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 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 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.
Claims 21-26, 28-32, 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vock-1, US 20060143645 A1 in view of Vock-2, US 20110313731 A1, and Scherock, US 20100063779 A1.
Claim 21
Vock-11 teaches:
A workforce monitoring system (¶0002: field of invention spans "sports, shipping, training, medicine, fitness, wellness and industrial production.¶0007: MMD devices, Movement Monitoring Devices "¶0385-0387: disclose personnel/product tracking in shipping and industrial contexts, this is Preamble; typically not limiting absent claim life dependent on it), comprising:
a footwear system (MMD for footwear) having two separate foot sensor 524,452A,B subsystems each carried by a shoe 532a,b of a subject 525 (e.g., ¶0300-0302 (FIG. 40): "one or two accelerometer-based devices 524 in runner shoes 532... a second MMD 524... is attached to, or placed within, a second shoe 532... Speed information from a second shoe 532b is thus combined with speed information from shoe 532a."FIG. 36, ¶0284-0286: paired per-shoe sensors 452A/452B.) and each comprising:
at least one force sensor 902 configured for measuring a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot 906 (¶0348 (FIG. 57): weight-sensing detector 902 "applied to one or more locations at the bottom of a human foot 906." ¶0350-0351: array of force-sensing resistors positioned at "high impact areas of foot 930 e.g., at the ball and heel of foot 930), and
footwear electronics 954 coupled to the at least one force sensor 952(¶0352 (FIG. 59): weight-sensing detector(s) 952 coupled to processing section 954, "arranged with a shoe 956, or within an insert for shoe 956),
wherein each foot sensor 952 subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device (954,912,940 (¶0348-0352: wireless signals 910, 942, 958 from shoe-mounted MMD to remote receiver/watch 912, 940);
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions (¶0040/0081: MMD/EMD "includes internal memory... Event data is stored in the memory... until transmitted off-board" -- persistent storage across the monitoring period. '731 memory 12b, ¶0176), which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot (¶0349: MMD 900 "first calibrated: all the weight of person with foot 906 is applied to MMD 900 so that detector 902 is calibrated to that entire weight... generates 'events' corresponding to fractions of the entire weight." ¶0350, 0356-0360: array/multi-cell sensors summing readings across foot regions -- weight distribution);
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device (¶0349, 0352: wireless data 910/942/958 communicated to the watch/receiver);
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data (¶0349: the calibration-to-entire-weight step is the initial sensor state, against which subsequent fractional readings are compared); and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device (e.g., ¶0043: (¶0043: explicit "tamper proof detector that ensures the device is not removed or tampered with... until an authorized person removes" it, continually monitored for correspondence to the applied/quiescent state) by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data (e.g., ¶0234), and the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data lacking correspondence with the initial state (¶0234: unique ID/access code gating so that "data within a monitor device... cannot be tampered with without the appropriate access code" -- activation/data-release conditioned on state correspondence).
Vock-1 does not teach:
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.(Vock-1's power-on teachings (¶[0007,0208) are tied to physical unwrapping/packaging removal, not to weight data triggering activation, element (e), specifically the weight-data-correspondence activation/deactivation mechanism — Vock-1's tamper protection (¶0043, 0234) is about detecting removal and gating data access via ID code, not about the sensor subsystem itself activating or not activating based on whether incoming weight data corresponds to an initial reference state).
In the similar field of endeavor, Vock-22 teaches activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data (¶0111: "power for the sensing units... may be saved during times of inactivity by powering off most of the electronics... The processor... can remain powered so that when activity is detected, the remaining electronics are powered as needed."¶0395: FET-switch power gating tied to detected use); and activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (¶0210, 0378-0379: FSR(force sensing resistors) on/off correspondence logic: weight-present vs. absent, as the general mechanism for state-gated activation, indicating that gating sensor-subsystem activation on weight-state correspondence was a known design pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Vock-2‘s computing system for Vock-1‘s footwear system and (c) activate the modified Vock-1’s computing device in response to the subject's weight data. PHOSITA knows power management solutions applicable to same footwear system (as taught by Vock-2:¶0111) and need of battery conservation as a design goal (Vock-1 ¶0007,0208,0266,0026,0277), therefore, would have been motivated to make this modification of claimed element c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data in order to gating a full electronics power-on to a detected activity/weight signal (Vock-2 ¶0111,0395), and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods (applying Vock-1’s activity-gated power to Vock-2’s weight sensing MMD footwear systems) to yield predictable results (saving battery life taught by both Vock-1 and Vock-2) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Vock-1 and Vock-2 does not specifically teach (e) reduce tampering with the computing device by: activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (Although Vock-1 teaches reducing tampering and only does not teach specifically the weight-data-correspondence activation/deactivation mechanism — Vock-1's tamper protection cited in ¶0043, 0234 is about detecting removal and gating data access via ID code, not about the sensor subsystem itself activating or not activating based on whether incoming weight data corresponds to an initial reference state, and what Vock-2 teaches extends the activation teaching to the computing device specifically: "power for the sensing units (or data units) may be saved during times of inactivity... when activity is detected, the remaining electronics are powered as needed." Vock-2 explicitly names both the sensing unit and the "data unit" (its watch/receiver — the computing-device analog) as subject to the same activity-triggered power gating: see ¶0111 and also Vock-2 teaches FSR on/off correspondence logic as a state-gated activation mechanism : see ¶0210, 0378-0379).
In the similar field of endeavor, Scherlock3 teaches: activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data (¶0073: "the sensor system 12 may be activated and/or deactivated by activating the sensors 16 in a specific pattern, such as consecutive or alternating toe/heel taps... may contain a 'sleep' mode, which can deactivate the system... after a set period of inactivity." -- a foot-contact/weight-specific activation trigger) ; and also teaches activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (¶0073: activation conditioned on the sensed input matching a specific tap pattern -- the system stays inactive absent that correspondence, directly analogous to the claimed activate/not-activate logic.).
Vock-1, Vock-2, and Scherlock all address the same narrow technical problem: incorporating force/weight-sensitive sensors into footwear, coupling that sensor data to onboard electronics, and telemetering it to an external or paired computing device for processing — the same claimed functional architecture. Scherlock in particular provides a considerably more detailed, production-oriented implementation of functions Vock-1 and Vock-2 already establish at a conceptual level: explicit anatomically-located sensor placement (Scherlock : ¶0010, 0052: sensors at "the first phalange area," "first metatarsal head," "fifth metatarsal head," and "heel area"), an explicit shoe-to-shoe communication architecture for paired bilateral sensor subsystems (Scherlock :¶0119-0121, FIGS. 24-26: "mesh," "daisy chain," and "independent" communication modes between two shoes' sensor systems), and an explicit weight/contact-pattern-gated activation scheme (Scherlock ¶0073: activation/deactivation "by activating the sensors 16 in a specific pattern, such as consecutive or alternating toe/heel taps," with a "sleep" mode after inactivity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Scherlock‘s control system for the modified Vock-1‘s footwear system and e) reduce tampering with the modified Vock-1’s computing device by: activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the modified Vock-1’s footwear electronics based on the modified Vock-1’s subject's weight data corresponding to the modified Vock-1’s initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the modified Vock-1’s footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the modified Vock-1’s initial sensor state. One of ordinary skills in the art developing or refining the Vock-1/Vock-2 architecture would naturally look to Scherlock --- a reference in the identical technical field, addressing the identical problem of practical, power-efficient, multi-sensor footwear telemetry — for a more granular and implementable version of the same functions. Substituting or supplementing Vock-1/Vock-2's more general teachings with Scherlock's specific anatomical placement, paired-shoe communication modes, and pattern-gated activation logic amounts to applying known techniques from the same field to yield the predictable result of a more fully specified, functionally equivalent system, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 22
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 21, Vock-1 teaches wherein the non-volatile memory further causes the foot sensor subsystem to assess weight load (¶0360: "chiropodists may wish to monitor weight distribution... athletic trainers may wish to analyze weight distribution and forces.").
Claim 23
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 21, Vock-1 teaches wherein the non-volatile memory further causes the foot sensor subsystem to manage physical overload of the subject (¶0349: MMD 900 generates events at weight fractions so a patient can "obey doctor's orders to put no more than ¼ weight on foot 906" — a direct overload-management analog ).
Claim 24
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 23, regarding limitation “ wherein the physical overload of the subject is due to cargo manipulation in industrial use”, this is intended-use or environment-of-use limitation: it describes a real-world context for the claimed structure's operation without requiring the structure to do anything different, under that doctrine (see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §§ 2111.02, 2114), an apparatus/system claim's recitation of an intended use generally doesn't distinguish over prior art that is capable of performing that use, system in Vock-1 (weight-fraction event generation, ¶0349) is fully capable of registering an overload condition regardless of whether that overload came from carrying a box, or anything else).
Claim 25
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 21, Vock-1 teaches further comprising at least one sensor device selected from a group consisting of an accelerometer (at least ¶0007).
Claim 26
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 25, Vock-1 teaches further comprising a clock configured to generate time stamped device data for each sensor device that includes a relative time that the device data was generated, wherein each clock is synchronized by communication with a master device (¶0231-0232, 0253 (FIG. 10E/10F): canister electronics impart real-time clock info to sensor via time-tag interface before disconnect; ¶0253: sensor time is "relative to the packet transmission time," and the display unit "will convert the relative time into an absolute time.").
Claim 28
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 21, Vock-1 teaches further comprising a data processing system in communication with both of the foot sensor subsystems, wherein the data processing system is located separately from at least one of the foot sensor subsystems (¶0300-0302 (FIG. 40): wrist instrument 526 "collates data from GPS device 522 and accelerometer device(s) 524" from two shoes 532a/532b — watch is separate from both shoe sensors).
Claim 29
Vock-1 teaches:
A footwear system (MMD for footwear) for workforce monitoring (¶0002: field of invention spans "sports, shipping, training, medicine, fitness, wellness and industrial production.¶0007: MMD devices, Movement Monitoring Devices "¶0385-0387: disclose personnel/product tracking in shipping and industrial contexts, this is Preamble; typically not limiting absent claim life dependent on it), comprising:
two separate foot sensor subsystems 524,452A,B each carried by a shoe 532a,b of a subject 525 (e.g., ¶0300-0302 (FIG. 40): "one or two accelerometer-based devices 524 in runner shoes 532... a second MMD 524... is attached to, or placed within, a second shoe 532... Speed information from a second shoe 532b is thus combined with speed information from shoe 532a."FIG. 36, ¶0284-0286: paired per-shoe sensors 452A/452B) and each comprising:
at least one force sensor 902 configured for measuring a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot 906 (¶0348 (FIG. 57): weight-sensing detector 902 "applied to one or more locations at the bottom of a human foot 906." ¶0350-0351: array of force-sensing resistors positioned at "high impact areas of foot 930 e.g., at the ball and heel of foot 930), and
footwear electronics 954 coupled to the at least one force sensor 952(¶0352 (FIG. 59): weight-sensing detector(s) 952 coupled to processing section 954, "arranged with a shoe 956, or within an insert for shoe 956),
wherein each foot sensor 952 subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device (954,912,940 (¶0348-0352: wireless signals 910, 942, 958 from shoe-mounted MMD to remote receiver/watch 912, 940);
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions (¶0040/0081: MMD/EMD "includes internal memory... Event data is stored in the memory... until transmitted off-board" -- persistent storage across the monitoring period. '731 memory 12b, ¶0176), which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot (¶0349: MMD 900 "first calibrated: all the weight of person with foot 906 is applied to MMD 900 so that detector 902 is calibrated to that entire weight... generates 'events' corresponding to fractions of the entire weight." ¶0350, 0356-0360: array/multi-cell sensors summing readings across foot regions -- weight distribution);
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device (¶0349, 0352: wireless data 910/942/958 communicated to the watch/receiver);
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data (¶0349: the calibration-to-entire-weight step is the initial sensor state, against which subsequent fractional readings are compared); and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device (e.g., ¶0043: (¶0043: explicit "tamper proof detector that ensures the device is not removed or tampered with... until an authorized person removes" it, continually monitored for correspondence to the applied/quiescent state) by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data (e.g., ¶0234), and the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data lacking correspondence with the initial state (¶0234: unique ID/access code gating so that "data within a monitor device... cannot be tampered with without the appropriate access code" -- activation/data-release conditioned on state correspondence).
Vock-1 does not teach: (c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data; (e) reduce tampering with the computing device by: activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by the one or more switches, wherein the switches are arranged as a binary weighted ladder circuit .(Vock-1's power-on teachings (¶[0007,0208) are tied to physical unwrapping/packaging removal, not to weight data triggering activation, element (e), specifically the weight-data-correspondence activation/deactivation mechanism — Vock-1's tamper protection (¶0043, 0234) is about detecting removal and gating data access via ID code, not about the sensor subsystem itself activating or not activating based on whether incoming weight data corresponds to an initial reference state).
In the similar field of endeavor, Vock-2 teaches activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data (¶0111: "power for the sensing units... may be saved during times of inactivity by powering off most of the electronics... The processor... can remain powered so that when activity is detected, the remaining electronics are powered as needed."¶0395: FET-switch power gating tied to detected use); and activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial , wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches (¶0089,0210), and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state , wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches, and (¶0210, 0378-0379: FSR(force sensing resistors) on/off correspondence logic: weight-present vs. absent, as the general mechanism for state-gated activation, indicating that gating sensor-subsystem activation on weight-state correspondence was a known design pattern, also Vock-2 in ¶0089 teaches "a switch that is responsive to a weight of a user"; ¶0210: FSR/switch beneath boot, open/closed on weight ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Vock-2‘s computing system for Vock-1‘s footwear system and (c) activate the modified Vock-1’s computing device in response to the subject's weight data, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches. PHOSITA knows power management solutions applicable to same footwear system (as taught by Vock-2:¶0111) and need of battery conservation as a design goal (Vock-1 ¶0007,0208,0266,0026,0277), therefore, would have been motivated to make this modification of claimed element c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data in order to gating a full electronics power-on to a detected activity/weight signal (Vock-2 ¶0111,0395), and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods (applying Vock-1’s activity-gated power to Vock-2’s weight sensing MMD footwear systems) to yield predictable results (saving battery life taught by both Vock-1 and Vock-2) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Vock-1 and Vock-2 does not specifically teach (e) reduce tampering with the computing device by: activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (Although Vock-1 teaches reducing tampering and only does not teach specifically the weight-data-correspondence activation/deactivation mechanism — Vock-1's tamper protection cited in ¶0043, 0234 is about detecting removal and gating data access via ID code, not about the sensor subsystem itself activating or not activating based on whether incoming weight data corresponds to an initial reference state, and what Vock-2 teaches extends the activation teaching to the computing device specifically: "power for the sensing units (or data units) may be saved during times of inactivity... when activity is detected, the remaining electronics are powered as needed." Vock-2 explicitly names both the sensing unit and the "data unit" (its watch/receiver — the computing-device analog) as subject to the same activity-triggered power gating: see ¶0111 and also Vock-2 teaches FSR on/off correspondence logic as a state-gated activation mechanism : see ¶0210, 0378-0379).
In the similar field of endeavor, Scherlock teaches: activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data (¶0073: "the sensor system 12 may be activated and/or deactivated by activating the sensors 16 in a specific pattern, such as consecutive or alternating toe/heel taps... may contain a 'sleep' mode, which can deactivate the system... after a set period of inactivity." -- a foot-contact/weight-specific activation trigger) ; and also teaches activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (¶0073: activation conditioned on the sensed input matching a specific tap pattern -- the system stays inactive absent that correspondence, directly analogous to the claimed activate/not-activate logic.).
Vock-1, Vock-2, and Scherlock all address the same narrow technical problem: incorporating force/weight-sensitive sensors into footwear, coupling that sensor data to onboard electronics, and telemetering it to an external or paired computing device for processing — the same claimed functional architecture. Scherlock in particular provides a considerably more detailed, production-oriented implementation of functions Vock-1 and Vock-2 already establish at a conceptual level: explicit anatomically-located sensor placement (Scherlock : ¶0010, 0052: sensors at "the first phalange area," "first metatarsal head," "fifth metatarsal head," and "heel area"), an explicit shoe-to-shoe communication architecture for paired bilateral sensor subsystems (Scherlock :¶0119-0121, FIGS. 24-26: "mesh," "daisy chain," and "independent" communication modes between two shoes' sensor systems), and an explicit weight/contact-pattern-gated activation scheme (Scherlock ¶0073: activation/deactivation "by activating the sensors 16 in a specific pattern, such as consecutive or alternating toe/heel taps," with a "sleep" mode after inactivity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Scherlock‘s control system for the modified Vock-1‘s footwear system and e) reduce tampering with the modified Vock-1’s computing device by: activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the modified Vock-1’s footwear electronics based on the modified Vock-1’s subject's weight data corresponding to the modified Vock-1’s initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the modified Vock-1’s footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the modified Vock-1’s initial sensor state. One of ordinary skills in the art developing or refining the Vock-1/Vock-2 architecture would naturally look to Scherlock --- a reference in the identical technical field, addressing the identical problem of practical, power-efficient, multi-sensor footwear telemetry — for a more granular and implementable version of the same functions. Substituting or supplementing Vock-1/Vock-2's more general teachings with Scherlock's specific anatomical placement, paired-shoe communication modes, and pattern-gated activation logic amounts to applying known techniques from the same field to yield the predictable result of a more fully specified, functionally equivalent system, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding limitation “wherein the switches are arranged as a binary weighted ladder circuit":
The combination of prior arts as set forth above, teaches every limitation of claim 29 except the specific circuit arrangement of "wherein the switches are arranged as a binary weighted ladder circuit." Examiner takes official notice that :
a binary weighted ladder circuit — i.e., an arrangement of switches each connected in series with a resistor sized as a binary-weighted (power-of-two) multiple of a base resistance value, tied to a common output line — was, at the time of the effective filing date, a well-known and conventional circuit technique for encoding the states of multiple discrete switches onto a single sense line for readout by a single analog-to-digital conversion channel, thereby reducing the number of dedicated signal lines, connector pins, and associated wiring otherwise required to individually monitor each switch.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrange the weight-detecting switches of the Vock-1 and Vock-2, and Scherlock combination — which already discloses multiple discrete, spatially distributed weight-sensing switches (e.g., 'Vock-1 ¶0350-0351; '731 ¶0210, 0378-0379) whose states are read and communicated by shared onboard electronics — in a binary weighted ladder configuration, because doing so was a routine and predictable application of a well-known circuit technique to reduce the wiring, pin count, and power consumption of an already space- and power-constrained wearable footwear electronics package (see, e.g., 'Vock-1¶0007-0008, 0268 discussing the premium on compact packaging and battery conservation in footwear-mounted sensor electronics). The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a single-line, resistor-encoded readout of multiple switch states, with no unexpected or unpredictable outcome. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007) (a combination of familiar elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results, is likely obvious); MPEP § 2144.03.
Claim 30
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 29, Vock-1 teaches wherein the non-volatile memory further causes the foot sensor subsystem to assess weight load (¶0360: "chiropodists may wish to monitor weight distribution... athletic trainers may wish to analyze weight distribution and forces.").
Claim 31
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 30, wherein the non-volatile memory further causes the foot sensor subsystem to manage physical overload of the subject (¶0349: MMD 900 generates events at weight fractions so a patient can "obey doctor's orders to put no more than ¼ weight on foot 906" — a direct overload-management analog ).
Claim 32
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 23, regarding limitation “ wherein the physical overload of the subject is due to cargo manipulation in industrial use”, this is intended-use or environment-of-use limitation: it describes a real-world context for the claimed structure's operation without requiring the structure to do anything different, under that doctrine (see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §§ 2111.02, 2114), an apparatus/system claim's recitation of an intended use generally doesn't distinguish over prior art that is capable of performing that use, system in Vock-1 (weight-fraction event generation, ¶0349) is fully capable of registering an overload condition regardless of whether that overload came from carrying a box, or anything else).
Claim 34
Vock-1 teaches:
A pair of footwear for workforce monitoring (¶0002: field of invention spans "sports, shipping, training, medicine, fitness, wellness and industrial production.¶0007: MMD devices, Movement Monitoring Devices "¶0385-0387: disclose personnel/product tracking in shipping and industrial contexts, this is Preamble; typically not limiting absent claim life dependent on it), comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems 524,452A,B each carried by a piece of footwear 532a,b of a subject 525 (e.g., ¶0300-0302 (FIG. 40): "one or two accelerometer-based devices 524 in runner shoes 532... a second MMD 524... is attached to, or placed within, a second shoe 532... Speed information from a second shoe 532b is thus combined with speed information from shoe 532a."FIG. 36, ¶0284-0286: paired per-shoe sensors 452A/452B) and each comprising:
at least one force sensor 902 configured for measuring a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot 906 (¶0348 (FIG. 57): weight-sensing detector 902 "applied to one or more locations at the bottom of a human foot 906." ¶0350-0351: array of force-sensing resistors positioned at "high impact areas of foot 930 e.g., at the ball and heel of foot 930), and
footwear electronics 954 coupled to the at least one force sensor 952(¶0352 (FIG. 59): weight-sensing detector(s) 952 coupled to processing section 954, "arranged with a shoe 956, or within an insert for shoe 956),
wherein each foot sensor 952 subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device (954,912,940 (¶0348-0352: wireless signals 910, 942, 958 from shoe-mounted MMD to remote receiver/watch 912, 940);
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions (¶0040/0081: MMD/EMD "includes internal memory... Event data is stored in the memory... until transmitted off-board" -- persistent storage across the monitoring period. '731 memory 12b, ¶0176), which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot (¶0349: MMD 900 "first calibrated: all the weight of person with foot 906 is applied to MMD 900 so that detector 902 is calibrated to that entire weight... generates 'events' corresponding to fractions of the entire weight." ¶0350, 0356-0360: array/multi-cell sensors summing readings across foot regions -- weight distribution);
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device (¶0349, 0352: wireless data 910/942/958 communicated to the watch/receiver);
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data (¶0349: the calibration-to-entire-weight step is the initial sensor state, against which subsequent fractional readings are compared); and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device (e.g., ¶0043: (¶0043: explicit "tamper proof detector that ensures the device is not removed or tampered with... until an authorized person removes" it, continually monitored for correspondence to the applied/quiescent state) by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data (e.g., ¶0234), and the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data lacking correspondence with the initial state (¶0234: unique ID/access code gating so that "data within a monitor device... cannot be tampered with without the appropriate access code" -- activation/data-release conditioned on state correspondence).
Vock-1 does not teach:
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.(Vock-1's power-on teachings (¶[0007,0208) are tied to physical unwrapping/packaging removal, not to weight data triggering activation, element (e), specifically the weight-data-correspondence activation/deactivation mechanism — Vock-1's tamper protection (¶0043, 0234) is about detecting removal and gating data access via ID code, not about the sensor subsystem itself activating or not activating based on whether incoming weight data corresponds to an initial reference state).
In the similar field of endeavor, Vock-2 teaches activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data (¶0111: "power for the sensing units... may be saved during times of inactivity by powering off most of the electronics... The processor... can remain powered so that when activity is detected, the remaining electronics are powered as needed."¶0395: FET-switch power gating tied to detected use); and activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (¶0210, 0378-0379: FSR(force sensing resistors) on/off correspondence logic: weight-present vs. absent, as the general mechanism for state-gated activation, indicating that gating sensor-subsystem activation on weight-state correspondence was a known design pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Vock-2‘s computing system for Vock-1‘s footwear system and (c) activate the modified Vock-1’s computing device in response to the subject's weight data. PHOSITA knows power management solutions applicable to same footwear system (as taught by Vock-2:¶0111) and need of battery conservation as a design goal (Vock-1 ¶0007,0208,0266,0026,0277), therefore, would have been motivated to make this modification of claimed element c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data in order to gating a full electronics power-on to a detected activity/weight signal (Vock-2 ¶0111,0395), and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods (applying Vock-1’s activity-gated power to Vock-2’s weight sensing MMD footwear systems) to yield predictable results (saving battery life taught by both Vock-1 and Vock-2) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Vock-1 and Vock-2 does not specifically teach (e) reduce tampering with the computing device by: activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (Although Vock-1 teaches reducing tampering and only does not teach specifically the weight-data-correspondence activation/deactivation mechanism — Vock-1's tamper protection cited in ¶0043, 0234 is about detecting removal and gating data access via ID code, not about the sensor subsystem itself activating or not activating based on whether incoming weight data corresponds to an initial reference state, and what Vock-2 teaches extends the activation teaching to the computing device specifically: "power for the sensing units (or data units) may be saved during times of inactivity... when activity is detected, the remaining electronics are powered as needed." Vock-2 explicitly names both the sensing unit and the "data unit" (its watch/receiver — the computing-device analog) as subject to the same activity-triggered power gating: see ¶0111 and also Vock-2 teaches FSR on/off correspondence logic as a state-gated activation mechanism : see ¶0210, 0378-0379).
In the similar field of endeavor, Scherlock teaches: activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data (¶0073: "the sensor system 12 may be activated and/or deactivated by activating the sensors 16 in a specific pattern, such as consecutive or alternating toe/heel taps... may contain a 'sleep' mode, which can deactivate the system... after a set period of inactivity." -- a foot-contact/weight-specific activation trigger) ; and also teaches activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state (¶0073: activation conditioned on the sensed input matching a specific tap pattern -- the system stays inactive absent that correspondence, directly analogous to the claimed activate/not-activate logic.).
Vock-1, Vock-2, and Scherlock all address the same narrow technical problem: incorporating force/weight-sensitive sensors into footwear, coupling that sensor data to onboard electronics, and telemetering it to an external or paired computing device for processing — the same claimed functional architecture. Scherlock in particular provides a considerably more detailed, production-oriented implementation of functions Vock-1 and Vock-2 already establish at a conceptual level: explicit anatomically-located sensor placement (Scherlock : ¶0010, 0052: sensors at "the first phalange area," "first metatarsal head," "fifth metatarsal head," and "heel area"), an explicit shoe-to-shoe communication architecture for paired bilateral sensor subsystems (Scherlock :¶0119-0121, FIGS. 24-26: "mesh," "daisy chain," and "independent" communication modes between two shoes' sensor systems), and an explicit weight/contact-pattern-gated activation scheme (Scherlock ¶0073: activation/deactivation "by activating the sensors 16 in a specific pattern, such as consecutive or alternating toe/heel taps," with a "sleep" mode after inactivity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Scherlock‘s control system for the modified Vock-1‘s footwear system and e) reduce tampering with the modified Vock-1’s computing device by: activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the modified Vock-1’s footwear electronics based on the modified Vock-1’s subject's weight data corresponding to the modified Vock-1’s initial sensor state, and not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the modified Vock-1’s footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the modified Vock-1’s initial sensor state. One of ordinary skills in the art developing or refining the Vock-1/Vock-2 architecture would naturally look to Scherlock --- a reference in the identical technical field, addressing the identical problem of practical, power-efficient, multi-sensor footwear telemetry — for a more granular and implementable version of the same functions. Substituting or supplementing Vock-1/Vock-2's more general teachings with Scherlock's specific anatomical placement, paired-shoe communication modes, and pattern-gated activation logic amounts to applying known techniques from the same field to yield the predictable result of a more fully specified, functionally equivalent system, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 35
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the pair of footwear of claim 34, wherein the non-volatile memory further causes the foot sensor subsystem to assess weight load (¶0360: "chiropodists may wish to monitor weight distribution... athletic trainers may wish to analyze weight distribution and forces.").
Claim 36
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the pair of footwear of claim 34, wherein the non-volatile memory further causes the foot sensor subsystem to manage physical overload of the subject(¶0349: MMD 900 generates events at weight fractions so a patient can "obey doctor's orders to put no more than ¼ weight on foot 906" — a direct overload-management analog ).
Claim 37
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the pair of footwear of claim 36, regarding limitation “ wherein the physical overload of the subject is due to cargo manipulation in industrial use”, this is intended-use or environment-of-use limitation: it describes a real-world context for the claimed structure's operation without requiring the structure to do anything different, under that doctrine (see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §§ 2111.02, 2114), an apparatus/system claim's recitation of an intended use generally doesn't distinguish over prior art that is capable of performing that use, system in Vock-1 (weight-fraction event generation, ¶0349) is fully capable of registering an overload condition regardless of whether that overload came from carrying a box, or anything else).
Claim 38
. The pair of footwear of claim 34, Vock-1 teaches further comprising a data processing system in communication with both of the foot sensor subsystems, wherein the data processing system is located separately from at least one of the foot sensor subsystems (¶0300-0302 (FIG. 40): wrist instrument 526 "collates data from GPS device 522 and accelerometer device(s) 524" from two shoes 532a/532b — watch is separate from both shoe sensors).
Claim 39
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the pair of footwear of claim 38, wherein the data processing system is interfaced with at least one of the following: a display device; an electronic game, the electronic game including one or more of a console game, a computer game, or a mobile game; a speaker, earbuds, headphones, or sound generation device to provide aural feedback to the subject; a biomechanical analysis system; and additional time-correlated sensors at body locations other than feet (Display: pervasive. Electronic game: '645 ¶0320-0331 — extensive game-integration disclosure (downloading performance metrics into PLAYSTATION/SEGA/GAMEBOY, computer game 705, arcade game 720); '123 is literally a video-game motion-to-action system/¶0031, 0221-0226 (FIG. 8/8A) — MMDs on "each foot and hand, head, knee, and chest," all time-tagged and reconstructed together.).
Claim 40
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the pair of footwear of claim 34, wherein each sensor subsystem further comprises one or more additional sensors selected from the group consisting of a global positioning system, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial navigation unit, a force sensor, a shear sensor, a pressure sensor, arrays of pressure sensors, a temperature sensor, a pulse sensor, and a blood pressure sensor (FIG. 40/47/53).
Claim 41
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the pair of footwear of claim 34, wherein the programming instructions, when executed, further cause the foot sensor subsystem to generate an output signal for moving an avatar in a virtual world or to generate an output signal corresponding to a keyboard output signal.(Accelerometer/force/pressure: pervasive both.).
Claims 27, 33 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vock-1, US 20060143645 A1 in view of Vock-2, US 20110313731 A1and Scherock, US 20100063779 A1 and Sarrafzad, US 20140031123 A1.
Claim 27
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 21, Sarrafzad teaches wherein the footwear electronics are attached to an outside surface of the corresponding shoe (¶0032 (FIG. 1B): harness "strapped around a shoe using one or more straps" -- externally mounted) , It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sarrafzad‘s electronic for attached to an outside surface of the modified Vock-1’s corresponding shoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have an article of footwear that is designed to slip over a shoe or other article of footwear, such as an external bootie element or shoe cover.
Claim 33
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the system of claim 29, but does not specifically teach wherein the footwear is configured to be used indoors. In the similar field of endeavor, Sarrafzad teaches the footwear is configured to be used indoors (e.g., Abstract), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sarrafzad‘s footwear system for the modified Vock-1‘s device to be used indoor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to extend the applicability of the system.
Claim 42
Vock-1 in view of Vock-2 and Scherlock teaches the pair of footwear of claim 34, Sarrafzad teaches wherein the footwear electronics are attached to an outside surface of the corresponding shoe (¶0032 (FIG. 1B): harness "strapped around a shoe using one or more straps" -- externally mounted) , It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sarrafzad‘s electronic for attached to an outside surface of the modified Vock-1’s corresponding shoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have an article of footwear that is designed to slip over a shoe or other article of footwear, such as an external bootie element or shoe cover.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US10729356B2 (“356”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because first: the patented claims are narrower (contain more subject matter) than the broader application claims, and furthermore, the scope of the patented claims overlaps the scope of the broader application claims; second: they use different phrases that have same interpretation; third: they only have different limitations that are obvious over prior art of record, and therefore the application claims are obvious in view of the patented claims. for example the portion of a game controller that is claimed as connecting to the foot sensor subsystem in the reference patent is a computing device. Therefore, a patent to a computing device as claimed in the instant application would improperly extend the right to exclude which was granted by the reference patent to a game controller. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2). Also intended use in preamble (workforce monitoring system) is not limiting a claim see MPEP 2111.02. Also, The recitation of "two or more force sensitive resistors... at two or more predetermined anatomical locations" in the reference claims, versus "at least one force sensor... at at least one predetermined anatomical location" in the instant claims, is not patentably distinct. It is well understood in the art that a sensor array can be scaled to a single sensor location without producing new or unexpected results, particularly where, as here, the underlying claimed functions (weight determination, distribution, activation, and tamper-reduction) do not depend on any particular sensor count. Reducing the number of sensors from "two or more" to "at least one" (i.e., one) is a trivial and predictable narrowing/generalization that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking a lower-cost or simplified implementation, absent a showing in the instant specification that a single-sensor configuration produces a criticality or unexpected result relative to the multi-sensor configuration of the reference claims. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). While claim 21/34 of the instant application recites that activation/non-activation is performed "by the footwear electronics," and the reference patent's claim 1/13 does not include this phrase, this difference does not render the instant claims patentably distinct. The reference patent's claims already recite "footwear electronics coupled to the... force sensor[s]" as the operative hardware of the foot sensor subsystem; the instant claims' specification of "by the footwear electronics" as the actor performing the activation/non-activation function merely makes explicit what is already necessarily implied by the reference claims' own recited architecture, since the reference discloses no other structure capable of performing that function. A claim limitation that only makes explicit what is inherent in, or an obvious functional consequence of, the prior claimed structure does not confer patentable distinctness. See MPEP § 2144.04.
18887201
“356”
Claim 21. A workforce monitoring system, comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a shoe of a subject and each comprising:
at least one force sensor configured for measuring a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
Claim 1. A footwear system, comprising:
two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a shoe of a subject and each comprising:
two or more force sensitive resistors configured to measure a force at two or more predetermined anatomical locations on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the force sensitive resistors,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a game controller;
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across a foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the game controller;
(c) activate the game controller in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the game controller by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystems based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystems based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
29. A footwear system for workforce monitoring, comprising:
two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a shoe of a subject and each comprising:
at least one force sensor configured for measuring a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by the one or more switches,
wherein the switches are arranged as a binary weighted ladder circuit.
13. A pair of footwear, comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a piece of footwear of a subject, each foot sensor subsystem comprising:
two or more force sensitive resistors configured to measure a force at two or more predetermined anatomical locations on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the force sensitive resistors,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a game controller;
the footwear system comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the force sensitive resistors to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across a foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the game controller;
(c) activate the game controller in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the game controller by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystems based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystems based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
34. A pair of footwear for workforce monitoring, comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a piece of footwear of a subject, each foot sensor subsystem comprising:
at least one force sensor configured to measure a force at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause force sensitive resistors to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
13. A pair of footwear, comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a piece of footwear of a subject, each foot sensor subsystem comprising:
two or more force sensitive resistors configured to measure a force at two or more predetermined anatomical locations on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the force sensitive resistors,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a game controller;
the footwear system comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the force sensitive resistors to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across a foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the game controller;
(c) activate the game controller in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the game controller by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystems based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystems based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
Claims 21-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12121343B2 (“343”). ”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because first: the patented claims are narrower (contain more subject matter) than the broader application claims, and furthermore, the scope of the patented claims overlaps the scope of the broader application claims; second: they use different phrases that have same interpretation; third: they only have different limitations that are obvious over prior art of record, and therefore the application claims are obvious in view of the patented claims. For example the portion of a game controller that is claimed as connecting to the foot sensor subsystem in the reference patent is a computing device., for example intended use in preamble is not limiting a claim see MPEP 2111.02.
18887201
“343”
Claim 21. A workforce monitoring system, comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a shoe of a subject and each comprising:
at least one force sensor configured for measuring a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
Claim 1. A footwear system, comprising:
two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a shoe of a subject and each comprising:
at least one force sensor configured to measure a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across a foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
29. A footwear system for workforce monitoring, comprising:
two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a shoe of a subject and each comprising:
at least one force sensor configured for measuring a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by the one or more switches,
wherein the switches are arranged as a binary weighted ladder circuit.
10. A footwear system, comprising:
two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a shoe of a subject and each comprising:
at least one force sensor configured to measure a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system further comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the foot sensor subsystem to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across a foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state, wherein the subject's weight data is detected by one or more switches,
wherein the switches are arranged as a binary weighted ladder circuit.
34. A pair of footwear for workforce monitoring, comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a piece of footwear of a subject, each foot sensor subsystem comprising:
at least one force sensor configured to measure a force at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause force sensitive resistors to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across the foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
13. A pair of footwear, comprising:
a footwear system having two separate foot sensor subsystems each carried by a piece of footwear of a subject, each foot sensor subsystem comprising:
at least one force sensor configured to measure a force at at least one predetermined anatomical location on a foot, and
footwear electronics coupled to the at least one force sensor,
wherein each foot sensor subsystem is operatively coupled with a computing device;
the footwear system comprising a non-volatile memory that carries programming instructions, which, when executed, cause the force sensitive resistors to:
(a) define subject's weight based at least in part on a weight distribution across a foot, a total weight applied to the foot, and a partial weight applied to the foot;
(b) transfer the subject's weight data to the computing device;
(c) activate the computing device in response to the subject's weight data;
(d) establish an initial sensor state based on the subject's weight data; and
(e) reduce tampering with the computing device by:
activating at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data corresponding to the initial sensor state, and
not activating the at least one foot sensor subsystem by the footwear electronics based on the subject's weight data lacking correspondence with the initial sensor state.
The remaining dependent claims of the instant application (i.e., all claims dependent from claims 21, 29, and 34 not explicitly charted above) are similarly rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the corresponding dependent claims of the "356" and "343" references, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to their respective independent claims. Because the subject matter added by each such dependent claim has already been separately rejected as obvious over the prior art of record in the instant application (see the §103 rejections above), and because the corresponding reference dependent claims recite substantially the same or obvious variants of that same added subject matter, each dependent claim is not separately analyzed limitation-by-limitation herein. Rather, for each dependent claim, the double patenting rejection is based on: (i) the double patenting rejection already established for the independent claim from which it depends, and (ii) the conclusion that the additional limitation(s) recited in the dependent claim would have been an obvious addition to the corresponding independent claim, in view of the same prior art already applied in the pending obviousness rejection of that dependent claim's limitation(s), and/or in view of the corresponding dependent claims of the reference patent/application where such correspondence exists. Applicant is invited to identify any dependent claim believed to recite a limitation that is patentably distinct from both (a) the prior art already applied against it under § 103 and (b) the corresponding reference claims, for individualized consideration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
2 Prior art of record
3 Prior art of record
Prosecution Insights