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 Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 22: –the– should be inserted before “left steps”;
Claim 1, line 24: –the– should be inserted before “right steps”;
Claim 6, lines 15-16: “worn by a user” should be deleted;
Claim 6, line 18: “worn by a user” should be deleted;
Claim 10, line 2: the second instance of “a processor” should be replaced with –the processor–;
Claim 11, line 4: one of the instances of “configured to” should be deleted;
Claim 13, line 4: –a hip joint angle of a right leg” should be replaced with –the joint angle of the right hip joint–;
Claim 13, line 5: “a hip joint angle of a left leg” should be replaced with –the joint angle of the right hip joint–;
Claim 18 should be reformatted to be:
18. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein
the display module is further configured to receive a command from the user to control operation of a motor of the wearable device;
the at least one processor is further configured to generate a control signal corresponding to an operation control command input by the user; and
the communication module is further configured to transmit the generated control signal to the wearable device to control the motor of the wearable device and receive a control result signal from the wearable device.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, p. 50, January 7, 2019), and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 137 p. 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea in the form of a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1]: determine, based on the sensor data, an average step time of left steps of the user and an average step time of right steps of the user, the average step time of the left steps is an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left steps while walking or exercising, the average step time of the right steps is an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right steps while walking or exercising, and the average step time of left steps being determined based on information about the joint angle of the left hip joint and the average step time of right steps being determined based on information about the joint angle of the right hip joint;
[B1]: determine a gait index by determining a gait symmetry index for gait motion of the user based on the average step time of the left steps and the average step time of the right steps;
[C1]: generate, based on the gait index, feedback information that proposes a modification to a gait of the user to improve a walking state of the user while walking or exercising
These elements [A1]-[C1] of claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea because they are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are mere steps that are capable of being mentally performed with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a skilled artisan is capable of reading sensor data, mentally determining left and right step durations, calculating averages of the left and right step durations, calculating a symmetry index by comparing the averages of the left and right step durations, determining how the user should improve their walking state based on the symmetry index.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
[A2]: a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to receive, from a wearable device worn by a user while walking or exercising, sensor data sensed by a sensor of the wearable device while the user is walking or exercising, the sensor data comprising angle information about a joint angle of each of a left hip joint and a right hip joint of the user wearing the wearable device while walking or exercising;
[B2]: at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to…; and
[C2]: a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the feedback information to the user while walking or exercising.
The elements [A2]-[C2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements [A2] and [B2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally or alternatively, the elements [A2] and [C2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea) - See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
[A2]: a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to receive, from a wearable device worn by a user while walking or exercising, sensor data sensed by a sensor of the wearable device while the user is walking or exercising, the sensor data comprising angle information about a joint angle of each of a left hip joint and a right hip joint of the user wearing the wearable device while walking or exercising;
[B2]: at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to…; and
[C2]: a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the feedback information to the user while walking or exercising.
The elements [A2]-[C2] do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Simply reciting the elements [A2] and [B2] do not qualify as significantly more because these elements are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Additionally or alternatively, the elements [A2] and [C2] do not qualify as significantly more because the elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea) - See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The element [A2] is well-understood, routine, and conventional. US 5,919,149 A (Allum) (previously cited) discloses that signals provided by sensors worn by a subject may be provided, via conventional wireless transmission techniques to a remote system processor (Col. 6, lines 17-22). Additionally, a wearable device worn by a user while walking or exercising, sensor data sensed by a sensor of the wearable device while the user is walking or exercising, the sensor data comprising angle information about a joint angle of each of a left hip joint and a right hip joint of the user wearing the wearable device while walking or exercising are taught by US 2015/0366740 A1 (Endo) in ¶¶ [0039], [0040], [0045]; US 2017/0027802 A1 (Samsung) in ¶¶ [0067]-[0071], [0091], [0123] and Fig. 3; US 2016/0106616 A1 (Kim) in ¶ [0023], [0077], wherein the plurality of disclosures indicate the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the element.
The element [C2] is well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, the element is taught by US 2019/0295436 A1 (Rubinstein) in ¶ [0022]; US 2019/0117121 A1 (Kutina) in ¶ [0007]; US 2016/0007885 A1 (Basta) in ¶ [0008], wherein the plurality of disclosures indicate the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the element.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Independent claim 6 recites mirrored method limitations and are not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 7-10 depend from claim 6, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 6. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process) and/or append abstract ideas (that is, the claims only recite limitations that add further mental processes) except for the following limitations.
Claim 10 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform the method”. However, the element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and does not qualify as significantly more because the element is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Claim 11 recites “at least one of a sound output module and a haptic module of the wearable device, wherein the at least one of the sound output module and the haptic module of the wearable device is configured to output the feedback information to the user” in lines 1-5. However, the element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and does not qualify as significantly more because the amounts to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated – See MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US 2020/0093400 A1 (Hamner) which discloses providing sensory feedback to the wearer could be in the form of vibrotactile sensation (e.g., vibration motors), auditory sensation (e.g., speakers), tactile sensation (e.g., skin stretch or band tightening), electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves such as the tibial nerve or other sensory nerves, or other standard forms of haptic feedback in ¶ [0094].
Claim 14 recites “the display module is further configured to output the gait score to the user”. However, the element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and does not qualify as significantly more because the amounts to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated – See MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The element is disclosed by US 2016/0038060 A1 (Kitamura) in ¶ [0123]; US 2017/0273616 A1 (Yang) in ¶ [0012]; and US 2013/0090574 A1 (Kuribayashi), wherein the plurality of disclosures indicate the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the element.
Claim 18 recites “the display module is further configured to receive a command from the user to control operation of a motor of the wearable device; the at least one processor is further configured to generate a control signal corresponding to an operation control command input by the user; and the communication module is further configured to transmit the generated control signal to the wearable device to control the motor of the wearable device and receive a control result signal from the wearable device”. However, the element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and does not qualify as significantly more because the amounts to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception– See MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the generic control of the wearable device appears to be nominally or tangentially related to the determination of the gait index (e.g., there is no relationship between how the motor is controlled and the gait index). The element is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. The element is disclosed in US 2018/0330817 A1 (Avni) in ¶¶ [0236], [0264], [0265] and Fig. 1A; US 2013/0274640 A1 (Butters) in ¶ [0042] and Fig. 4; US 11,096,857 B2 (Murakami) in Col. 21, lines 18-44. Claim 19 recites similar features which are do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and do not qualify as significantly more for substantially similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) (Previously cited) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) (previously cited) and US 2018/0008502 A1 (Asbeck)
With regards to claims 1 and 6, Jang teaches an electronic device (Fig. 6 and ¶ [0114] depict a gait policy updating apparatus 600) and an operation method of an electronic device (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ [0122]-[0123] depict a flowchart that may be performed by the gait policy updating apparatus 600 of Fig. 6) comprising: a communication module, comprising a communication circuitry, configured to receive, from a wearable device worn by a user while walking or exercising, sensor data comprising angle information about a joint angle of each of a left hip joint and a right hip joint of the user wearing the wearable device while walking or exercising (Fig. 6 and ¶¶ [0115]-[0116] depict a communicator 610 comprising circuitry for receiving data from an external device; ¶ [0125] discloses that the communicator 610 may receive measurement values (e.g., measured joint angle) from at least one sensor of the walking assistance device 100 depicted in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶ [0075] discloses that the sensor 120 senses an angle of a right hip joint, an angel of a left hip joint, etc.); at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to (Fig. 6 and ¶ [0117] depict a processor 620; ¶ [0134] discloses the processor 620 evaluates a reward value of state information associated with the motion of the walking assistance device; ¶¶ [0135]-[0136] disclose a gait symmetry between the left leg and the right leg may be calculated as the reward value); wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to: determine, based on the sensor data, a step time of a left step of the user and a step time of a right step of the user (¶¶ [0127], [0135]-[0136] disclose the processor 620 generates a step duration of the left and right steps), and determine a gait symmetry index for gait motion of the user based on a difference between the step time of the left step and the step time of the right step (¶¶ [0135]-[0136] disclose a gait symmetry between the left leg and the right leg being calculated according to a difference between the step durations).
The above combination is silent regarding determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of left steps of the user and an average step time of right steps of the user, the average step time of the left steps is an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left steps while walking or exercising, the average step time of the right steps is an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right steps while walking or exercising, determining a gait index by determining a gait symmetry index based on the average step time of the left steps and the average step time of the right steps, and generate, based on the gait index, feedback information that proposes a modification to a gait of the user to improve a walking state of the user while walking or exercising, a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the feedback information to the user while walking or exercising.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of left steps of the user and an average step time of right steps of the user, the average step time of the left steps is an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left steps while walking or exercising, the average step time of the right steps is an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right steps while walking or exercising (¶¶ [0301], [0317], [0344] disclose calculating a ground contact time; ¶ [0344] discloses a left-right difference ratio which includes an average value of the respective numerical values, which includes the ground contact time; ¶ [0354] discloses an average value of a ground contact time corresponding to several steps), and determining a gait index by determining a gait symmetry index based on the average step time of the left steps and the average step time of the right steps (¶ [0344] discloses determining an left-right difference ratio based on an average of a ground contact time for each side of the body), generate, based on the gait index, feedback information that proposes a modification to a gait of the user to improve a walking state of the user while walking or exercising (¶¶ [0208], [0502] discloses the running analysis is also made with respect to walking; ¶¶ [0296], [0397]-[0399] depict providing advice to the user based on the left-right difference ratio while the user is performing the steps) a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the feedback information to the user while walking or exercising (¶ [0399] discloses providing advice on a display unit 170; ¶ [0290] discloses output information being generated during running, wherein the output information includes advice information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of gait symmetry index of Jang to incorporate that it uses an average step time as taught by Mizuochi. Because both an average step time and a step time are capable of being used for determining a gait symmetry index, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally or alternatively, the motivation would have been to provide an estimation of gait symmetry that accounts for step-to-step variations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified device of to incorporate generating, based on the gait index, feedback information that proposes a modification to a gait of the user to improve a walking state of the user while walking or exercising and a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the feedback information to the user while walking or exercising as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to communicate advice for improving a user’s gait.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the average step time of left steps being determined based on information about the joint angle of the left hip joint and the average step time of right steps being determined based on information about the joint angle of the right hip joint.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining step parameters, Asbeck teaches a step time being determined based on information about the joint angle of a corresponding hip joint (¶ [0176] and Fig. 19A disclose a step time may be measured as a time period between the hip reaching a maximum flexion angle during two subsequent gait cycles). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate, based on the teachings of Asbeck, the a step time being determined based on information about the joint angle of a corresponding hip joint such that the average step time of left steps being determined based on information about the joint angle of the left hip joint and the average step time of right steps being determined based on information about the joint angle of the right hip joint. The motivation would have been to substitute one equivalent method for determining a step time with another to obtain predictable results.
With regards to claims 2 and 7, the above combination teaches or suggests the gait symmetry index is a value indicating how symmetrical a gait corresponding to the right steps of the user and a gait corresponding to the left steps of the user are (¶¶ [0135]-[0136] of Jang indicates the gait symmetry is a value indicating how symmetrical the left and right steps are).
With regards to claims 3 and 8, the above combination teaches or suggests the at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ [0130]-[0133] of Jang depict, in operation 720, detecting a desired event during the current gait cycle, Fig. 9 and ¶¶ [0155]-[0156], [0162] of Jang depict detecting starts and stops of first and second steps (e.g., 830, 832) and a step time (e.g., 940)).
With regards to claim 10, the above combination teaches or suggests a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform the method of claim 6 (¶¶ [0119]-[0120] discloses a non-volatile memory including an instruction set for operating the gait policy updating apparatus 600).
With regards to claim 11, the above combination is silent regarding at least one of a sound output module and a haptic module of the wearable device, wherein the at least one of the sound output module and the haptic module of the wearable device is configured to output the feedback information to the user.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches at least one of a sound output module and a haptic module of the wearable device, wherein the at least one of the sound output module and the haptic module of the wearable device is configured to output the feedback information to the user (¶¶ [0347], [0399] disclose providing advice on using a voice from a sound output unit 180). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate at least one of a sound output module and a haptic module of the wearable device, wherein the at least one of the sound output module and the haptic module of the wearable device is configured to output the feedback information to the user. The motivation would have been to provide additional means for providing the feedback to the user, thereby ensuring that the user will receive the feedback.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) (previously cited) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) (previously cited) and US 2018/0008502 A1 (Asbeck), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0157606 A1 (Kusano) (previously cited)
With regards to claim 4, the above combination teaches or suggests the display module is further configured to output to the user the gait index comprising the gait symmetry index (See the above combination of Jang in view of Mizuochi; ¶ [0347] of Mizuochi discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information)
The above combination is silent regarding whether the display module is configured to output to the user a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user and a step length of one step of the user.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Kusano teaches a display module is configured to output to the user a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user, and a step length of one step of the user (¶ [0053] discloses acquiring data of the walking time, the walking distance, the walking speed, the heart rate, the number of steps, and the step length, and displaying the data on a screen). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display module of the above combination to incorporate that it is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user, and a step length of one step of the user as taught by Kusano. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic picture to the patient.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) (previously cited) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) (previously cited) and US 2018/0008502 A1 (Asbeck), as applied to respective claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2019/0224529 A1 (Jung).
With regards to claims 12 and 15, the above combination is silent regarding whether the feedback information that proposes the modification to the gait of the user comprises a proposal that the user modify at least one of a step length or a stride length of the user.
In a system relevant to the problem of improving a user’s gait, Jung teaches a proposal that the user modify at least one of a step length or a stride length of the user (¶ [0076] discloses a voice coaching which recites “reduce your stride length” or an alarm sound for causing the user to recognize that the stride length is not optimal). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified feedback information of the above combination to incorporate a proposal that the user modify at least one of a step length or a stride length of the user as taught by Jung. The motivation would have been to improve the user’s gait by using more specific feedback.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) (previously cited) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) (previously cited) and US 2018/0008502 A1 (Asbeck), as applied to respective claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2020/0237260 A1 (Hyung).
With regards to claims 13 and 16, the above combination is silent regarding whether the at least one processor is further configured to estimate a left step length of the user and a right step length of the user based on a first hip joint angle value when a hip joint angle of a right leg of the user is at a maximum, a second hip joint angle value when a hip joint angle of a left leg of the user is at a maximum, and a stride length of two steps of the user.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining step parameters, Hyung teaches estimating a left step length of the user and a right step length of the user based on a first hip joint angle value when a hip joint angle of a right leg of the user is at a maximum, a second hip joint angle value when a hip joint angle of a left leg of the user is at a maximum, and a stride length of two steps of the user (¶ [0062] discloses determining a step length based on a maximum angle (L_length_front) and a minimum angle (L_length_rear) of a left hip joint measured by the first encoder 220-1 and a maximum angle (R_length_front) and a minimum angle (R_length_rear) of a right hip joint measured by the second encoder 220-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination the steps of the above combination to incorporate, based on the teachings estimating a left step length of the user and a right step length of the user based on a first hip joint angle value when a hip joint angle of a right leg of the user is at a maximum, a second hip joint angle value when a hip joint angle of a left leg of the user is at a maximum, and a stride length of two steps of the user. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic analysis of the patient.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) (previously cited) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) (previously cited) and US 2018/0008502 A1 (Asbeck), as applied to respective claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2017/0360335 A1 (Washizawa).
With regards to claims 14 and 17, the above combination teaches the display module is further configured to output parameters to the user (¶ [0240] of Mizuochi teaches a display for outputting information).
The above combination is silent regarding whether the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a gait variability index based on at least one of a standard deviation of a stride length of two steps of the user or a standard deviation of a stride time of two steps of the user; and determine a gait score based on the gait symmetry index, the gait variability index, a walking speed of the user, and a walk ratio of the user, the display module is further configured to output the gait score to the user.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining step parameters, Washizawa teaches at least one processor is further configured to: determine a gait variability index based on at least one of a standard deviation of a stride length of two steps of the user or a standard deviation of a stride time of two steps of the user (¶ [0133] discloses determining a variation in stride which is the ratio of a standard deviation of stride to the average); and determine a gait score based on the gait symmetry index, the gait variability index, a walking speed of the user, and a walk ratio of the user (¶ [0133] discloses an index indicating the feature of a behavior when the state is walking include a cadence, a walking cycle, a variation in walking cycle, a stride, a variation in stride, a walking speed, and a foot-to-foot distance). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate, based on the teachings of Washizawa, the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a gait variability index based on at least one of a standard deviation of a stride length of two steps of the user or a standard deviation of a stride time of two steps of the user; and determine a gait score based on the gait symmetry index, the gait variability index, a walking speed of the user, and a walk ratio of the user, the display module is further configured to output the gait score to the user. The motivation would have been to provide the user with a more complete diagnostic analysis of the gait.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) (previously cited) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) (previously cited) and US 2018/0008502 A1 (Asbeck), as applied to respective claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2017/0027802 A1 (Samsung)
With regards to claims 18 and 19, the above combination is silent regarding whether the display module is further configured to receive a command from the user to control operation of a motor of the wearable device; the at least one processor is further configured to generate a control signal corresponding to an operation control command input by the user; and the communication module is further configured to transmit the generated control signal to the wearable device to control the motor of the wearable device and receive a control result signal from the wearable device
In a system relevant to the problem of controlling a wearable device, Samsung teaches a display module is configured to receive a command from the user to control operation of a motor of the wearable device (¶¶ [0171]-[0173] of Samsung depict a remote controller 121 comprising a display and a user interface for receiving a user input for initiating and suspending an operation of the walking assistance apparatus 100; Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0076]-[0077] of Samsung depict the walking assistance apparatus comprising a driver for generating an assistance torque); at least one processor is configured to generate a control signal corresponding to an operation control command input by the user (¶¶ [0171], [0173] of Samsung discloses initiating and suspending an operation of the apparatus 100, and providing a user interface, which necessarily requires a processor; ¶ [0183] of Samsung discloses the control of the walking assistance technologies discussed in this application may be written as computer programs and can be implemented in general-use digital computers that execute the programs using a computer-readable recording medium); and a communication module is configured to transmit the generated control signal to the wearable device to control the motor of the wearable device and receive a control result signal from the wearable device (Fig. 12 and ¶ [0171] of Samsung depict communication between the remote controller 121 and the walking assistance apparatus 100 for controlling an output of an assist torque profile to control gait assistance performed on the user 200 of the walking assistance apparatus 100). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display module, the at least one processor, and the communication module of the above combination to incorporate the display module is further configured to receive a command from the user to control operation of a motor of the wearable device; the at least one processor is further configured to generate a control signal corresponding to an operation control command input by the user; and the communication module is further configured to transmit the generated control signal to the wearable device to control the motor of the wearable device and receive a control result signal from the wearable device as taught by Samsung. The motivation would have been to consolidate the device for controlling the wearable device and with the analysis device, thereby making the apparatus easier to use.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
In view of the claim amendments and arguments filed 07/23/2026, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) were withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the remarks filed 07/23/2026, the Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because it amounts to a general allegation that the communication module, the at least one processor, and the display module are eligible subject matter without providing sufficient evidence of eligibility. The Examiner maintains that the above features do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and do not qualify as significantly more for the reasons listed in the above rejection.
On page 9 of the remarks filed 07/23/2026, the Applicant asserts that the features would not be performable mentally with the aid of pen and paper while the user is walking or exercising.
This argument is not persuasive because it amounts to a general allegation without sufficient evidence that a person would not be able to perform the features mentally while walking or exercising. The Examiner asserts that a user is capable of mentally performing the corresponding features regardless of a walking/exercising status.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant' s amendment and arguments filed 07/23/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Asbeck.
Double Patenting Rejections
In view of the claim amendments filed 07/23/2026, the double patenting rejections were withdrawn.
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 SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
