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 01/14/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, 12-14, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, reads “said item of footwear” should read “said at least one item of footwear”.
Claim 7, line 3, reads “a gait event” should read “the gait event”.
Claim 8, line 4, reads “form” should read “from”.
Claims 12 and 13, line 1, reads “the sensors” should read “the one or more sensors”.
Claim 13, line 4, reads “senor” should read “sensor”.
Claim 14, line 3, read “the item of footwear” should read “the at least one item of footwear”.
Claim 17, lines 7 and 10, reads “the item of footwear” should read “the at least one item of footwear”.
Claim 20, lines 1 and 2, read “hand” should read “foot”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figures 3 and 8, element 201. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claim 14 recites “movement distance tracking means configured to”. This is interpreted in light of page 24, lines 33-36 to be a function on the sensor module to generate movement distance data.
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 1-2, and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 and 17-18 recite a system, a method, and an arrangement for fitting to an item of footwear. Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Claims 1 and 17-18 recite the following claim limitations:
generate data associated with movement of the subject;
process data to generate gait parameter data associated with the subject’s gait kinematics;
These limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. A human, provided pen and paper, could observe the movement of a subject, collect and analyze data, and evaluate the subject’s gait characteristics. Thus, the claims are drawn to a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claims 1 and 17-18 recite the following additional elements:
at least one item of footwear incorporating one or more sensors, a data processor, and a wireless communication unit;
a remote intervention system configured to provide an intervention for provoking a response by a subject wearing said item of footwear
said wireless communication unit is configured to communicate the gait parameter data to the remote intervention system.
The claimed footwear serves merely as a structure for mounting the sensors, processor, and wireless communication unit.
The recitation of "one or more sensors" is configured to automatically acquire movement data from the subject. The one or more sensors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely being used in their intended manner to gather data. The sensor(s) is being used as a tool to carry out the data acquisition.
The recitation of “a data processor” fails to recite any additional element or combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As recited the processor is s convention component that does not impose any meaningful structural limitations on the system used to implement the judicial exception. The recitation of the claimed element in the claims does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims merely use the data processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional element of the “wireless communication unit” merely transmits the data, and the recited “remote intervention system” merely received the data and provides an intervention based on the analyzed information, and displays. Such implementation does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The combination of these
additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity, and mere instructions
to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processors and computer
readable storage media). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the
additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity
and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same
analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
The recitation of a processor/sensor is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality, there is no meaningful
limitation, such as a particular or unconventional structure that distinguishes the elements
from well-known, routine, and/or conventional elements. Recitation of a processor as a tool to
perform the abstract idea does not add significantly more than what is well-known, routine,
and/or conventional in view of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110
USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when
viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 4 recite limitations that further define the remote intervention system.
Claims 5 and 9 add the additional element of “memory” configured to store data. Merely storing data in a memory does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by introducing limitations which are indicative concepts practically performable in the human mind (comparing and analyzing data).
Claim 7 recites limitations that further define the wireless communication unit. As mentioned above, the communication unit is nothing more than post solution activity to display the results of the data generated to the remote intervention system.
Claims 8 and 10 recite limitations that further define the type of data collected, such as gait events and gait parameter data.
Claims 11, 16, and 19-20 recite limitations that further define the item of footwear.
Claims 12-13 recite limitations that further define the type of sensors used. As mentioned above, the sensors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely being used in their intended manner to gather data. The sensor(s) is being used as a tool to carry out the data acquisition.
Claims 14-15 add the additional element of “movement distance tracking” which is a function within the sensor that gathers distance data to transmit to the processor for analysis. As mentioned above, the recitation of a processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not add significantly more than what is well-known, routine, and/or conventional in view of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014).
Claim 21 adds the additional element of “a computer program” which merely instructs the computer to carry out the steps of the method. In other words, the computer components are being used as a tool to carry out the method.
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 3-4, 7, and 11 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 claims 3-4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "gait parameter data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “memory” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elyada (WO 2019086997 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Elyada teaches a system for providing an intervention based on detected gait kinematics for therapy, training, gaming or movement assistance (para. 005 (system for biofeedback which can be used for physical therapy, physical rehabilitation, sports training), abstract (gait analysis of a movement of the person and determine when to provide feedback to the person, wherein the feedback comprises stimulus)), said system comprising:
at least one item of footwear (Fig. 1, element 23 – shoe) incorporating one or more sensors (Fig. 1, element 25 – sensor, Fig. 3, element 30 – sensor unit, para. 0067 (plurality of sensors and two or more SENSOR UNITs)), a data processor (Fig. 3, element 34 – digital processor), and a wireless communication unit (Fig. 1, element 14 – short range transmission communication, abstract (at least one insole comprises a sensing unit, and a processing unit; wherein once the at least one insole is inserted into at least one shoe of a person… a communication unit of the insole is configured to directly send, using short range wireless communication, to the sensory output device)); and
a remote intervention system configured to provide an intervention for provoking a response by a subject wearing said item of footwear (para. 0044 (system may be configured to determine, based on the first gait analysis and on the second gait analysis, when to provide feedback to the person, wherein the feedback may include stimulus… wherein a communication unit of at least one of the insoles may be configured to directly send, using short range wireless communication, to the sensory output device)), wherein said one or more sensors is configured to generate sensor data associated with movement of the subject (para. 0044 (the sensing unit of each insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person));
said data processor is configured to process the sensor data to generate gait parameter data associated with the subject's gait kinematics, (para. 0044 (sensing unit of each insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person; the processing unit of the first insole may be configured to perform a first gait analysis of a movement of the person)) and
said wireless communication unit is configured to communicate the gait parameter data to the remote intervention system (para. 00148 (communication means may be utilized to transfer data from one or more of the sensors and/or data generated by the algorithm to a REMOTE ENTITY)).
Regarding claim 2, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the remote intervention system is configured to provide a sensory intervention (para. 0055 (output unit – includes one or more sensory output means)).
Regarding claim 3, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the remote intervention system comprises at least one stimulation device, such as a spine stimulation device or a deep brain stimulation device or a muscle stimulation device (para. 0055 (output unit – includes one or more sensory output means which may be… tactile such as a functional muscle stimulation (FMS))).
Regarding claim 4, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the remote intervention system comprises a simulator, such as a virtual reality system or an augmented reality system (para. 0055 (output unit – includes one or more sensory output means which may be…. visual such as augmented reality display, virtual reality display)).
Regarding claim 5, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, the at least one item of footwear further comprising a memory (para. 00191 (digital storage means, for example RAM or Flash memory)), wherein the memory is configured to store sensor data and/or gait parameter data (para. 0048 (The SENSOR UNIT additionally includes a digital processor and may additionally include an accompanying digital storage), 00197 (storage also additionally stores one or more reference motions), 0062 (data collected by the sensors or data processed by the algorithm, wherein the data may be stored at the SENSOR UNIT)).
Regarding claim 6, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 5, wherein the data processor is configured to compare sensor data and/or gait parameter data against stored sensor data and/or gait parameter data in order to determine whether the sensor data and/or gait parameter data corresponds to a gait event (para. 00197 (the storage stores one or more reference motions to which an algorithm may compare a subject motion, in order to provide an indication of the quality of said subject motion in comparison to said reference motion), 0048 (The SENSOR UNIT may execute a computer algorithm to determine whether a physiological measurement of the subject, for example a certain movement, tremor or gait, is acceptable within some criteria or is not)).
Regarding claim 7, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 6, wherein the data processor is configured to control the wireless communication unit to communicate gait parameter data to the remote intervention system when it is determined that the sensor data and/or gait parameter data corresponds to a gait event (para. 0056 (Whenever the SENSOR UNIT determines that the status of the physiological measurement of the subject is (or is not) acceptable, the SENSOR UNIT communicates said status via the short-range communication means to the OUTPUT UNIT which then provides predefined sensory stimulus to the subject)).
Regarding claim 8, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 6, wherein the gait event is at least one of: an imminent fall or higher risk of fall for the subject, an imminent gait freeze or higher risk of gait freeze, a deviation from a desired movement for the subject, and maintenance of a desired movement form for the subject (para. 0092 (system algorithm compares the one or more motions performed by the subject to said reference motion stored in the system's storage. The system may then alert the subject and/or indicate to the subject whenever said performed motions significantly differ from said reference motion. The system may also advise the subject via the OUTPUT UNIT on corrective action required to correct said one or more motions in order to better compare to said reference motion)).
Regarding claim 9, teaches a system according to claim 5, wherein the data processor is configured to periodically generate gait parameter data at a predetermined interval and to store the generated gait parameter data in the memory (para. 00248 (algorithm and/or manual operation may also "tag" 118 the data, for example to indicate that an interesting event has occurred. Tagging may be beneficial for later analysis of recorded data wherein only data slightly preceding and slightly after the tag may be of interest for analysis (pre-tag and post-tag)), 0045 (the sensing unit of the first insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person to provide a first monitoring result; the sensing unit of the second insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person to provide a second monitoring result; the processing unit of the first insole may be configured to perform a gait analysis of a movement of the person based on a first monitoring result and based on the second monitoring result)).
Regarding claim 10, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the gait parameter data includes data relating to one or more of gait speed, step/stride velocity, step/stride length, swing time variability, stride length, stride duration, step/stride width, rhythm, variability, asymmetry, postural control, step characteristics, cadence, gait velocity, swing-stance-ratio, heel-off, toe- off, heel-strike, foot-flat-event, gait variability and gait-stability (para. 0084 (SENSOR UNIT and/or the OUTPUT UNIT can identify one or more of the following conditions: freezing of gait, incorrect body posture, arm swinging, stride length, stride height, stride rate, gait variability, gait parameters, shuffling gait, a predetermined exercise, a subject's posture)).
Regarding claim 11, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors, data processor, memory and wireless communication unit are embedded in a sole or an insole of the item of footwear (abstract (at least one insole comprises a sensing unit, and a processing unit; wherein once the at least one insole is inserted into at least one shoe of a person; a communication unit of the insole), para. 0048 (The SENSOR UNIT additionally includes a digital processor and may additionally include an accompanying digital storage)).
Regarding claim 12, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the sensors comprise one or more inertial measurement units comprising one or more of an accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer (para. 0049 (sensors may be an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a MEMS inertial measurement unit)).
Regarding claim 13, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 12, wherein the sensors further comprise one or more of a foot-pressure sensor for detecting pressure changes arising due to the subject contacting the ground, a temperature sensor for detecting an ambient temperature, a barometric pressure senor for detecting barometric pressure and a sound sensor (para. 0049 (sensors may be a pressure sensor… a temperature sensor)).
Regarding claim 16, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one item of footwear comprises a rechargeable battery for powering the components incorporated therein (para. 0048 (SENSOR UNIT additionally includes one or more … power sources such as a rechargeable battery)).
Regarding claim 17, Elyada teaches a method of providing an intervention based on detected gait kinematics for therapy, training, gaming or movement assistance (para. 005 (system for biofeedback which can be used for physical therapy, physical rehabilitation, sports training), abstract (gait analysis of a movement of the person and determine when to provide feedback to the person, wherein the feedback comprises stimulus)), said method comprising:
generating at an item of footwear sensor data associated with movement of a subject wearing the item of footwear (Fig. 1, element 25 – sensor, Fig. 3, element 30 – sensor unit, para. 0044 (sensing unit of each insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person)); and
processing at the item of footwear sensor data to generate gait parameter data associated with the subject's gait kinematics (Fig. 3, element 34 – digital processor, para. 0044 (the processing unit of the first insole may be configured to perform a first gait analysis of a movement of the person));
communicating the gait parameter data from the item of footwear to a remote intervention system for providing an intervention (para. 00148 (communication means may be utilized to transfer data from one or more of the sensors and/or data generated by the algorithm to a REMOTE ENTITY)), and
controlling the remote intervention system to provide an intervention for provoking a response by a subject wearing the item of footwear (para. 0044 (on the first gait analysis and on the second gait analysis, when to provide feedback to the person, wherein the feedback may include stimulus… wherein a communication unit of at least one of the insoles may be configured to directly send, using short range wireless communication, to the sensory output device)).
Regarding claim 18, Elyada teaches an arrangement for fitting to an item of footwear (Fig. 1, element 23 – shoe), said arrangement comprising one or more sensors (Fig. 1, element 25 – sensor, Fig. 3, element 30 – sensor unit, para. 0067 (plurality of sensors and two or more SENSOR UNITs)), a data processor (Fig. 3, element 34 – digital processor), and a wireless communication unit (Fig. 1, element 14 – short range transmission communication, abstract (at least one insole comprises a sensing unit, and a processing unit; wherein once the at least one insole is inserted into at least one shoe of a person… a communication unit of the insole is configured to directly send, using short range wireless communication, to the sensory output device)), wherein said one or more sensors is configured to generate sensor data associated with movement of a subject wearing the item of footwear (para. 0044 (the sensing unit of each insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person));
said data processor is configured to process the sensor data to generate gait parameter data associated with the subject's gait kinematics (para. 0044 (processing unit of the first insole may be configured to perform a first gait analysis of a movement of the person)) and
said wireless communication unit is configured to communicate the gait parameter data to a remote intervention system (para. 00148 (communication means may be utilized to transfer data from one or more of the sensors and/or data generated by the algorithm to a REMOTE ENTITY)).
Regarding claim 19, Elyada teaches an item of footwear fitted to which is an arrangement according to claim 18 (abstract (at least one insole is inserted into at least one shoe of a person)).
Regarding claim 20, Elyada teaches a pair of items of footwear, comprising a left hand item of footwear according to claim 19 and a right hand item of footwear according to claim 19 (Fig. 1, para. 0044 (may include a first insole, a second insole)).
Regarding claim 21, Elyada teaches a computer program for running on a data processor incorporated in an item of footwear and for use in a system according to claim 1 (para. 00281 (remote entity may be a computer program)), said computer program comprising instructions which when implemented on a data processor, controls the data processor to perform a method (para. 00302 (invention can be applied in programmable devices or units able to perform the desired device functions by operating in accordance with suitable program code)), 00191 (storage means storing an algorithm to be performed by the processor)) comprising:
generating at an item of footwear sensor data associated with movement of a subject wearing the item of footwear (abstract (at least one insole comprises a sensing unit, para. 0044 (the sensing unit of each insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person));
processing at the item of footwear sensor data to generate gait parameter data associated with the subject's gait kinematics (para. 0044 (processing unit of the first insole may be configured to perform a first gait analysis of a movement of the person)); and
communicating the gait parameter data from the item of footwear to a remote intervention system for providing an intervention for provoking a response by a subject wearing the item of footwear (para. 0044 (system may be configured to determine, based on the first gait analysis and on the second gait analysis, when to provide feedback to the person, wherein the feedback may include stimulus… wherein a communication unit of at least one of the insoles may be configured to directly send, using short range wireless communication, to the sensory output device)).
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elyada and in view of Ashby (US 20190151712 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Elyada teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one item of footwear further incorporates said data processor configured to process data to generate analysis data (para. 0044 (sensing unit of each insole may be configured to monitor a movement of the person; the processing unit of the first insole may be configured to perform a first gait analysis of a movement of the person)).
Elyada does not explicitly disclose movement distance tracking means configured to generate movement distance data associated with a distance moved by the item of footwear.
Ashby teaches at least one item of footwear further incorporates movement distance tracking means configured to generate movement distance data associated with a distance moved by the item of footwear (para. 0043 (a sensor can be located within the shoe. The sensor can track one or more movements or parameters of the user's movements. For example, the sensor can track an impact force of a heel strike, distance traveled, pace), 0057 (determine a stride length of the user and further calculate a distance traveled by the user through communication and collaboration of data)), and said data processor (abstract (sensor can include a processor an antenna in communication with the processor)) is configured to process the movement distance data to generate movement distance analysis data (para. 0043 (sensors, either individually or collaboratively, can analyze the data and provide the information to a mobile device)).
Elyada and Ashby are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensors embedded within soles of shoes for gait analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elyada to incorporate the teachings of Ashby and provide a movement distance tracking means configured to generate movement distance data associated with a distance moved by the item of footwear. Doing so would allow the biometrics to be tracked accurately, thereby improving the overall gait analysis.
Regarding claim 15, Elyada (in view of Ashby) teaches a system according to claim 14, wherein the wireless communication unit is configured to communicate the movement distance analysis data to the remote intervention system (para. 00148 (communication means may be utilized to transfer data from one or more of the sensors and/or data generated by the algorithm to a REMOTE ENTITY)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure. Plotnik-Peleg et al. (US 20140303508 A1), is another example of a system for provoking gait disorders such as freezing of gait. Fukushi et al. (US 20240161921 A1) and Cantley et al. (US 20240100328 A1) are additional examples of system determining gait cycles and events. Hughes et al. (US 7610813 B2), is another example of a system tracking step time for gait analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN ROBLES whose telephone number is (571)429-9383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/EILEEN ROBLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights