DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 12/14/2024. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 6-7 newly added. Presently, Claims 1-7 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. In the current Abstract filed on 12/14/2024, the word count is 177.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 3: line 4 & 11, “represented [[on]]as a percentage”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The nonce term “control unit” for controlling the operations of the information generating device and condition evaluate device is used in claim(s) 1, 3-6 invokes 35 USC 112(f).
The nonce term “storage unit” for storing walking information and parameters controlling the operations of the information generating device and condition evaluate device is used in claim(s) 1 invokes 35 USC 112(f).
The term, “device/unit” is a non-structural generic placeholder that does not include any specific structure for performing the accompany functions. See MPEP 2181.I.A: The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Please note that for the purposes of this examination the phrase “control unit” is being interpreted to as a generic processor as described in Paragraphs [¶0028, ¶0033, ¶0046] in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Please note that for the purposes of this examination the phrase “storage” is being interpreted to as a generic memory as described in Paragraphs [¶0028, ¶0033, ¶0048-0052] in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: recites:
“the camera being configured to acquire subject walking information relevant to a walking condition of a subject,”- lines 7-8.
“the camera being configured to acquire a plurality of parameters including a hip joint angle in walking according to the subject, as the subject walking information,”-lines 19-21.
Claim 2: recites:
“the camera being further configured to acquire the stride and the knee joint angle at the hip joint angle, as the subject walking information.”- lines 6-8.
Claim 3: recites:
“the camera is further configured to acquire the stride, the body length or the leg length, and the knee joint angle at the hip joint angle, as the subject walking information”- lines 7-9.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description. The specification does not provide proper written description for the camera to acquire the subject walking information and to acquire a plurality of parameters including a hip joint angle in walking according to the subject, as the subject walking information [...]. The camera 19 is configured as imaging acquisition means only to capture the state of the subject walking and generate image data, ¶0020 & ¶0029, ¶0055. It is the control unit 11 (i.e., the first control unit) that actually “calculate[s]” these parameters based on the image data provided by the camera, whereas the control unit 21 actually “acquire[s]” these parameters. That is, the control unit (21) that is configured to “acquire” subject walking information relevant to a walking condition of a subject and its control unit (21) that is being configured to “acquire” a plurality of parameters including a hip joint angle in walking according to the subject, as the subject walking information.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve said aforementioned claimed feature. Since the instant specification fails to provide written description for the phrases above in claim 1, 2, 3, the aforementioned claim 1, 2, 3 fail to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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:
line 10, “the walking information acquired by the information generating device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required. Claim 1 establishes that the camera acquires the subject walking information. As such it is unclear if the walking information acquired by the information generating device refers to or is separate from the subject walking information acquired by the camera. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the subject walking information acquired by the camera is not the same as the walking information acquired by the information generating device. The Examiner does not recommend changing “the walking information” acquired by the information generating device to “actual walking information”. The claim is structurally not clear. Clarity is needed. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
line 13, “the control unit device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the control unit. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
line 15, “the storage unit including ideal walking information” vs line 11, “ideal walking information”. It is unclear if the ideal walking information in line 15 refers to or is separate from the ideal walking information in line 11. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes its referring to the same ideal walking information. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
line 16, “a hip joint angle in walking according to the ideal walking condition”, is unclear. It is unclear what a hip joint angle in walking means in the context of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a hip joint angle corresponding to a walking state according to the ideal walking condition. Appropriate correction is required.
line 20, “a hip joint angle in walking according to the subject”, is unclear. It is unclear what a hip joint angle in walking means in the context of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a hip joint angle corresponding to a walking state according to subject. Appropriate correction is required.
line 23-24, “including the same hip joint angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the control unit is configured to compare the hip joint angle of the subject walking information with the ideal walking information to evaluate the walking condition of the subject. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required. The above rejections to claim 1 applies to claim 4, 5, & 6 for substantially identical claim limitations recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
In re: “ideal” in the phrase “walking information/condition” recited in claim 1 is indefinite. The term “ideal” in claims are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes as “ideal” in the context of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes optimal information/condition. Appropriate correction and clarity is required.
Claim 3:
line 5, “a stride at the hip joint angle” & line 6 & 9, “, and a knee joint angle at the hip joint angle”. It is unclear what this phrases mean in the context of the claim. A knee joint angle would not be at the hip joint angle and similarly, a stride would not be at a hip joint angle. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a knee joint angle corresponding to the hip joint angle and a stride corresponding to the hip joint angle.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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, 2, & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sterling et al (US 20210346761 A1).
Claim 1: Sterling discloses, A walking condition evaluation system, (¶Abstract) comprising:
an information generating device including a first control unit (106, ¶0033) and a camera (¶0035, “a user of the client device 106 uses an imaging device (e.g., a front facing or rear facing camera, or an external camera) to capture image or video data 143, which is communicated to the computing environment 103 over the network 109.”); and
a condition evaluation device (103) including a control unit (800 a-b) (¶0026-0027, ¶0068);
the camera being configured to acquire subject walking information relevant to a walking condition of a subject, (Claim 1 & 11, ¶0030, ¶0035-0037, ¶0071, The imaging device (camera) captures video data 143 of the subject, supplied to memory 801 and accessed by processor 800. The processor executes machine learning routines to process the image data and generate positional data of anatomical landmarks of the subject. From this coordinate data, the system acquires subject walking information by generating gait metrics and/or gait characteristics for various stages of a gait cycle.)
the control unit being configured to compare the walking information acquired by the information generating device with ideal walking information relevant to an ideal walking condition stored in a storage unit of the condition evaluation device to evaluate the walking condition of the subject, (The processor is configured to identify “optimal gait cycle from the optimal gait data 155 stored in the data store 115, ¶0030. This data stored reprents the evaluation device’s storage unit, ¶0028-0029. The running gate analysis 140 executes instructions to determine the difference and similarity between the gait cycle of the subject and the optimal gait cycle, ¶0030, ¶0036-0037. This evaluation is performed across various stages of the gait cycle to pinpoint the deviations from the ideal technique, ¶0036-0037, ¶0055.
the control unit device being configured to output an evaluation result, (¶Abstract, ¶0030, ¶0038, ¶0072-0073, ¶0075, after computing differences between the subject’s gait and the optimal gait, the processor generates suggested changes to the subject’s movement patterns, predictions related to injury, and preventative exercises. The system outputs these evaluations results by cause the information, along with visual features, to be shown on the display of the client device 106)
the storage unit includes ideal walking information including a plurality of parameters including a hip joint angle in walking according to the ideal walking condition is prepared for each hip joint angle over a predetermined range, as the ideal walking information, (¶0031, ¶0050-0051, ¶0055-0056, ¶0061, ¶0063-0064, data store 115 retains the optima gait data 155 containing the ideal metrics and representative gait cycles derived from elite and/or injury free athletes or established theoretical reference ranges. These are stored ideal parameters that encompass joint angle measurements and positional coordinates across a plurality of landmarks including the hips. In addition, the system accommodates ranges, as the representative optimal gait cycles consist of ref mins, maxs, averages, and variances (predetermined ranges) of these specific joint angles throughout the gait cycle.)
the camera being configured to acquire a plurality of parameters including a hip joint angle in walking according to the subject, as the subject walking information, and (¶0050-0051, the machine learning models process the video frames, and detect and apply coordinates to the anatomical landmarks of the subject which include the hips. Using these anatomical coordinates, the process computes joint angle measurements for the subject, forming array or vector data of dynamic signals (i.e, parameters) that map the subject hip join angle over the recorded timeframe.)
the control unit being configured to compare the subject walking information with the ideal walking information including the same hip joint angle as that of the subject walking information to evaluate the walking condition of the subject. (The representative gait cycle of the user and the characteristics for a given joint angle are directly compared with those of an optimal gait cycle, , ¶0050-0051, ¶0056. Because the hip is one of the calculated joint angles, the system evaluates the subject condition by computing differences in amplitude between the subject representative gait cycle and an optimal gait cycle for those specific joints, ¶0058. Therefore, this allows the evaluation system to identify specific moments where the subject’s hip mechanism deviates from the ideal pattern and output corrective retaining suggestions, ¶0058-0061.)
Claim 2: Sterling discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Sterling discloses: wherein the ideal walking information further includes a stride (¶0030-0032, ¶0056, ¶0062-0063) and a knee joint angle at the hip joint angle (¶0048, ¶0050-0051, ¶0055-0056, ¶¶0062-0063), and the camera being further configured to acquire (¶0035-0037) the stride (¶0064 ¶0066) and the knee joint angle at the hip joint angle, as the subject walking information (¶0048, ¶0050-0051, ¶0055, ¶0058).
Claim 7: Sterling discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Sterling discloses: A program (¶0068, ¶0092-0093, ¶0097) disposed upon a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (¶0099-0100) and executable to cause a computer to function to carried out the walking condition evaluation system according to claim 1 (¶0097-0100, Claim 11).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al (US 20210346761 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Whitcome et al (Pelvic Rotation Effect on Human Stride Length: Releasing the Constraint of Obstetric Selection, 15 March 2017).
Claim 3: Sterling discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Sterling fails disclose, wherein the ideal walking information further includes a value represented on percentage by dividing a stride at the hip joint angle by a body length or a leg length, as the stride at the hip joint angle, and a knee joint angle at the hip joint angle,
the camera is further configured to acquire the stride, the body length or the leg length, and the knee joint angle at the hip joint angle, as the subject walking information, and
the control unit is further configured to use a stride represented on percentage by dividing the stride by the body length or the leg length, as the stride in the subject walking information, when evaluating the walking condition of the subject.
However, Whitcome in the context of determine human stride length disclose: wherein the ideal walking information further includes a value represented on percentage by dividing a stride at the hip joint angle by a body length or a leg length, as the stride at the hip joint angle, and a knee joint angle at the hip joint angle, (Whitcome establishes baseline walking kinematics at [Stride Length Calculations / pg. 755], [Table 2 / pg. 758], [Introduction / pg 753 / ¶2], FIG. 1, FIG. 2, [Kinematic Analyses / pg. 755], Table 2, The DSL is obtained by dividing the observed stride length by the effective limb length. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a dimensionless ratio (e.g., a stride that is 1.50 or 1.82 times the leg length) is mathematically equivalent to a value represented as a percentage of (150% or 182%. Whitecome further teaches, [Introduction / pg 753 / ¶2], FIG. 1, FIG. 2, [Kinematic Analyses / pg. 755], modeling the stride length DSL obtained by divided the observed stride length by the effective limb length., table 2. Thus the stride is fundamentally linked to, and corresponds to with the hip joint angle. [Kinematic Analyses / pg. 755], the ideal walking information captured by the system fully incorporates the knee angle calculated relative to the thigh (hip) segment.)
the camera is further configured to acquire the stride, the body length or the leg length, and the knee joint angle at the hip joint angle, as the subject walking information, and ([Kinematic Data Collection / pg. 755] & [Kinematic Analyses / pg. 755], Whitcome discloses a motion analysis system equipped with cameras that capture positional information, while the control unit is considered the MATLAB script used to process this captured image data. [Stride Length Calculations / pg. 755], the system of Whitcome teaches calculating the observed stride length using the frame speed and treadmill velocity based on heel marker tracking. [Anatomical Measurements / pg. 754-755], Whitcome measures the leg length and computing an effective limb length dynamically from the trochanter to the heel coordinates. [Kinematic Analyses / pg. 755], The Matlab scripts are configured trigonometrically to calculate the plane angles for the thigh, knee and foot at the onset of the double support phase. The knee angle is calculated “relative to the thigh and leg segments”; therefore, the knee joint angle is acquired in direct correspondence to the hip (thigh) joint angle.)
the control unit is further configured to use a stride represented on percentage by dividing the stride by the body length or the leg length, as the stride in the subject walking information, when evaluating the walking condition of the subject. ([Stride Length Calculations / pg. 755], [Results], Table 2 & 3, Whitcome teaches normalized stride value to evaluate and compare walking conditions. By using the calculated ratio, the stride divided by the leg length, Whitcome evaluated the walking conditions of the subject. The control units calculation of these normalized stride ratio is the metric used to evaluate and reach these evaluated walking conditions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ideal walking information, the camera, and the control unit of Sterling to incorporate the teachings of Whitcome. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving walking efficiency, as suggested by Whitcome, [Discussion / pg. 762]
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al (US 20210346761 A1), as applied to claim 1 & 2 respectively, in further view of Pugh (US 4,631,676).
Claim 4: Sterling discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Sterling discloses: wherein the control unit is further configured to compare the subject walking information with the ideal walking information including the same hip joint angle as that of the subject walking information to evaluate a size of the hip joint angle and evaluate a difference in each of the parameters (¶0030¶0050-0051, ¶0056, ¶0057-0058, ¶0070, ¶0084-0085, ¶0087).
Sterling fails to disclose: and evaluate a difference in each of the parameters excluding the hip joint angle.
However, Pugh in the context of video gait and motion analysis system and methods, discloses, evaluate a difference in each of the parameters excluding the hip joint angle. ([Col 6 l.39-62], [Col 7, l.7-24]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Sterling to incorporate the teachings of Pugh. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the diagnosis of disorders or corrective surgeries, or reduce pain and prevent joint and bone deterioration, as suggested by Pugh, [Col 7].
Claim 5: Sterling discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Sterling discloses:
Sterling fails to disclose: wherein the control unit is further configured to compare the subject walking information with the ideal walking information including the same hip joint angle as that of the subject walking information to evaluate a size of the hip joint angle and evaluate a difference in each of the parameters (¶0030, ¶0050-0051, ¶0056, ¶0057-0058, ¶0070, ¶0084-0085, ¶0087).
However, Pugh in the context of video gait and motion analysis system and methods, discloses, evaluate a difference in each of the parameters excluding the hip joint angle. ([Col 6 l.39-62], [Col 7, l.7-24]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Sterling to incorporate the teachings of Pugh. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the diagnosis of disorders or corrective surgeries, or reduce pain and prevent joint and bone deterioration, as suggested by Pugh, [Col 7].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al (US 20210346761 A1) in view of Whitcome et al (Pelvic Rotation Effect on Human Stride Length: Releasing the Constraint of Obstetric Selection, 15 March 2017), as applied to claim 3, in further view of Pugh (US 4,631,676)
Claim 6: Sterling discloses all the elements above in claim 3, Sterling discloses: wherein the control unit is further configured to compare the subject walking information with the ideal walking information including the same hip joint angle as that of the subject walking information to evaluate a size of the hip joint angle and evaluate a difference in each of the parameters (¶0030, ¶0050-0051, ¶0056, ¶0057-0058, ¶0070, ¶0084-0085, ¶0087).
Sterling fails to disclose: and evaluate a difference in each of the parameters excluding the hip joint angle.
However, Pugh in the context of video gait and motion analysis system and methods, discloses, evaluate a difference in each of the parameters excluding the hip joint angle. ([Col 6 l.39-62], [Col 7, l.7-24]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Sterling to incorporate the teachings of Pugh. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the diagnosis of disorders or corrective surgeries, or reduce pain and prevent joint and bone deterioration, as suggested by Pugh, [Col 7].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights