aid in putting the application as a whole in condition for allowance. Furthermore, claims 11 and 12 recite limitations that would be rejected for a lack of proper antecedent basis (“the response variable relating to an identification number” in claim 11; “the reception means” in claim 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 2026 have been fully considered.
While the amendments to the claims have overcome most of the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as noted in paragraph 3 above, indefiniteness issues remain in claims 5-7.
Conclusion
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 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