DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/31/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 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 limitation “a first LiDAR sensor (121) configured to collect first scanning data by scanning, on a floor at the side of the walking path (110)” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether “on the floor” defines the location of the first LiDAR sensor or the location of the scanning. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the location of the scanning.
The term “body distortion” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “body distortion” 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 claims 4 and 5, the limitation “a plurality of the LiDAR sensors devices renders the claim indefinite since claim 1 already LiDAR sensors, so it is unclear if the LiDAR sensors in claims 4 and 5 are the same LiDARs in claim 1. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same LiDAR sensors.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Measuring Gait Using a Ground Laser Range Sensor to Pallejà et al. (hereinafter, Pallejà) in view of NPL Lidar-Based Gait Analysis and Activity Recognition in a 4D Surveillance System to Benedek et al. (hereinafter, Benedek).
Regarding claim 1, Pallejà discloses a gait measurement system (100) using LiDARs, the gait measurement system comprising:
a walking path (110) for a measurement subject (10) to walk (volunteers walk “a straight forward trajectory to the laser range sensor” in a large corridor; p. 9142, Sec. 3; p. 9137, FIG. 4);
a LiDAR sensor device (120) installed at a side of the walking path (110) and configured to scan a direction of the walking path (110) (two-dimensional laser range sensor (UTM, Hokuyo UTM-30LX) placed on the floor at the end of the walking path, with its Y axis along the walking direction; p. 9134, Sec. 2.1; p. 9137, FIG. 4); and
a gait analysis part (130) configured to use signals detected by the LiDAR sensor device (120) to analyze a gait of the measurement subject (10) walking on the walking path (110) (portable computer running MatLab (p. 9135) fits the leg positions and applies a step-line model to extract gait parameters; pp. 9138-9142, Secs. 2.3-2.4; pp. 9143-9144, FIGS. 12-13),
wherein the LiDAR sensor device (120) comprises:
a first LiDAR sensor (121) configured to collect first scanning data by scanning, on a floor at the side of the walking path (110), a plane at foot height of the measurement subject (10) walking on the walking path (110) (the UTM “was placed at a height of 100 mm with the scanning plane parallel to the ground (approximately at the height of the ankle)”; p. 9137, Sec. 2.3, FIG. 4); and
(Claim 6) a client terminal (140) on which an application program for outputting an analysis result obtained by the gait analysis part (130) is installed (The UTM is attached to a portable computer, and “the control program was implemented in a MatLab graphical user interface (GUI) taking advantage of its serial port functions and visualization capabilities (p. 9135, Sec. 2.1) and the results are output as plotted gait parameters (pp. 9143-9144, FIGS. 12-13).
Pallejà discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing a second LiDAR sensor (122) configured to collect second scanning data by scanning, at the side of the walking path (110), a plane at knee height of the measurement subject (10) walking on the walking path (110) and a third LiDAR sensor (123) configured to collect third scanning data by scanning, at the side of the walking path (110), a plane at torso height of the measurement subject (10) walking on the walking path (110). Pallejà does acknowledge “only planar information of the position of the legs at the fixed height will be obtained,” and that “multiple laser range sensors at different heights could be used to obtain additional body motion parameters” (p. 9134, Sec. 1).
Benedek teaches LiDAR gait analysis of walking subjects using scan data distributed over the subject’s height, including the leg region, “the lower third segment of the silhouette,” for gait cycles (p. 108, Sec. V; FIG. 13) and the upper body regions (p. 107, Sec. IV-A; FIG. 12). Benedek teaches that a 2D laser range scanner used for gait, citing Pallejà, is limited “due to its 2D nature” (p. 103, Sec. I-A).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify Pallejà, per their own suggestion, to include second and third LiDAR sensors scanning planes at knee and torso height, to capture gait information from the whole body rather than a single plane (Benedek, p. 104, Sec. III; Pallejà, p. 9134, Sec. 1) and Pallejà further teaches that choosing the sensor height “by a trail and error procedure” would have enabled targeting a desired body part (p. 9140).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pallejà further teachings where the gait analysis part is configured to analyze the first scanning data to specify foot positions of the measurement subject (the leg contours in each scan are fit with a circle to estimate “the position of the center of the leg”; pp. 9138-9139, Sec. 2.3, Eqs. 3-14; FIGS. 6, 10). Pallejà further teaches using the foot positions of the measurement subject to analyze at least one selected grom a group of step length, the number of steps, and gait speed. Gait parameters extracted from the leg positions include “the average step width” (p. 9143, FIG. 13-A), “the average body speed in steps per second” (p. 9143, FIG. 13-B), and the gait step (p. 9143, FIG. 12-left) which are extracted from “the relative trajectory and displacement of the legs… the absolute speed of the legs, the average body trajectory” (p. 9144, Sec. 4).
Pallejà does not expressly teach analyzing the second scanning data to specify knee positions and using the knee positions to analyze at least one selected from a group of a distance between knees and knee movement speed, or analyzing the third scanning data to specify a torso position of the measurement subject.
However, in combination of claim 1, Pallejà in view of Benedek, the second and third LiDAR sensors scan planes at knee height and torso height. Pallejà’s position-fitting procedure (pp. 9138-9139, Sec. 2.3, Eqs. 3-14) applied to the second scanning data would specify knee positions. Pallejà’s analysis of “the speed of the legs during the swing phase” (p. 9143, FIG. 12) applied to those knee positions would yield knee movement speed. Likewise, the same position-fitting procedure applied to the third scanning data would specify torso position. Benedek also specifies the position of the walking subject from the LiDAR scan data (p. 103, Sec. II).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to apply Pallejà’s position-fitting and gait-parameter analysis to the second and third scanning data of Benedek to “obtain additional body motion parameters” (Pallejà, p. 9134, Sec. 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallejà in view of Benedek and further in view of NPL Assessing Walking Stability Based on Whole-Body Movement Derived from a Depth-Sensing Camera to Promsri.
Pallejà in view of Benedek teach the gait measurement system of claim 2, but do not expressly disclose wherein the gait analysis part is configured to combine the specified foot positions, knee positions, and torso position of the measurement subject to analyze at least one selected from a group of body distortion and gait instability while the measurement subject is walking.
However, Promsri teaches combining the positions of body parts of a walking subject, including “spine shoulder, spine mid, spine base… hip, knee, angle, and foot” (p. 3, Sec. 2.1), into a whole-body posture matrix (pp. 3-4, Sec. 2.2) where the combined positions are analyzed “to assess the local dynamic stability,” where a greater exponent “reflects the lower individual’s walking stability” (p. 4, Sec. 2.3).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to combine the foot, knee, and torso positions of Pallejà in view of Benedek to analyze walking stability as taught by Promsri, since Promsri teaches that walking stability “has been considered one of the essential aspects when evaluating gait ability” and is relevant to preventing falls (Promsri, p. 1, Sec. 1).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallejà in view of Benedek and further in view of NPL The validity of spatiotemporal gait analysis using dual laser range sensors: a cross-sectional study to Iwai et al. (hereinafter, Iwai).
Pallejà in view of Benedek teach the gait measurement system of claim 1, but dot not expressly 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), wherein a plurality of the LiDAR sensor devices (120) are arranged to face each other across the walking path (110).
However, Iwai teaches a plurality of laser range sensor devices installed at intervals of a predetermined distance on the floor at the side of the walking path, where “two devices were installed at opposite ends of a five-meter walking path” (Methods; FIG. 1b), where the devices are arranged to face each other across the walking path, “radiating from both sides” of the walking subject (Methods; FIG. 1c).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to provide a plurality of LiDAR sensor devices of Pallejà in view of Benedek, to be at a predetermined distance and face each other across a walking path as set forth in Iwai, because “measurement(s) using a single laser sensor can only be used for short-range gait measurements,” and dual sensors enable long-range gait measurement (Iwai, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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 P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
