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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “head-pose data” (line 3) appears that it should be “the head-pose data.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-18, 31, and 61 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim term “the head” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 18, the claim term “the gait-rehabilitation task” (line 7) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this claim language finding antecedence in the previously recited “a rehabilitation task.”
For claim 31, the claim term “the one or more image sensors headset” (line 13) lacks antecedent basis. Claim 31 previously recites “one or more image sensors” and the claim will be examined as depending from that term.
For claim 61, the claim term “the head” (line 4) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-18, 31, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-18, 31, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “capturing image data … disposed on the AR headset as the subject walks,” “performing a SLAM analysis on the image data to determine head-pose data regarding a position and location of the head of the subject,” and “determining one or more gait attributes of a gait of the subject by analyzing the head-pose data using a gait-metric prediction algorithm.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “an AR headset worn on the head of a subject, the AR headset having a frame structure configured to be worn on the head and a display disposed on the frame structure” and “one or more image sensors.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0002] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0037331 to Okvist et al. (hereinafter “Okvist”). Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 31 and 61 fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for similar, if not the exact same, reasoning as that of independent claim 1. Dependent claim(s) 2-18 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. In the analysis of the dependent claims, it is noted that the second sensor is only inferentially claimed. However, even if that sensor were to be claimed as part of the device, para [0038] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0200164 to Sanderovich et al. (hereinafter “Sandervoich”) is evidence that multiple sensors of AR devices is known, routine, and/or conventional. Thus, claim(s) 1-18, 31, and 61 is/are rejected 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-18, 31, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0206691 to Harrises et al. (hereinafter “Harrises”).
For claim 1, Harrises discloses a computer-implemented method (para [0007] and [0009]) for performing a gait analysis (para [0707]) using an AR headset worn on the head of a subject (Fig. 1B) (para [0376]), the AR headset having a frame structure (64) (Fig. 1B) (para [0376]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be worn on the head (as can be seen in Fig. 1B) and a display (62) (Fig. 1B) (para [0376]) disposed on the frame structure (as can be seen in Fig. 1B) (para [0376]), the method comprising:
capturing image data from one or more image sensors disposed on the AR headset as the subject walks (para [0378]);
performing a SLAM analysis on the image data to determine head-pose data regarding a position and location of the head of the subject (para [0628]) (also see para [0430] and [0436]); and
determining one or more gait attributes of a gait of the subject by analyzing the head-pose data using a gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0820]-[0827] and [0874]).
For claim 2, Harrises further discloses wherein the one or more gait attributes comprises at least one of a step length, a step width, a step velocity, a step quantity, a step cadence, a stance time, a gait velocity, a gait symmetry, foot pressure and musculoskeletal kinematic features (para [0820], [0821]).
For claim 5, Harrises further discloses analyzing the one or more gait attributes to determine a diagnosis of a gait disorder of the subject (para [0824] and/or [0827]).
For claim 6, Harrises further discloses analyzing the one or more gait attributes to determine a course of rehabilitation treatment for treating the gait disorder (para [0830]).
For claim 7, Harrises further discloses analyzing the one or more gait attributes to determine a rehabilitation treatment for treating a gait disorder of the subject (para [0830]).
For claim 8, Harrises further discloses obtaining second sensor data from a second sensor different from the one or more image sensors (para [0379]-[0380] and [0382]); and wherein the step of determining the one or more gait attributes comprises analyzing the head-pose data and the second sensor data using the gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0820]-[0821]).
For claim 9, Harrises further discloses wherein the head-pose data and the second sensor data is combined prior to analyzing the head-pose data and second sensor data using the gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0431]) (also see para [0380], which discloses that distance sensor 60 may be a time-of-flight camera and para [0436], which discloses that inward-facing cameras are used in triangulation).
For claim 10, Harrises further discloses wherein the head-pose data and the second sensor data is combined using a fusion formula which applies different weights to the head-pose data and the second sensor data (para [0431]) (also see para [0380], which discloses that distance sensor 60 may be a time-of-flight camera and para [0436], which discloses that inward-facing cameras are used in triangulation).
For claim 11, Harrises further discloses wherein the second sensor is a kinematic sensor comprising one or more of an inertial measurement unit, an accelerometer, a direction sensor, a compass, a gyroscope, a camera, and a computer vision sensor (para [0382]).
For claim 12, Harrises further discloses wherein the second sensor is worn on a different part of the subject's body separately of the AR headset (para [0379]-[0380] and [0382]).
For claim 13, Harrises further discloses wherein the second sensor is disposed on the AR headset (para [0379]-[0380] and [0382]).
For claim 14, Harrises further discloses capturing second image data from an external image sensor separate from the AR headset (para [0382]) (also see para [0379]-[0380]); and performing a SLAM analysis on the second image data to determine body position data of the body of the subject (para [0628]) (also see para [0430] and [0436]); and wherein the step of determining the one or more gait attributes comprises analyzing the head-pose data and the body position data using the gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0820]-[0827] and [0874]).
For claim 15, Harrises further discloses wherein the head-pose data and the body position data is combined prior to analyzing the head-pose data and body position data using the gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0431]) (also see para [0380], which discloses that distance sensor 60 may be a time-of-flight camera and para [0436], which discloses that inward-facing cameras are used in triangulation).
For claim 16, Harrises further discloses wherein the head-pose data and the body position data is combined using a fusion formula which applies different weights to the head-pose data and the body position data (para [0431]) (also see para [0380], which discloses that distance sensor 60 may be a time-of-flight camera and para [0436], which discloses that inward-facing cameras are used in triangulation).
For claim 17, Harrises further discloses capturing rehab image data from the one or more image sensors of the subject performing a gait rehabilitation task for treating a gait disorder (para [0830]); performing a SLAM analysis on the image data to determine rehab head-pose data of the head of the subject (para [0628]) (also see para [0430] and [0436]); determining one or more rehab gait attributes of a gait of the subject by analyzing the rehab head-pose data using the gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0820]-[0827] and [0874]); analyzing the rehab gait attributes to determine feedback to the subject regarding the subject performing the gait rehabilitation task (para [0830] and [0883]), providing the feedback to the subject via the AR headset (para [0830] and [0883]).
For claim 18, Harrises further discloses determining a gait disorder based on the gait attributes (para [0824] and [0827]); determining a rehabilitation task for treating the gait disorder (para [0830] and [0883]); providing rehabilitation task virtual content regarding the rehabilitation task to the subject via the AR headset (para [0830] and [0883]); capturing rehab image data from the one or more image sensors of the subject performing the gait-rehabilitation task for treating a gait disorder (para [0830]); performing a SLAM analysis on the image data to determine rehab head-pose data of the head of the subject (para [0628]) (also see para [0430] and [0436]); determining one or more rehab gait attributes of a gait of the subject by analyzing the rehab head-pose data using the gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0820]-[0827] and [0874]); analyzing the rehab gait attributes to determine feedback to the subject regarding the subject's performing of the rehabilitation task (para [0830] and [0883]), providing the feedback to the subject via the AR headset (para [0830] and [0883]).
For claim 31, Harrises discloses a system for performing a gait analysis (para [0707]), comprising:
an AR headset configured to be worn on a head of a subject (Fig. 1B) (para [0376]), the AR headset comprising:
a frame structure (64) (Fig. 1B) (para [0376]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be worn on the head of the subject (as can be seen in Fig. 1B);
one or more image sensors (65) (para [0378]) carried by the frame structure (para [0378]); and
a display system (62) (Fig. 1B) (para [0376]) for displaying virtual images generated by a computer system (para [0377]);
the computer system having at least one computer processor (70,72) (Fig. 1B) (para [0379]), memory (“non-transitory memory,” para [0445]), a storage device (“code module” and “dynamic link library,” para [0877]) , and a gait-analysis software application stored on the storage device (para [0445] and [0877]), the computer system in communication with the one or more image sensors and the display system (see Fig. 1B) (para [0307], [0468], and [0878]), the computer system configured to program the system to perform a process comprising:
capturing image data from the one or more image sensors headset as the subject walks (para [0378]);
performing a SLAM analysis on the image data to determine head-pose data of the head of the subject (para [0628]) (also see para [0430] and [0436]); and
determining one or more gait attributes of a gait of the subject by analyzing the head-pose data using a gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0820]-[0827] and [0874]).
For claim 61, Harrises discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (“non-transitory memory,” para [0445]) having software instructions stored thereon (para [0445]), the software instructions executable by a computer processor (70,72) (Fig. 1B) (para [0379]) to cause the processor to cause an AR computing system to perform a process for performing a gait analysis (para [0707]) using an AR headset worn on the head of a subject (Fig. 1B) (para [0376]), the process comprising:
capturing image data from one or more image sensors disposed on the AR headset as the subject walks (para [0378]);
performing a SLAM analysis on the image data to determine head-pose data regarding a position and location of the head of the subject (para [0628]) (also see para [0430] and [0436]); and
determining one or more gait attributes of a gait of the subject by analyzing the head-pose data using a gait-metric prediction algorithm (para [0820]-[0827] and [0874]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrises in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180032825 to Fung et al. (hereinafter “Fung”).
For claim 3, Harrises does not expressly disclose wherein the head-pose data includes data representative of a time-dependent, three-dimensional coordinate location of the head.
However, Fung teaches wherein the head-pose data includes data representative of a time-dependent, three-dimensional coordinate location of the head (para [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Harrises wherein the head-pose data includes data representative of a time-dependent, three-dimensional coordinate location of the head, in view of the teachings of Fung, because such data is a suitable type of head-pose data that can be used in Harrises to analyze gait, which is what Harrises wants to do.
For claim 4, Harrises does not expressly disclose wherein the head-pose data further includes a fore/aft tilt position of the head and a left/right rotational position of the head.
However, Fung teaches wherein the head-pose data further includes a fore/aft tilt position of the head and a left/right rotational position of the head (para [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Harrises wherein the head-pose data further includes a fore/aft tilt position of the head and a left/right rotational position of the head, in view of the teachings of Fung, because such data is a suitable type of head-pose data that can be used in Harrises to analyze gait, which is what Harrises wants to do.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights