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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 3/11/2026. The amendments filed on 3/11/2026 are entered.
The previous rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s remarks/amendments.
The previous rejections of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s remarks/amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“gait analysis part” in claims 1-2 and 6-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2 and 4-8 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.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It renders the scope of the claimed non-linear area width of about 20 cm to about 60 cm unclear because one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine what other nearby widths would fall within the scope of the claimed range. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “thereby specifying coordinates of the foot positions and the foot angles with high accuracy” and it is unclear as to the scope of “high accuracy”. The term “high accuracy” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high accuracy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “which enables intuitive user understanding” and it is unclear as to what scope the score or graph limitation would be limited to in order to provide “intuitive user understanding”. It is unclear as to whether a particular user interface display must be produced or whether any user interface would be sufficient to teach to the intended result of user display. This renders the scope of the claim unclear and indefinite.
The term “about” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It renders the scope of the claimed non-linear area width of about 20 cm to about 60 cm unclear because one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine what other nearby widths would fall within the scope of the claimed range. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness.
Claims dependent upon rejected claims are also rejected for indefiniteness. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 5, and 8 are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek, C., et al., (“Lidar-based Gait Analysis and Activity Recognition in a 4D Surveillance System,” IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. Vol 28(1), 2016. P. 1-13) hereinafter Benedek (see attached NPL reference of the office action of 6/03/2025 for citations), in view of Nitschke, M., et al., (“Change the direction: 3D optimal control simulation by directly tracking marker and ground reaction force data,” PeerJ. Vol 11, 2023. P. 1-21) hereinafter Nitschke (see attached NPL reference for citations), in further view of Yoo (U.S. Pub. No. 20230241483) hereinafter Yoo, in further in view of Sternitzke et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220331028) hereinafter Sternitzke, in further view of Chang, M., et al., (“The parameters of gait analysis related to ambulatory and balance functions in hemiplegic stroke patients: a gait analysis study,” BMC Neurology. Vol 21(38), 2021. P. 1-8) hereinafter Chang (see attached NPL reference for citations).
Regarding claim 1, primary reference Benedek teaches:
A gait measurement system (100) using a LiDAR adjacent to a floor (abstract), the gait measurement system comprising:
a walking path (110) for a measurement subject (10) to walk (pages 3-4, figure 1, the walking region in which subjects walk and LiDAR sensing occurs, forms a teaching to a walking path for a measurement subject to walk, II. LIDAR BASED SURVEILLANCE FRAMEWORK; pages 4-7, III. LIDAR BASED GAIT ANALYSIS, as shown in figures 2-6, a walking path is provided for a measurement subject or subjects to walk within for measurement by the LiDAR device);
a LiDAR sensor device (120) installed on the floor at a side of the walking path (110) and configured to scan the walking path (110), wherein a scanning area covers the entirety of the walking path (110), (page 3, col 1, RMB Lidar sensor forms the LiDAR sensor device installed as in figure 1, on the floor adjacent to a walking region (walking path) in which measured subjects walk and walking gaits are determined; pages 4-7, III. LIDAR BASED GAIT ANALYSIS); and
a gait analysis part (130) comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the gait analysis part to (pages 4-7, III. LIDAR BASED GAIT ANALYSIS; see also pages 9-11, EXPERIMENTS AND DISCUSSION, for further details regarding gait analysis by the measurement subjects walking on the walking area; see figures 1-13; The limitation of “gait analysis part” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to correspond to the structure of a computer or general-purpose processor and algorithm as disclosed on pages 8-10 and 16-18 of the applicant’s specification. This is taught by the computer processing system and associated algorithm as taught by Benedek in the cited portions above).
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
wherein a walking direction or course is marked by an arrow, or by a non-linear area extending in a longitudinal direction of the walking path (110), the non-linear area having a width ranging from about 20 to about 60 cm;
However, the analogous art of Nitschke of a tracking system for use in skeletal model estimations of human motion (abstract) teaches:
wherein a walking direction or course is marked by an arrow, or by a non-linear area extending in a longitudinal direction of the walking path (110), the non-linear area having a width ranging from about 20 to about 60 cm (page 5, Methods, Experimental Data, the path is indicated with crepe tape on the floor, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to represent a non-linear area marking a walking direction being about 20 to about 60 cm in light of the 112(b) rejection above);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek to incorporate the crepe tape with a width and non-linear curved trajectory as taught by Nitschke because it provides a well-defined and visible path for tacking a person’s movement over time in the measurement zone (Nitschke, page 5, Methods, Experimental Data). This leads to higher quality in reproducing movement patterns, leading to better diagnostics of a patient over time.
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
Wherein the LiDAR sensor device (120) generates scanning data by scanning, with lasers, a plane parallel to the floor at a height of 3 cm to 10 cm above the floor
However, the analogous art of Yoo of a LiDAR sensor for tracking a user motion over time (abstract) teaches:
Wherein the LiDAR sensor device (120) generates scanning data by scanning, with lasers, a plane parallel to the floor at a height of 3 cm to 10 cm above the floor ([0072], 5 cm above the ground to detect a position of the user’s foot is within the claimed range and acquired foot “cross-section” data, see 112(a) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek and Nitschke to incorporate the scan plane parallel to the ground at about 5 cm as taught by Yoo because it provides detection of the presence and position of a user’s foot within the scan range region of interest (Yoo, [0072]). By focusing only on the ground level 5 cm plane, other sources of movement noise can be reduced leading to higher quality foot data.
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
Recognize foot positions and foot angles of the measurement subject (10) from the scanning data generated by the LiDAR sensor device (120); and
Analyze, based on changes in the foot positions and foot angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance
However, the analogous art of Sternitzke of a system and method for capturing a movement sequence of a person (abstract) teaches:
Recognize foot positions and foot angles of the measurement subject (10) fromt the scanning data generated by the LiDAR sensor device (120) ([0333]-[0338], using LIDAR 1 for gait pattern analysis of a user, step length, step speed and number and step width of steps over time teach to each of the analyzed characteristics in gait analysis for fall risk analysis. [0337], with the skeleton points relative to the foot position, the “angles” of the skeleton points form a recognition of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “foot angles” as claimed; [0357]-[0362], step length analysis; [0364]-[0368], step length determination; [0376]-[0378], step width; [0560]-[0572], step length, speed, and step number calculations in gait/fall analysis); and
Analyze, based on changes in the foot positions and foot angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance ([0333]-[0338], using LIDAR 1 for gait pattern analysis of a user, step length, step speed and number and step width of steps over time teach to each of the analyzed characteristics in gait analysis for fall risk analysis. [0337], with the skeleton points relative to the foot position, the “angles” of the skeleton points form a recognition of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “foot angles” as claimed; [0357]-[0362], step length analysis; [0364]-[0368], step length determination; [0376]-[0378], step width; [0560]-[0572], step length, speed, and step number calculations in gait/fall analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, and Yoo to incorporate the gait analysis of foot position and relative angles to other skeleton points by using step length, speed, or multiple steps as taught by Sternitzke because the use of individual and/or multiple classification features enable the ability to extract characteristics and patterns from a user’s gait to make predictions about subject stability or fall risk (Sternitzke, [0331]-[0338]).
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
recognize foot positions and toe-out angles (foot angles indicative of an out-toed gait) of the measurement subject (10)
analyze, based on changes in the foot positions and the toe-out angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance, wherein the left-right gait balance is analyzed based on positions of a left foot and a right foot and respective step distances of the left foot and the right foot.
However, the analogous art of Chang of a gait analysis study for patient diagnosis (abstract) teaches:
recognize foot positions and toe-out angles (foot angles indicative of an out-toed gait) of the measurement subject (10) (pages 2-5, Methods, Results, Discussion, as depicted in table 2, gait angle forms a temporo-spatial parameter of gait including foot positions during a gait cycle, linear regressions were performed including the berg balance scale based upon the gait parameters and determining overall gait function); and
analyze, based on changes in the foot positions and the toe-out angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance, wherein the left-right gait balance is analyzed based on positions of a left foot and a right foot and respective step distances of the left foot and the right foot (pages 2-5, Methods, Results, Discussion, as depicted in table 2, gait angle forms a temporo-spatial parameter of gait including foot positions during a gait cycle, linear regressions were performed including the berg balance scale based upon the gait parameters and determining overall gait function. As the gait parameters are calculated, the balance is based upon both left and right foot positions during movement, and step distances as defined by step length, step width and stride length parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, and Sternitzke to incorporate the toe-out angle calculation and use in the determination of gait parameters including a gait balance detection as taught by Chang because gait analysis provides quantitative data that leads to particular diagnostic benefits in assessing a patient’s health or presence of impairments (Chang, pages 1-2, Background). This leads to faster and more robust clinical diagnostics, and improved patient outcomes.
Regarding claim 6, the combined references of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Benedek further teaches:
further comprising a client terminal (140) on which an application program for outputting an analysis result obtained by the gait analysis part (130) is installed (pages 4-7, III. LIDAR BASED GAIT ANALYSIS; page 8, 4D SCENE VISUALIZATION, and pages 9-11, EXPERIMENTS AND DISCUSSION, provide for output of the analysis results from the gait analysis system in a variety of computer graphical user interfaces outputs (client terminal for visual output) such as a 4D reconstructed scene, and biometric pedestrian identification; see figures 1, 5, 17-19).
Primary reference Benedek further fails to teach:
wherein the analysis result is processed into a form of a score or graph which enables intuitive user understanding.
However, the analogous art of Chang of a gait analysis study for patient diagnosis (abstract) teaches:
wherein the analysis result is processed into a form of a score or graph which enables intuitive user understanding (pages 2-5, Methods, Results, Discussion, as depicted in table 2, gait angle forms a temporo-spatial parameter of gait including foot positions during a gait cycle, linear regressions were performed including the berg balance scale based upon the gait parameters and determining overall gait function. As depicted in figures 1 and 2, the outputs are produced in the form of both scores and graphs which provide additional clinical insights into the output data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang to incorporate the score and graph production as taught by Chang because gait analysis provides quantitative data that leads to particular diagnostic benefits in assessing a patient’s health or presence of impairments (Chang, pages 1-2, Background). This leads to faster and more robust clinical diagnostics, and improved patient outcomes.
Regarding claim 7, primary reference Benedek teaches:
A gait measurement method using a LiDAR adjacent to a floor (abstract) to
Measure a gait of a measurement subject (10) walking on a walking path (110) (pages 3-4, figure 1, the walking region in which subjects walk and LiDAR sensing occurs, forms a teaching to a walking path for a measurement subject to walk, II. LIDAR BASED SURVEILLANCE FRAMEWORK; pages 4-7, III. LIDAR BASED GAIT ANALYSIS, as shown in figures 2-6, a walking path is provided for a measurement subject or subjects to walk within for measurement by the LiDAR device);
The gait measurement method comprising:
Collecting scanning data obtained by a LiDAR sensor device (120) installed on the floor at a side of the walking path (110), wherein a scanning area covers the entirety of the walking path (110), (page 3, col 1, RMB Lidar sensor forms the LiDAR sensor device installed as in figure 1, on the floor adjacent to a walking region (walking path) in which measured subjects walk and walking gaits are determined; pages 4-7, III. LIDAR BASED GAIT ANALYSIS); and
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
wherein a walking direction or course is marked by an arrow, or by a non-linear area extending in a longitudinal direction of the walking path (110), the non-linear area having a width ranging from about 20 to about 60 cm;
However, the analogous art of Nitschke of a tracking system for use in skeletal model estimations of human motion (abstract) teaches:
wherein a walking direction or course is marked by an arrow, or by a non-linear area extending in a longitudinal direction of the walking path (110), the non-linear area having a width ranging from about 20 to about 60 cm (page 5, Methods, Experimental Data, the path is indicated with crepe tape on the floor, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to represent a non-linear area marking a walking direction being about 20 to about 60 cm in light of the 112(b) rejection above);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek to incorporate the crepe tape with a width and non-linear curved trajectory as taught by Nitschke because it provides a well-defined and visible path for tacking a person’s movement over time in the measurement zone (Nitschke, page 5, Methods, Experimental Data). This leads to higher quality in reproducing movement patterns, leading to better diagnostics of a patient over time.
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
Wherein the scanning data is generated by scanning, with lasers, a plane parallel to the floor at a height of 3 cm to 10 cm above the floor
However, the analogous art of Yoo of a LiDAR sensor for tracking a user motion over time (abstract) teaches:
Wherein the scanning data is generated by scanning, with lasers, a plane parallel to the floor at a height of 3 cm to 10 cm above the floor ([0072], 5 cm above the ground to detect a position of the user’s foot is within the claimed range and acquired foot “cross-section” data, see 112(a) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek and Nitschke to incorporate the scan plane parallel to the ground at about 5 cm as taught by Yoo because it provides detection of the presence and position of a user’s foot within the scan range region of interest (Yoo, [0072]). By focusing only on the ground level 5 cm plane, other sources of movement noise can be reduced leading to higher quality foot data.
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
Recognizing foot positions and foot angles of the measurement subject (10) from the scanning data generated by the LiDAR sensor device (120); and
Analyzing, based on changes in the foot positions and foot angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance
However, the analogous art of Sternitzke of a system and method for capturing a movement sequence of a person (abstract) teaches:
Recognizing foot positions and foot angles of the measurement subject (10) fromt the scanning data generated by the LiDAR sensor device (120) ([0333]-[0338], using LIDAR 1 for gait pattern analysis of a user, step length, step speed and number and step width of steps over time teach to each of the analyzed characteristics in gait analysis for fall risk analysis. [0337], with the skeleton points relative to the foot position, the “angles” of the skeleton points form a recognition of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “foot angles” as claimed; [0357]-[0362], step length analysis; [0364]-[0368], step length determination; [0376]-[0378], step width; [0560]-[0572], step length, speed, and step number calculations in gait/fall analysis); and
Analyzing, based on changes in the foot positions and foot angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance ([0333]-[0338], using LIDAR 1 for gait pattern analysis of a user, step length, step speed and number and step width of steps over time teach to each of the analyzed characteristics in gait analysis for fall risk analysis. [0337], with the skeleton points relative to the foot position, the “angles” of the skeleton points form a recognition of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “foot angles” as claimed; [0357]-[0362], step length analysis; [0364]-[0368], step length determination; [0376]-[0378], step width; [0560]-[0572], step length, speed, and step number calculations in gait/fall analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, and Yoo to incorporate the gait analysis of foot position and relative angles to other skeleton points by using step length, speed, or multiple steps as taught by Sternitzke because the use of individual and/or multiple classification features enable the ability to extract characteristics and patterns from a user’s gait to make predictions about subject stability or fall risk (Sternitzke, [0331]-[0338]).
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
recognizing foot positions and toe-out angles (foot angles indicative of an out-toed gait) of the measurement subject (10)
Analyzing, based on changes in the foot positions and the toe-out angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance, wherein the left-right gait balance is analyzed based on positions of a left foot and a right foot and respective step distances of the left foot and the right foot.
However, the analogous art of Chang of a gait analysis study for patient diagnosis (abstract) teaches:
recognizing foot positions and toe-out angles (foot angles indicative of an out-toed gait) of the measurement subject (10) (pages 2-5, Methods, Results, Discussion, as depicted in table 2, gait angle forms a temporo-spatial parameter of gait including foot positions during a gait cycle, linear regressions were performed including the berg balance scale based upon the gait parameters and determining overall gait function); and
Analyzing, based on changes in the foot positions and the toe-out angles, at least one selected from a group consisting of step length, number of steps, gait speed, and left-right gait balance, wherein the left-right gait balance is analyzed based on positions of a left foot and a right foot and respective step distances of the left foot and the right foot (pages 2-5, Methods, Results, Discussion, as depicted in table 2, gait angle forms a temporo-spatial parameter of gait including foot positions during a gait cycle, linear regressions were performed including the berg balance scale based upon the gait parameters and determining overall gait function. As the gait parameters are calculated, the balance is based upon both left and right foot positions during movement, and step distances as defined by step length, step width and stride length parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, and Sternitzke to incorporate the toe-out angle calculation and use in the determination of gait parameters including a gait balance detection as taught by Chang because gait analysis provides quantitative data that leads to particular diagnostic benefits in assessing a patient’s health or presence of impairments (Chang, pages 1-2, Background). This leads to faster and more robust clinical diagnostics, and improved patient outcomes.
Regarding claim 8, the combined references of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Primary reference Benedek further teaches:
After the analyzing, providing the analysis result to a client terminal (140) on which an application program for outputting the analysis result is installed, (pages 4-7, III. LIDAR BASED GAIT ANALYSIS; page 8, 4D SCENE VISUALIZATION, and pages 9-11, EXPERIMENTS AND DISCUSSION, provide for output of the analysis results from the gait analysis system in a variety of computer graphical user interfaces outputs (client terminal for visual output) such as a 4D reconstructed scene, and biometric pedestrian identification; see figures 1, 5, 17-19)
Primary reference Benedek further fails to teach:
wherein the analysis result is processed into a form of a score or graph
However, the analogous art of Chang of a gait analysis study for patient diagnosis (abstract) teaches:
wherein the analysis result is processed into a form of a score or graph (pages 2-5, Methods, Results, Discussion, as depicted in table 2, gait angle forms a temporo-spatial parameter of gait including foot positions during a gait cycle, linear regressions were performed including the berg balance scale based upon the gait parameters and determining overall gait function. As depicted in figures 1 and 2, the outputs are produced in the form of both scores and graphs which provide additional clinical insights into the output data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang to incorporate the score or graph generation as taught by Chang because gait analysis provides quantitative data that leads to particular diagnostic benefits in assessing a patient’s health or presence of impairments (Chang, pages 1-2, Background). This leads to faster and more robust clinical diagnostics, and improved patient outcomes.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek, in view of Nitschke, in further view of Yoo, in further in view of Sternitzke, in further view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20240108235) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 2, the combined references of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Benedek further fails to teach:
wherein the gait analysis part (130) is further configured to predict a type of disease by inputting the step length, number of steps, gait speed, left-right gait balance, and foot angles into a trained artificial intelligence
However, the analogous art of Sternitzke of a system and method for capturing a movement sequence of a person (abstract) teaches:
wherein the gait analysis part (130) is further configured to predict a type of disease by inputting the step length, number of steps, gait speed, left-right gait balance, and foot angles into a trained artificial intelligence ([0688], “the outputted movement corrections (e.g. straightening the upper body, placing the forearm crutches differently), and/or the classified movement patterns over time (such as the angles between limbs, step length, track width, etc.) for the captured persons are all joined together with the aim of evaluating the data. For this purpose, common join commands for a database can be used, for example, provided that the data is stored in a database in the memory 10. The joining can be performed, for example, for each recorded exercise. This data is stored in the memory 10, which is located either in the service robot 17 or in the cloud 18. Based on the acquired data, a prediction of movement patterns based on the training plan configuration, patient data, and/or movement correction is made (step 4350). This way, it is possible to determine, for example, which parameters for a training plan configuration can be achieved for certain patient types (age, etc.) and which movement corrections can be used to achieve a movement pattern for a patient that meets certain requirements (e.g. that is especially fluid, especially close to producing the normal gait pattern, etc.). The movement patterns can be classified, in one aspect, e.g. as a “normal” movement pattern vs. a disease-related movement pattern. The prediction of movement patterns is achieved by machine learning algorithms. For example, a structural equation model can be used, e.g. from the semopy toolkit for Python or a regression model based on scikit-learn for Python. In one aspect, neural networks can also be used here.”. Gait pattern and step length in combination with teachings of [0333]-[0338], teach to the at least one analysis selection of a obtained gait parameters)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang to incorporate the disease prediction based on a gait analysis as taught by Sternitzke because it can provide increased insight into the patient’s health status, leading to better customization of treatment plans and improved clinical outcomes (Sternitzke, [0688]).
Primary reference Benedek fails to teach:
wherein transfer learning is used to generate, from an artificial intelligence model pre-trained with a large amount of data, group-specific artificial intelligence models for measurement subjects (10) grouped by at least one of sex and age.
However, the analogous art of Lee of a image-based patient health analysis device (abstract) teaches:
wherein transfer learning is used to generate, from an artificial intelligence model pre-trained with a large amount of data, group-specific artificial intelligence models for measurement subjects (10) grouped by at least one of sex and age ([0133], transfer learning of a model based upon subjects grouped by sex and age).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang to incorporate the transfer learning diagnostic analysis as taught by Lee because it estimates diagnostics information more precisely based upon measurement information of a patient (Lee, [0133]). This leads to higher quality diagnostics and improved patient outcomes.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek, in view of Nitschke, in further view of Yoo, in further in view of Sternitzke, in further view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maldonado et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10873726) hereinafter Maldonado, in further view of Charron et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190117318) hereinafter Charron, in further view of Junio (U.S. Pub. No. 20210321971) hereinafter Junio.
Regarding claim 4, the combined references of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Benedek further fails to teach:
wherein a plurality of the LiDAR sensor devices (120) are installed at intervals of a predetermined distance on the floor at the side of the walking path (110)
However, the analogous art of Maldonado of a sensor system for tracking objects within a three-dimensional space (abstract) teaches:
wherein a plurality of the LiDAR sensor devices (120) are installed at intervals of a predetermined distance on the floor at the side of the walking path (110) (col 12, lines 16-37, depth sensors 120(2) within figure 6, form LiDAR sensor devices (see “lidar systems” in lines 21-22) that are installed at predetermined distances on the side of the path in which a user is located. As in col 11, line 65 through col 12, line 3, the sensors 120 may be mounted “on or within a floor”; see also col 20, lines 37-67, for gait recognition that teaches to Benedek in the combined prior art invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, and Chang to incorporate the intervals of mounted lidar sensors as taught by Maldonado because it provides for a complete sensor coverage within a target environment that enables a mesh of depth/lidar tracking as a subject walks throughout an area (Maldonado, col 11, line 65 through col 12, line 37). This enables the use of the system in a variety of different environments such as store aisles or hallways, providing for enhanced coverage as a person moves about.
Primary reference Benedek further fails to teach:
each LiDAR sensor device (120) having a casing of a shape different from the casing shapes of the other LiDAR sensor devices (120) such that the casing shape of each LiDAR sensor device (120) is recognizable in scanning data of the other LiDAR sensor devices (120) to enable the LiDAR sensor devices (120) to determine inter-sensor positions and distances and to map the scanning data across the plurality of LiDAR sensor devices (120), thereby specifying coordinates of the foot positions and the foot angles with high accuracy,
However, the analogous art of Charron of a imaging sensor with tracking navigation within a medical environment (abstract) teaches:
each tracked sensor device (120) having a casing of a shape different from the casing shapes of the other tracked sensor devices (120) such that the casing shape of each tracked sensor device (120) is recognizable in scanning data of the other tracked sensor devices (120) to enable the tracked sensor devices (120) to determine inter-sensor positions and distances and to map the scanning data across the plurality of tracked sensor devices (120), thereby specifying coordinates of the foot positions and the foot angles with high accuracy, ([0085], “the unit's 3D position and angular orientation relative to the surgical site (e.g. the unit's distance and line-of-sight thereto). Other imaging characteristics may be used in conjunction with the tracking data to identify a particular image target and representation. For example, static and or adjustable optical properties of the unit's primary imaging sensor 560 (e.g. camera) and/or complementary sensors 562 may include relative imaging view angle (e.g. directly extrapolated from an orientation of the unit 505 as a whole or alternatively accessed from an angular disposition of an adjustable camera, see unit 505B of FIG. 5B)”; [0087] “In that respect, the designated shape and mechanical volume of the mobile unit 505 can be used to recognize an orientation and/or distance of the unit 505 relative to the tracking system 213, for instance, given the relative image size and silhouette of the tracked unit which can be used to provide some indication of distance and orientation”. Mobile unit 505 and tracking system 213 both include optical imaging cameras, which teach to a mapping of scanning data across devices based upon the inter-sensor positions and distances; [0088]-[0089]; [0091]-[0098], teach to different shapes being used to identify different tracked elements within the imaged space)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, Chang, and Maldonado to incorporate the tracking of sensors based upon different shapes as taught by Charron because other imaging characteristics may be used in conjunction with the tracking data to identify a particular image target and representation (Charron, [0085]). By tracking sensors across an image space, other imaging objects can be imaged and tracked with higher accuracy.
Primary reference Benedek further fails to teach:
wherein the different casing shapes include at least two shapes selected from a group consisting of a circular shape, a star shape, and a pentagonal shape.
However, the analogous art of Junio of a method of tracking and positioning imaging devices (abstract) teaches:
wherein the different casing shapes include at least two shapes selected from a group consisting of a circular shape, a star shape, and a pentagonal shape ([0045], shapes include one or more shapes and include a circle, star and/or pentagon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, Chang, Maldonado, and Charron to incorporate the circular, star and pentagon shapes as taught by Junio because it provides visual distinctions between trackable elements leading to faster and more efficient tracking of objects within imaged space (Junio, [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, Chang, Maldonado, Charron, and Junio teach all of the limitations of claim 4. Primary reference Benedek further fails to teach:
wherein the LiDAR sensor devices (120) are arranged to face each other across the walking path (110)
However, the analogous art of Maldonado of a sensor system for tracking objects within a three-dimensional space (abstract) teaches:
wherein the LiDAR sensor devices (120) are arranged to face each other across the walking path (110) (col 12, lines 16-37, depth sensors 120(2) within figure 6, form LiDAR sensor devices (see “lidar systems” in lines 21-22) that are installed at predetermined distances on the side of the path facing each other across the walking path. As in col 11, line 65 through col 12, line 3, the sensors 120 may be mounted “on or within a floor”; see also col 20, lines 37-67, for gait recognition that teaches to Benedek in the combined prior art invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR based gait analysis system of Benedek, Nitschke, Yoo, Sternitzke, Chang, Maldonado, Charron, and Junio to incorporate the intervals of mounted lidar sensors facing each other across a path as taught by Maldonado because it provides for a complete sensor coverage within a target environment that enables a mesh of depth/lidar tracking as a subject walks throughout an area (Maldonado, col 11, line 65 through col 12, line 37). This enables the use of the system in a variety of different environments such as store aisles or hallways, providing for enhanced coverage as a person moves about.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoon, S., et al., “Development and Validation of 2D-LiDAR-Based Gait Analysis Instrument and Algorithm,” Sensors. Vol 21, 2021. P. 1-13 teaches to gait analysis tools using LiDAR imaging scenes for processing of foot locations and foot angles during a patient movement period.
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 SEAN A FRITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00-5:30 Second Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SEAN A FRITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights