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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/04/2024 are objected to because they are low-resolution and difficult to read (e.g., Figs 3A-3B, 4A, 5A, 5C). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “obtaining a visual recording of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movement” should read “obtaining a visual recording of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5, 8, 107, 111, and 114 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.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining a visual recording of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movement[s]” in lines 5-6. Claim 2 recites “wherein the goal-directed movement comprises a gait movement”. It is unclear which of the one or more goal directed movements recited in Claim 1 is being referred to in Claim 2. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein at least one of the goal-directed movement[s] comprises a gait movement”.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining a visual recording of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movement[s]” in lines 5-6. Claim 3 recites “wherein the goal-directed movement[s] is performed by the subject in order to complete a task”. It is unclear which of the one or more goal directed movements recited in Claim 1 is being referred to in Claim 3. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein at least one of the goal-directed movement[s] is performed by the subject in order to complete a task”.
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 3.
Claim 107 recites “a digital recording device configured to generate a visual recording of the subject performing the one or more goal-directed movements” and “a processor configured to receive the visual recording generated by the camera”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the camera”, and it is unclear if this camera is the same element as the previously recited digital recording device, or a different element. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as ““a processor configured to receive the visual recording generated by the digital recording device”.
Claims 111 and 114 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 107.
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 1-5, 8, 10-11, 19-20, 22-24, 30-32, 39, 47, 106-107, 111 and 114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a method of generating a biomechanical assessment for a subject. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
obtaining a visual recording of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movement
extracting three-dimensional time series data from the visual recording for a plurality of body landmarks of the subject
processing the time series data
generating one or more biomedical outcome metrics from the processed time series data
producing the biomechanical assessment for the subject from the one or more biomedical outcome metrics
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
A human is capable of manually/mentally obtaining a visual recording of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movement, e.g. by watching a visual recording from multiple cameras or angles.
The plain meaning of the limitation “extracting three-dimensional time series data from the visual recording for a plurality of body landmarks of the subject” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “processing the time series data” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “generating one or more biomedical outcome metrics from the processed time series data” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “producing the biomechanical assessment for the subject from the one or more biomedical outcome metrics” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
There are no additional limitations to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
There are no additional limitations to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent Claim 2 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 3 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 4 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 5 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 8 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 10 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea because it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent Claim 11 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea because it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent Claim 19 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 20 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 22 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 23 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 24 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 30 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 31 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 32 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 39 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 47 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 106 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea (“A biomechanical analysis system configured to perform the method according to Claim 1”), recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application (“A biomechanical analysis system configured to perform the method according to Claim 1”), and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea (“A biomechanical analysis system configured to perform the method according to Claim 1”).
Regarding Claim 107, the claim recites a system for generating a biomechanical assessment for a subject. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
extract three- dimensional time series data from the visual recording for a plurality of body landmarks of the subject
process the time series data
generate one or more biomedical outcome metrics from the processed time series data
produce a biomechanical assessment for the subject from the one or more biomedical outcome metrics
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
The plain meaning of the limitation “extract three-dimensional time series data from the visual recording for a plurality of body landmarks of the subject” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “process the time series data” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “generate one or more biomedical outcome metrics from the processed time series data” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “produce the biomechanical assessment for the subject from the one or more biomedical outcome metrics” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a display configured to provide visual information instructing the subject to perform one or more goal-directed movements
a digital recording device configured to generate a visual recording of the subject performing the one or more goal-directed movements
The following limitations amount to a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and/or nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a processor configured to receive the visual recording generated by the camera
memory operably coupled to the processor wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to...
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
a display configured to provide visual information instructing the subject to perform one or more goal-directed movements
a digital recording device configured to generate a visual recording of the subject performing the one or more goal-directed movements
a processor configured to receive the visual recording generated by the camera
memory operably coupled to the processor wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to...
The following limitations is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
The display is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 12/04/2024 (“The display device may be an electronic display device such as, e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display or an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) display In some embodiments, the electronic display device is the screen of a smartphone or personal computer. In some embodiments, the electronic display device may include an augmented reality device, such as, e.g., augmented reality headsets, goggles, glasses, or contact lenses. Examples of augmented reality devices include, but are not limited to, the Apple Vision Pro, Oculus Quest, Lenovo Mirage, Microsoft HoloLens, Google Glass, MERGE AR/VR Headset, Magic Leap, etc.”, page 9; these displays are well-known commercially available products).
The digital recording device is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 12/04/2024 (“In some embodiments, the digital recording device may include any device capable of generating a sequence of visual images over time. In some cases, the digital camera or camcorder is configured to generate three-dimensional data and may include, but is not limited to depth cameras and 3D depth cameras such as, e.g., the Microsoft Kinect, Intel RealSense Depth Camera D435, Vuze Plus 3D 360, MYNT EYE 3D Stereo Camera Depth Sensor, etc. In some embodiments, the recording device may be a smartphone camera or a computer camera (e.g., a webcam). For example, the recording device may be an iPhone camera, an Android camera, a personal computer (PC) camera such as, e.g., a tablet computer camera, a laptop camera (e.g., a MacBook or an XPS laptop camera), etc. In some embodiments, the recording device may include one or more cameras of an augmented reality device, such as one or more cameras of augmented reality headsets, goggles, glasses, or contact lenses. Examples of augmented reality devices include, but are not limited to, the Apple Vision Pro, Oculus Quest, Lenovo Mirage, Microsoft HoloLens, Google Glass, MERGE AR/VR Headset, Magic Leap, etc.”, page 32; these displays are well-known commercially available products).
The processor is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 12/04/2024 (“The processor may be a commercially available processor or it may be one of other processors that are or will become available”, page 34).
The memory is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 12/04/2024 (“Memory may be any suitable device in which the processor can store and retrieve data, such as magnetic, optical, or solid-state storage devices (including magnetic or optical disks or tape or RAM, or any other suitable device, either fixed or portable”, page 35).
Dependent Claim 111 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 114 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, 19-20, 22-24, 30-32, 39, 47, 106-107, 111 and 114 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 19, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martineau (US 20210038167 A1, hereinafter Martineau).
Regarding Claim 1, Martineau discloses a method (See Fig. 4) of generating a biomechanical assessment for a subject (Element 106, Figs. 1-2), the method comprising:
obtaining a visual recording (“System 200 includes a 3D video recording input device 202 such as the Microsoft Kinect for Xbox One that detects motion sensory electromagnetic energy 104 of a subject 106 and that generates a motion sensory image 204 of the subject 106. In one implementation, the motion sensory image 204 is captured while the subject performs a standardized drop-vertical-jump procedure which is commonly utilized in the assessment of knee injury”, [0025]) of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movement (“In one implementation, the motion sensory image 110 is captured while the subject performs a standardized drop-vertical-jump procedure, a standardized tuck jump procedure or a standardized triple single leg hop procedure, which are commonly utilized in the assessment of knee injury”, [0020]);
extracting three-dimensional time series data from the visual recording for a plurality of body landmarks of the subject (“a system calculates an injury risk score for a subject using skeletal tracking or pose recognition and calculating joint angles at different time points from the motion, angle of the knee joint, jumping/landing mechanics, balance of the subject”, [0007]; skeletal tracking requires tracking multiple landmarks on the subject);
processing the time series data (“a system calculates an injury risk score for a subject using skeletal tracking or pose recognition and calculating joint angles at different time points from the motion, angle of the knee joint, jumping/landing mechanics, balance of the subject”, [0007]);
generating one or more biomedical outcome metrics from the processed time series data (“The programs 337 can also include an ACL risk score generator 350. A solid-state image transducer 354 captures images 356 and the ACL risk score generator 350 generates the ACL risk score(s) 352.”, [0041]); and
producing the biomechanical assessment for the subject from the one or more biomedical outcome metrics (“The programs 337 can also include an ACL risk score generator 350. A solid-state image transducer 354 captures images 356 and the ACL risk score generator 350 generates the ACL risk score(s) 352. In some implementations, the ACL risk score(s) are expressed as “high risk” “low risk”, or “red light” “green light”.”, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 2, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the goal-directed movement comprises a gait movement (“In one implementation, the motion sensory image 110 is captured while the subject performs a standardized drop-vertical-jump procedure, a standardized tuck jump procedure or a standardized triple single leg hop procedure, which are commonly utilized in the assessment of knee injury”, [0020]; under broadest reasonable interpretation, the standardized triple single leg hop and tuck jump comprise gait movements).
Regarding Claim 3, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the goal-directed movement is performed by the subject in order to complete a task (“In one implementation, the motion sensory image 110 is captured while the subject performs a standardized drop-vertical-jump procedure, a standardized tuck jump procedure or a standardized triple single leg hop procedure, which are commonly utilized in the assessment of knee injury”, [0020]).
Regarding Claim 4, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 3, wherein the task is a functional balance task (“In one implementation, the motion sensory image 110 is captured while the subject performs a standardized drop-vertical-jump procedure, a standardized tuck jump procedure or a standardized triple single leg hop procedure, which are commonly utilized in the assessment of knee injury”, [0020]; under broadest reasonable interpretation, the standardized triple single leg tests balance).
Regarding Claim 8, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 3, wherein the task comprises transitioning the body from a first posture to a second posture (“In one implementation, the motion sensory image 110 is captured while the subject performs a standardized drop-vertical-jump procedure, a standardized tuck jump procedure or a standardized triple single leg hop procedure, which are commonly utilized in the assessment of knee injury”, [0020]; the body is upright on the ground at the beginning of a tuck jump and slightly bent at the apex).
Regarding Claim 10, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the visual recording is generated without the use of a motion tracking marker (“One of the current solutions to study and prevent ACL injuries are expensive gait motion analysis laboratories, which place many reflective markers on patients, record video and then perform analysis which can take upward of 2 hours per patient. These motion analysis laboratories are extremely expensive. The use of these motion analysis systems has shown that jumping dynamics can reliably predict risk of knee injury, but such systems are not portable, and are for the most part are only available in academic institutions for well-equipped research purposes and not for population general use”, [0006]; “The 3D video recording input device 202 is operably coupled to a computer 206. In one implementation, the 3D video recording input device 202 records 4-5 seconds of imagery, at 30 hz (roughly 15 frames per second), which is 60-75 frames of useful information.”, [0025]; these disclosures clearly imply Martineau does not use tracking markers on the body).
Regarding Claim 11, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the visual recording is generated using a three-dimensional depth camera (“the motion sensing input device 102 includes an RGB camera, a depth sensor and a microphone array running proprietary software which provide full-body 3D motion capture”, [0021]; under broadest reasonable interpretation the RGB imaging device, the depth sensor, and the microphone can be considered a depth camera).
Regarding Claim 19, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of body landmarks comprises a bone or joint of the subject (“the processor 208 can perform in a numerical analysis module of the instructions 214 to identify a number of appropriate frames of recording to perform vector calculus for coronal and sagittal angles measured during the standardized drop-vertical-jump procedure; and instructions 214 to analyze motion of the subject 106, angle of the knee joint of the subject, jumping and landing mechanics of the subject 106, balance of the subject 106, in reference to the skeletal tracking and calculating joint angles at different time points”, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 106, Martineau discloses a biomechanical analysis system configured to perform the method according to Claim 1 (Element 200, Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 19-20, 22-24, 30-32, 39, 106-107, 111, and 114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehl et al (US 20190362139 A1, hereinafter Mehl).
Regarding Claim 1, Mehl discloses a method of generating a biomechanical assessment for a subject (See [0008]), the method comprising:
obtaining a visual recording (“Preferably, the sequence of image frames is acquired using a camera”, [0074]) of the subject performing one or more goal-directed movement (“a method for monitoring a person performing a physical exercise based on a sequence of image frames showing the person's exercise activity is provided”, [0007]);
extracting three-dimensional time series data from the visual recording for a plurality of body landmarks (Elements 18-1 to 18-1, Fig. 5) of the subject (“The method comprises the steps of extracting, based on the sequence of image frames, for each image frame a set of body key points using a neural network, the set of body key points being indicative of the person's posture in the image frame”, Abstract);
processing the time series data (“In addition to the body key points, at least one characteristic parameter is extracted from a subset of the body key points, with said at least one characteristic parameter describing the person's movement when performing the physical exercise”, [0008]);
generating one or more biomedical outcome metrics from the processed time series data (“By evaluating the time progression of at least one of the characteristic parameters, at least one evaluation point can be detected. For detecting the at least one evaluation point, the course of at least one of the characteristic parameters is analysed as a function of time. An evaluation point is a point in time at which the person's posture is evaluated”, [0008]); and
producing the biomechanical assessment for the subject from the one or more biomedical outcome metrics (“Preferably, a person's posture in an image frame at each evaluation point or in at least one image frame in a respective predefined time interval around each evaluation point is evaluated and in response to the result of the evaluation, a feedback is provided to the person. The feed back may for example comprise a comment on the posture or improvements may be suggested.”, [0058]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the goal-directed movement is performed by the subject in order to complete a task (“After the person's posture in the respective setup positions has been detected and acquired, the person is asked by the evaluation unit 4 to start performing a specific physical exercise like for example a squat”, [0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 3, wherein the task comprises transitioning the body from a first posture to a second posture (“The method further comprises detecting a start loop condition by evaluating the time progression of at least one of the characteristic parameters, said start loop condition indicating a transition from a start posture of the person to the person's movement when performing the physical exercise”, Abstract; “The body key points indicate the person's posture in each of the image frames.”, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the visual recording is generated using a three-dimensional depth camera (“In an alternatively preferred embodiment, the body key points extracted for each image frame are 2.5D points or 3D points, wherein the sequence of image frames is acquired using a 2.5D camera or a 3D camera. In this case, the 2.5D camera or 3D camera provides the additional depth information”, [0023]).
Regarding Claim 19, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of body landmarks comprises a bone or joint of the subject (“A body key point is a point at a predetermined position of the person's body, for example at a joint, a limb or any other body feature of the person's body”, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 20, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 19, wherein one or more of the plurality of body landmarks is selected from the group consisting of one or both of the ankles (Element 18-8 Fig. 5), knees (Element 18-7, Fig. 5), hips (Element 18-6, Fig. 5), and shoulder (Element 18-3, Fig. 5) of the subject.
Regarding Claim 22, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of body landmarks forms a shape characterizing the subject's posture (See Figs. 2, 3a-3b, and 5; “FIG. 5 shows the person's posture at the evaluation point 15”, [0119]).
Regarding Claim 23, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the extracted time series data comprises three-dimensional coordinates for the plurality of body landmarks (“In an alternatively preferred embodiment, the body key points extracted for each image frame are 3D points”, [0023]).
Regarding Claim 24, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 23, wherein the processing comprises filtering the extracted time series data (“Preferably, at least one of the characteristic parameters is obtained as a result of a filtering operation applied to a subset of the body key points in the sequence of image frames”, [0024]).
Regarding Claim 30, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 23, wherein the processing comprises applying kinematic modeling techniques to the extracted time series data (“Preferably, for each of the image frames, at least one of the characteristic parameters is the Procrustes distance between the subset of body key points in a respective frame and the same subset of body key points in an image frame showing the person's start posture. Preferably, the method comprises a step of determining, for each image frame, a Procrustes distance between the subset of body key points in the respective frame and the subset of body key points in an image frame showing the person's start posture.”, [0021]).
Regarding Claim 31, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 30, wherein extracted time series data comprises three-dimensional coordinates for the vertices of a posture shape at each timepoint (See Elements 18-1 and 18-8, specifically, in Fig. 5; “For evaluating the posture as indicated by the subset of body key points 18-1 to 18-8, a set of predefined conditions is defined. If the posture represented by the body key point 18-1 to 18-8 meets each of these conditions, the posture is in conformity with the requirements”, [0119]).
Regarding Claim 32, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 31, wherein statistical shape analysis is performed on an extracted posture shape (“a posture defined by the set of 3D body key points may be projected to one or more two-dimensional projection planes. Thus, a dimensional reduction is accomplished”, [00119]).
Regarding Claim 39, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 32, wherein the statistical shape analysis comprises reducing the dimensionality (“a posture defined by the set of 3D body key points may be projected to one or more two-dimensional projection planes. Thus, a dimensional reduction is accomplished”, [00119]) and/or degrees of freedom of each posture shape (As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, it does not need to be taught by the reference in order for the claim to be anticipated).
Regarding Claim 106, Mehl discloses a biomechanical analysis system configured to perform the method according to Claim 1 (See Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 107, Mehl discloses a system for generating a biomechanical assessment for a subject (See Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a display configured to provide visual information instructing the subject to perform one or more goal-directed movements (“After the person's posture in the respective setup positions has been detected and acquired, the person is asked by the evaluation unit 4 to start performing a specific physical exercise like for example a squat”, [0020]);
a digital recording device (Element 3, Fig. 1) configured to generate a visual recording of the subject performing the one or more goal-directed movements (“The camera is configured for acquiring a sequence of image frames”, [0010]);
a processor (“The mobile device comprises a processor, a memory, a camera and an evaluation unit”, [0009]) configured to receive the visual recording generated by the camera (“a computer program product is provided, the computer program product being adapted to cause, when executed by a mobile device or a computer comprising a processor and a memory, the mobile device or the computer to perform the above described methods for monitoring a person performing a physical exercise”, [0012]); and
memory operably coupled to the processor wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (“a computer program product is provided, the computer program product being adapted to cause, when executed by a mobile device or a computer comprising a processor and a memory, the mobile device or the computer to perform the above described methods for monitoring a person performing a physical exercise”, [0012]) extract three- dimensional time series data from the visual recording for a plurality of body landmarks of the subject (“In order to track and evaluate the person's exercising activity, at least one characteristic parameter indicating a time progression of the person's movement is derived from the respective positions of a subset of the body key points in the image frames of the sequence of image frames.”, [0098]; this means body key points must have been extracted from the video in subsequent image frames), process the time series data (“In order to track and evaluate the person's exercising activity, at least one characteristic parameter indicating a time progression of the person's movement is derived from the respective positions of a subset of the body key points in the image frames of the sequence of image frames.”, [0098]), generate one or more biomedical outcome metrics from the processed time series data (“When the person performs the physical exercise, the person's posture is evaluated at one or more predefined evaluation points in the course of exercising. These evaluation points are detected by evaluating a time progression of at least one characteristic parameter indicating the person's movement.”, [0114]), and produce a biomechanical assessment for the subject from the one or more biomedical outcome metrics (“At the evaluation point 15, the person's posture is evaluated. Evaluating the person's posture comprises evaluating respective positions of a subset of the body key points in a respective image frame. Depending on the result of this evaluation, suitable feedback is provided to the person performing the exercise”, [0116]).
Regarding Claim 111, Mehl discloses the system according to Claim 107, wherein the digital recording device is configured to generate a sequence of visual images over time (“FIG. 1 shows a mobile device with a camera configured for acquiring a sequence of image frames of a person performing physical exercises”, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 114, Mehl discloses the system according to Claim 111, wherein the digital recording device is a three-dimensional depth camera (“Preferably, the sequence of image frames is acquired using a camera. Preferably, the sequence of image frames is acquired using a 2D camera or a 2.5D camera or a 3D camera”, [0074]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martineau in view of the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) to Plisky et al (“Star Excursion Balance Test as a Predictor of Lower Extremity Injury in High School Basketball Players”, cited in applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Plisky).
Regarding Claim 5, Martineau discloses the method according to Claim 4. Martineau discloses the claimed invention wherein the task comprises one or more of the directional reaching tasks of the star excursion balance test (SEBT). However, Plisky, which also is interested in evaluating the potential for a lower extremity injury (See Abstract of Plisky) similar to Martineau (See Abstract of Martineau) teaches that wherein the task comprises one or more of the directional reaching tasks of the star excursion balance test (SEBT) (“The player stood on 1 leg in the center of a grid, with the most distal aspect of the great toe at the starting line. While maintaining single-leg stance, the player was asked to reach with the free limb in the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions in relation to the stance foot (Figure 1).”, SEBT Protocol). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Martineau to include one or more of the directional reaching tasks of the star excursion balance test (SEBT) as taught by Plisky, because the SEBT is a reliable predictor of lower extremity injuries (“We found components of the SEBT to be reliable and predictive measures of lower extremity injury in high school basketball players”, Conclusion).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehl in view of Ouckama et al (US 20220180665 A1, hereinafter Ouckama).
Regarding Claim 47, Mehl discloses the method according to Claim 32. Mehl discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein one or more biomedical outcome metrics are generated using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). However, Ouckama, which also discloses a method of generating a biomechanical assessment for a subject (See Abstract) teaches wherein one or more biomedical outcome metrics are generated using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (“To this end, the processing entity 54 may be configured to process the output of, say, a camera... to recognize movement of the player or of the article of sports equipment 30 and to determine whether this movement matches sufficiently closely one of a plurality of predetermined movement patterns or tasks stored in the memory. This comparison can be done in various ways, including algorithmic processing, look-up tables, principal component analysis and using machine learning”, [0050]). It would have been obvious to modify the algorithm of Mehl by adding a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) calculation because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Ring (US 20160249834 A1) (Relevant to Claims 1 and 22-24)
See McNair et al (US 10716517 B1) (Relevant to Claims 1 and 47).
See Callaghan (US 20190366154 A1).
See Grosserode (US 20230172491 A1).
See Jaeger et al (US 20240315637 A1) (Relevant to Claims 1, 20, and 22-24).
See Park et al (KR 102273276 B1) (Relevant to Claim 31).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
