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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2024 was received and placed in the record on file. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
Claims 1-10: “Testing type selection part”; “multiple viewpoints measurement device”; “person calculation part”; “data analysis part”; “testing result calculation part”; “smart exercise coaching part”; “motion injury detection part”; “postural abnormality detection part”; “LOM determination part”; and “compensatory movement determination part”
Claim 3: “measurement mechanism”
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.
The “multiple viewpoints measurement device” of claims 1-10 will be interpreted as a plurality of “measurement mechanisms”, wherein the “measurement mechanism” of claim 3 will be interpreted as described in paragraph [30] as at least one of a camera, a sensor, an X-ray device, or a radiation device.
The specification does not provide any corresponding structure for “Testing type selection part”; “multiple viewpoints measurement device”; “person calculation part”; “data analysis part”; “testing result calculation part”; “smart exercise coaching part”; “motion injury detection part”; “postural abnormality detection part”; “LOM determination part”; and “compensatory movement determination part”. While the specification does disclose that the “testing type selection part”, “person calculation part”, “data analysis part”, “testing result output part” and “smart exercise coaching part” are components of a server, it is silent to their structure or what they comprise for carrying out the corresponding function (i.e. as dedicated hardware, software modules, a combination of software and dedicated hardware, etc…). Please see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below for further analysis.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the instant case, the 112(f) invoking limitations “testing type selection part”; “multiple viewpoints measurement device”; “person calculation part”; “data analysis part”; “testing result calculation part”; “smart exercise coaching part”; “motion injury detection part”; “postural abnormality detection part”; “LOM determination part”; and “compensatory movement determination part” do not have corresponding structure described in the specification or drawings. When a claim limitation invokes a 35 USC 112(f) means plus function interpretation, the specification must describe or provide examples of the corresponding structure that carries out the claimed function so as to show that that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. When considering the evidence provided in the specification, wherein the specification is silent to the corresponding structure of the means plus function limitations, the examiner contends that the is insufficient support to show that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Furthermore, it appears that the functional language of the means plus function invoking limitations identified above are computer implemented functions (although this is unclear since there is no clear corresponding structure, also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below), and these computer functions are not described in the specification in such a manner to show that the applicant had possession at the time of filing. Rather the claim limitations and description in the specification appear to be a black box that performs the claimed functions and the specification is insufficient to show that the applicant reduced to practice or had possession of such claimed functions at the time of filing, when considering the evidence provided. MPEP 2161.01 describes the requirements for computer implemented functions to meet the 35 USC 112(a) written description requirement, that is “To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” When reviewing the instant specification and considering the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the examiner contends that the instant specification does not provide sufficient evidence to show the applicant has possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. While the instant limitations are original claims, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
In the instant case, the specification merely restates the functions but does not provide any algorithms or methodology for how these functions are performed or carried out. i.e. how does the smart exercise coaching part determine what exercise to recommend? How does the motion injury detection part determine the type of injury or the postural abnormality detection part go about determining the abnormality? Does the system implement a look up table with threshold values, machine learning, or similar to carry out these functions? The specification does not appear to have any concrete answers to these questions, and thus when considering the totality of the evidence provided in the specification, the examiner contends that the specification is not describe the claimed functions in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the scope of the claim at the time of filing.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement (see MPEP 2181). See the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below for further analysis on the mean plus function limitations identified in the Claim Interpretation section above.
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.
Claim limitations: “Testing type selection part”; “person calculation part”; “data analysis part”; “testing result calculation part”; “smart exercise coaching part”; “motion injury detection part”; “postural abnormality detection part”; “LOM determination part”; and “compensatory movement determination part”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification is silent to the corresponding structure that carries out the means plus function recitation provided in the claims. A review of the specification does not explicitly or clearly link any of the means plus function invoking limitations to a corresponding structure.
Regarding the “testing type selection part”, “person calculation part”, “data analysis part”, “testing result output part” and “smart exercise coaching part”, the specification does disclose these as being “parts” of a server; however, it does not describe them in sufficient detail to provide a corresponding structure (i.e. are they hardware, are they software, are they combination of both) to show how the function is executed/carried out.
Regarding the “motion injury detection part”, the specification describes it as comprising the ”LOM determination part” and the “compensatory movement part”, but those parts also invoke a means plus function limitation and do not have any corresponding structure as to what carries out the claimed functions.
Regarding the “postural abnormality detection part”, the specification describes it as comprising the “left and right imbalance determination part”, the “front and rear imbalance determination part” and the “upper and lower imbalance determination part” but is silent to what the structure corresponds to these parts for carrying out the claimed functions.
As each of the means plus function limitations described above do not recite or link to any corresponding structure, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined and the claim scope is indefinite as it is unclear as to what is required to meet the limitations.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner will interpret the indefinite claim limitations as any computer or processor capable of carrying out the claimed functions.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding claims 1-10, the claims fail the subject matter eligibility test using the two-part test for subject matter eligibility described in MPEP 2106. Independent claim 1 is the exemplary claim and is directed to a process (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 1
The process is directed to a judicial exception regarding an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). The claim is recreated below with the abstract idea italicized and the additional elements are bolded:
Claim 1:
A method for evaluating and analyzing musculoskeletal injuries through 3D dynamic joint range of motion testing, and postural abnormalities through static posture testing, the method comprising:
(a) selecting, by a person through a testing type selection part provided by a server, at least one testing type for which the person intends to be tested;
(b) photographing a movement and a motion of the person through a multiple viewpoints measurement device and transmitting photographed information to the server;
(c) three-dimensionalizing (X, Y, and Z axes), by a person calculation part, information comprising information of a joint, a muscle, and a posture about the person on the basis of the testing type selected in the testing type selection part and on the basis of the information collected in the multiple viewpoints measurement device, and determining, by a data analysis part, whether the person has Limitation Of Motion (LOM) or compensatory movement, thereby determining whether there is a syndrome;
(d) calculating, by a testing result calculation part, a testing result on the basis of information calculated in the data analysis part; and
(e) recommending, through a smart exercise coaching part, a rehabilitation exercise or a preventive exercise on the basis of the testing result calculated in the data analysis part,
wherein the data analysis part comprises:
a motion injury detection part configured to detect a static posture of at least one of joints of the person and to detect whether there is an imbalance for each muscle that is estimated; and
a postural abnormality detection part configured to detect whether there is an imbalance for the static posture of at least one of the joints,
wherein the motion injury detection part comprises:
a LOM determination part configured to determine whether the joint of the person has LOM by using a joint point of the person estimated in the person calculation part; and
a compensatory movement determination part configured to determine whether the joint of the person has compensatory movement by using the joint point of the person estimated in the person calculation part.
The independent claim encompasses an abstract idea drawn to a mental process and mathematical concept that can be performed in the human mind and/or by hand using a pen and paper. In this case, they are as follows:
selecting at least one testing type for which the person intends to be tested is a mental process of choosing a type of test
three-denationalizing information comprising information of a joint, a muscle, and a posture about the person on the basis of the testing type selected in the testing type selection part and on the basis of the information collected in the multiple viewpoints measurement device is the mental process of observing the data, analyzing and processing it and conceptualizing it
determining whether the person has Limitation Of Motion (LOM) or compensatory movement, thereby determining whether there is a syndrome is the mental process of observing, evaluating and providing judgment and opinion
calculating a testing result on the basis of information calculated in the data analysis part is either a mental process of observing the information and evaluating the based on the observation or a mathematical concept of plugging information into a known mathematical function
recommending a rehabilitation exercise or a preventive exercise on the basis of the testing result calculated in the data analysis part is a mental process of observing the testing results, evaluating and providing judgement and opinion
detect a static posture of at least one of joints of the person and to detect whether there is an imbalance for each muscle that is estimated is a mental process of observing, evaluating and providing judgments/opinion
detect whether there is an imbalance for the static posture of at least one of the joints is a mental process of observing, evaluating and providing judgments/opinion
determine whether the joint of the person has LOM by using a joint point of the person estimated in the person calculation part is a mental process of observing, evaluating and providing judgments/opinion
determine whether the joint of the person has compensatory movement by using the joint point of the person estimated in the person calculation part is a mental process of observing, evaluating and providing judgments/opinion
In other words, the abstract ideas identified above amount to a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion; and/or mathematical concepts of plugging the observed/calculated data into a mathematical function.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Next, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). The claims fail to recite additional elements or combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limitations on the judicial exception. In the instant claims, the identified additional elements include:
a testing type selection part;
a server;
photographing a movement and a motion of the person and transmitting photographed information;
a multiple viewpoints measurement device;
person calculation part;
data analysis part;
testing result calculation part;
smart exercise coaching part;
motion injury detection part;
postural abnormality detection part;
LOM determination part; and
compensatory movement determination part.
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the additional elements, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) rejections above; amount to merely applying the judicial exception by including the instructions to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e. implementing the steps on a general purpose computer/processor or storing the steps on a generic computer readable storage medium for execution by a general purpose computer/processor, wherein the parts of the instant claim appear be just be implemented on a general purpose server including a general purpose computer all recited at a high level of generality); attempt to link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (in this case tying the abstract ideas to generic processors/memory); and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (in this case, photographing a movement and a motion of a person with generic 3-D photography equipment which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and considered extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the additional elements, considered individually and as a whole, along with the abstract idea does not apply the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture which is integral to the claims (server and the recited parts are all recited at a high level of generality as generic purpose computers); does not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; utilize well-understood, routine and conventional activity or elements (wherein collecting data is extra-solution activity and the additional elements are all conventional general purpose computer elements recited at a high level of generality); and does not apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (wherein the recitation of the computer elements, server and a multiple viewpoints measurement device are there to tie the abstract idea to generic computer implanted elements).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: No). The additional elements listed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, do not amount to or contribute to the inventive concept recited in the abstract idea. Instead, the additional elements, considered individually and as a whole, amount to merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer by reciting implementation by one or more computer processors or on a program for causing a general-purpose computer to carry out the abstract idea, wherein the elements of the general0purpose computer are recited at a high level of generality and do not attempt to meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Further, the step of photographing a movement and a motion of the person and transmitting photographed information is a mere data gathering step which is identified as extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The multiple viewpoints measurement device is generic and recited at a high level of generality as it is described in the specification as one or more generic measuring devices (see paragraph [30]) which the examiner takes official notice are conventional, well known and routine apparatus known to one of ordinary skill in the art (for example see the cited reference in the rejections below and the examiner provided PTO-892 Notice of references cited which lists many example of known 3D photographic recording systems).
Therefore, claims 1-10 are rejected as non-statutory as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea: mental processes and mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
Further regarding claims 2-10; the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements that implement the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they:
merely further specify details of the abstract idea or recite further steps to the abstract idea wherein eligibility cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.04, II, A, 2; referring to the further mental process steps and details recited in claims 2 and 4-7, 9 and 10); and/or
recite additional elements which are conventional, well known and recited at a high level of generality (referring to the measurement mechanisms of claim 3 and the server comprising a database having pre-stored information recited in claim 4)
recite insignificant extra-solution activity (referring to the outputting a comprehensive and detailed testing result from the resting result calculation part recited in claim 8, wherein the post-solution activity is insignificant application of outputting calculated data for viewing)
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-10 do not include any additional elements that when considered individually and as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2021/0052199 A1) in view of Aaberg (US 2015/0025419 A1), as best understood.
Examiner’s Note: As noted in the 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation section and the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, there is not corresponding structure provided in the specification for the majority of mean plus function limitations, and in order to advance prosecution and examine the claims on the basis of prior art and practice compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be interpreted as any element capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claims 1-10; Park discloses a method for evaluating and analyzing musculoskeletal injuries through 3D dynamic joint range of motion testing, and postural abnormalities through static posture testing (figure 11), the method comprising:
(a) selecting at least one testing type for which the person intends to be tested (wherein the process includes posture measuring/evaluatig step and a range of motion measuring/evaluating step; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10, specifically figure 10);
(b) photographing a movement and a motion of the person through a multiple viewpoints measurement device and transmitting photographed information to the server (wherein the 3d camera system are utilized to photograph movement and motion of the user with multiple cameras and store on a memory which corresponds to a server; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0042]-[0050] and [0118]-[0124]; figures 1-10, specifically figures 2-5 and 7-9);
(c) three-dimensionalizing (X, Y, and Z axes), by a person calculation part (elements 120 and 121), information comprising information of a joint, a muscle, and a posture about the person on the basis of the testing type selected in the testing type selection part and on the basis of the information collected in the multiple viewpoints measurement device, and determining, by a data analysis part (elements 120, 122, 123) whether the person has Limitation Of Motion (LOM) or compensatory movement, thereby determining whether there is a syndrome (wherein creates a model of the person using the body information obtaining unit and determines characteristics of the patient’s posture and range of motion indicative of asymmetry; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10); figures 1-10, specifically 1, 6 and 10);
(d) calculating, by a testing result calculation part (elements 120-123), a testing result on the basis of information calculated in the data analysis part (paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10); and
(e) recommending, through a smart exercise coaching part (element 0130), a rehabilitation exercise or a preventive exercise on the basis of the testing result calculated in the data analysis part (paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10),
wherein the data analysis part comprises:
a motion injury detection part configured to detect a static posture of at least one of joints of the person and to detect whether there is an imbalance for each muscle that is estimated (wherein the system identifies characteristics of the patient’s posture and range of motion; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10); and
a postural abnormality detection part configured to detect whether there is an imbalance for the static posture of at least one of the joints (wherein the system identifies characteristics of the patient’s posture indicative of postural abnormality including imbalance/asymmetry; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10),
wherein the motion injury detection part comprises:
a LOM determination part configured to determine whether the joint of the person has LOM by using a joint point of the person estimated in the person calculation part (wherein the system and method determine a range of motion and if it is limited; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10); and
a compensatory movement determination part configured to determine whether the joint of the person has compensatory movement by using the joint point of the person estimated in the person calculation part (wherein they system determines if the range of motion is limited due to compensation; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]; figures 1-10).
However, Park discloses completing a battery of tests for completion of the assessment, but does not explicitly disclose that the testing type selection part is provided wherein the user selects the testing type to be performed.
Aaberg teaches a similar system wherein the posture and motion is manually measures and determined by a practitioner via instructions from a computer program wherein the computer program method includes providing a menu (figure 2) wherein the practitioner selects the test to be completed by the patient for analysis and evaluation (paragraphs [0023]-[0101], specifically [0025]-[0067]; figure 2) which is used to complete further steps including identifying issues and providing treatment/exercise programs (paragraphs [0068]-[0101]; figure 1-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the user/practitioner of Park’s computer automated system with a user interface menu for selecting which part of the process to perform including the testing type as taught by Aaberg in order to provide the user with customizable options of which section of the method to perform.
Further regarding claim 2; the Park/Aaberg combination discloses the process comprises selecting at least one of posture testing or motion injury testing (wherein Aaberg discloses posture assessment or functional movement analysis as selections from the menu for execution; figure 2).
Further regarding claim 3; the Park/Aaberg combination discloses the measurement device is provided with a measurement mechanism (cameras of Park’s 3d camera system) which is capable of measuring a point where the person is positioned and which is mounted such that a minimum of one to a maximum of eight measurement mechanisms are provided, and the measurement mechanism is configured by selecting at least one of a camera, a sensor, an X-ray device, and a radiation device (wherein Park discloses the use of a camera and depth sensor; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]).
Further regarding claim 4; the Park/Aaberg combination discloses the server comprises a database in which measurement information of the person, testing result information, and algorithm information are prestored and which is configured to construct big data on the basis of the prestored data (wherein Park discloses the classification system which classifies measured data using prestored information stored database on the memory; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]).
Further regarding claim 5; the Park/Aaberg combination discloses estimating a main joint of the person's body through the person calculation part and reconstructing the main joint of the person's body by three-dimensionalizing (the X, the Y, and the Z axes) the main joint of the person's body; detecting a postural abnormality through the static posture of a plurality of joints or detecting whether there is a motion injury for each muscle that is calculated; and calculating, by the testing result calculation part, the testing result of the person on the basis of information detected in the data analysis part (wherein Park’s information processor element 120 performs the claimed functions to create the create the patient model and calculate the patient characteristics regarding joint range of motion and posture abnormalities such as asymmetry; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189])
Further regarding claim 6; the Park/Aaberg combination described above discloses a classification system for classifying the patient’s posture/movement (paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189] of Park). However, Park does not disclose the classification system for determining a disease syndrome. Aaberg teaches a similar system which utilizes the collected data and using a machine learning algorithm to determine a disease syndrome. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the Park/Aaberg combination such that the other motion injury detection part is configured to determine whether the person has LOM or compensatory movement by using a disease syndrome algorithm prestored in a database.
Further regarding claim 7; the Park/Aaberg combination discloses postural abnormality detection part is configured to determine whether the person has a postural abnormality by using a posture imbalance algorithm prestored in a database (wherein Park discloses the postural classification system; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189])
Further regarding claim 8; the Park/Aaberg combination described above does not disclose outputting a comprehensive and detailed testing result. Aaberg teaches the system processes the data to output a comprehensive and detailed testing result from the testing result calculation part on the basis of information calculated through the process, and the comprehensive result comprises a testing selection type, dimensional posture (joint reconstruction), a posture type, an improvement degree in posture, an exercise type, a mitigation degree in motion injury, an average score, and a comprehensive score (paragraphs [0023]-[0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the Park/Aaberg combination to output a comprehensive and detailed testing result as claimed.
Further regarding claim 9; the Park/Aaberg combination discloses the motion injury detection part determines that the person is normal when the LOM determination part and the compensatory movement determination part determine that there is no LOM and there is no compensatory movement, and the motion injury detection part determines that there is the syndrome for a corresponding joint when the LOM determination part determines that there is LOM or when the compensatory movement determination part determines that there is compensatory movement (wherein Park discloses the classification system identifies the posture as normal or limited and whether there is compensation or not based on the received/collected data from the tests; paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189])
Further regarding claim 10; the Park/Aaberg combination discloses the motion injury detection part, when the LOM determination part determines that the joint does not have LOM but the compensatory movement determination part determines that there is compensatory movement, a final degree of compensatory movement is calculated by comparing a degree of compensatory movement determined in the compensatory movement determination part with data prestored in a database, and a symptom of a disease and a severity of the symptom (whether the symptom is severe, moderate, or mild) are determined according to a calculated degree value of compensatory movement (wherein Park discloses the classification system for classifying the degree of patient posture and compensation; .paragraphs [0035]-[0189], specifically [0035]-[0088] and [0116]-[0189]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2018/0020954 A1 to Lillie et al; discloses a method and system for automated biomechanical analysis of bodily strength and flexibility.
US 2017/0231532 A1 to Chakravarty et al; discloses a system and method for analyzing gait and postural balance of a person.
US 2019/0200919 A1 to Nakao; discloses a posture analysis device, method and CPU readable medium.
US 2019/0038187 A1 to Latella, Jr.; discloses a system and method for evaluating body motion.
US 2021/0327066 A1 to Kim et al; discloses apparatus and method for determining musculoskeletal disease.
US 2017/0287146 A1 to Pathak et al; discloses a disease and fall risk assessment using depth mapping systems.
US 2015/0094564 A1 to Tashman et al; discloses intelligent algorithms for tracking 3D skeletal movement from radiographic image sequences.
US 2017/0156662 A1 to Goodall et al; discloses a monitoring body movement or condition according to motion regimen with conformal electronics.
US 10,716,517 B1 to McNair; discloses a biomechanical abnormality detection system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 PM).
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.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights