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 claims 1-6, 9, and 10 in the reply filed on 13 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.
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 9 and 10 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.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “a coordination system” in lines 6-7 and 9, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the same “coordination system” as mentioned in line 4 of claim 9 and line 6 of claim 10. Clarification is requested.
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 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of structural elements, including a memory. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of
determine a mounting direction of the sensor using the acquired sensor data;
convert a coordinate system of the sensor data in accordance with the determined mounting direction of the sensor;
detect a walking event from time-series data of the sensor data in which the coordinate system has been converted; and
calculate a gait parameter in accordance with the detected walking event
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites transmitting the calculated gait parameter, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The transmitting of the calculated gait parameter does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the transmitted calculated gait parameter, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional step of: acquiring sensor data measured by a sensor mounted on footwear.
The acquiring step is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics (see [0072] of Ross ‘679 (US Pub No. 2015/0257679)). Further, the acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea (see [0072] of Ross ‘679 (US Pub No. 2015/0257679)). The recited sensor on a footwear is a generic sensor configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, the memory is configured to perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and the processor is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claims 9 and 10.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 2-6 recite additional steps that add to the Abstract Idea as the claims recite mental processing steps and/or mathematical processes. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenichiro et al. ‘689 (International Pub No. 2021/084689 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kenichiro et al. ‘689 teaches a gait measurement device (Abstract), comprising:
a memory storing instructions (Fig. 2 storage unit 290 and [0026]); and
a processor (Fig. 2 control unit 290 and [0026]) connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire sensor data measured by a sensor mounted on footwear (Fig. 2 acquisition unit 291 and [0026]);
determine a mounting direction of the sensor using the acquired sensor data (Fig. 6 and [0047]; “attached in an appropriate direction”);
convert a coordinate system of the sensor data in accordance with the determined mounting direction of the sensor ([0053]; “set coordinates for interpreting the sensing data according to the mounting state of the sensor device 100”);
detect a walking event from time-series data of the sensor data in which the coordinate system has been converted ([0038]; “walking calculated by the calculation unit 292” [0054]-[0055]);
calculate a gait parameter in accordance with the detected walking event (Fig. 2 calculation unit 292 and [0045]; “deviation in the left-right direction of the trajectory of the foot”); and
transmit the calculated gait parameter ([0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Kenichiro et al. ‘689 teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
determine that a first surface of the sensor is mounted upward when a vertical- axial acceleration in a vertical direction with respect to the first surface of the sensor exceeds a value obtained by adding a first threshold value to a gravitational acceleration,
determine that the first surface of the sensor is mounted downward when the vertical-axial acceleration falls below a negative value of the value obtained by adding the first threshold value to the gravitational acceleration, and
determine that the sensor is mounted such that an axial direction in which an absolute value of an acceleration indicates a maximum value is directed in a traveling direction with regard to a front-back axial direction and a right-left axial direction orthogonal to the vertical direction, and
convert a local coordinate system of the sensor to coincide with a local coordinate system in a first mounting direction in accordance with the determined mounting direction of the sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Kenichiro et al. ‘689 teaches a gait measurement method (Abstract) for allowing a computer to:
acquire sensor data measured by a sensor mounted on footwear (Fig. 2 acquisition unit 291 and [0026]);
determine a mounting direction of the sensor using the acquired sensor data (Fig. 6 and [0047]; “attached in an appropriate direction”);
convert a coordinate system of the sensor data in accordance with the determined mounting direction of the sensor ([0053]; “set coordinates for interpreting the sensing data according to the mounting state of the sensor device 100”);
detect a walking event from time-series data of the sensor data in which the coordinate system has been converted ([0038]; “walking calculated by the calculation unit 292” [0054]-[0055]);
calculate a gait parameter in accordance with the detected walking event (Fig. 2 calculation unit 292 and [0045]; “deviation in the left-right direction of the trajectory of the foot”); and
transmit the calculated gait parameter ([0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Kenichiro et al. ‘689 teaches a non-transitory recording medium recording a program for allowing a computer (Abstract) to execute:
processing of acquiring sensor data measured by a sensor mounted on footwear (Fig. 2 acquisition unit 291 and [0026]);
processing of determining a mounting direction of the sensor using the acquired sensor data (Fig. 6 and [0047]; “attached in an appropriate direction”);
processing of converting a coordinate system of the sensor data in accordance with the determined mounting direction of the sensor ([0053]; “set coordinates for interpreting the sensing data according to the mounting state of the sensor device 100”);
processing of detecting a walking event from time-series data of the sensor data in which the coordinate system has been converted ([0038]; “walking calculated by the calculation unit 292” [0054]-[0055]);
processing of calculating a gait parameter in accordance with the detected walking event (Fig. 2 calculation unit 292 and [0045]; “deviation in the left-right direction of the trajectory of the foot”); and
processing of transmitting the calculated gait parameter ([0045]-[0046]).
Examiner’s Note
Although it was found that Ly et al. ‘161 (US Pub No. 2019/0374161) teaches determining the orientation of a sensor, Ly et al. ‘161 does not teach determining the orientation based on an absolute value of the acceleration indicates a maximum value directed in a traveling direction (claim 2), determining a traveling direction in accordance with a ration of a maximum value of an absolute value of an acceleration signal (claim 3), and using a conversion formula as mentioned in claims 4-6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights