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 .
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the measured parameters" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 is directed to “A computer program product comprising software encoding instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, perform the method of claim 1.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judiciary exception because the generally cited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation.
Please also note that much of the language following certain terms, such as “for remedying”, “for preventing”, “for implementing”, “to determine”, or “to perform”, would be interpreted as intended use. Additionally, the term “computer readable medium” is normally preferred to be listed as “non-transitory computer readable medium” or a “non-transitory computer signal storage medium” or, so that it would clearly be identified as a tangible device or tangible computer or tangible processor.
In the Specification filed on 09/30/2024, paragraph [00172] described that “The computer program product may be stored on a non-transitory signal storage medium such as an optical disk (CD-ROM or DVD-ROM), a digital magnetic tape, a magnetic disk, a solid state memory such as a USB flash memory, a ROM, etc.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the measured parameters" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to teaching and/or suggesting of “a method for providing feedback to a user walking with a walking aid, wherein the walking aid comprises at least two cues of a different type, wherein the cue type is any of a visual, auditory or tactile cue type, the method comprising the steps of:
- comparing the measured parameters with the user data and preferences to determine if the gait, stance and/or activity parameters fall within the acceptable threshold,
if the measured parameters are not within the acceptable threshold, then:
verifying using all sensor data and user preferences to validate gait/stance
irregularities,
verifying the cues status by verifying if one or more cues are already on, and
if no cues are on then turn one or more cues on, else based on the user profile and
cue status change cue type, intensity or rate of a cue that is on,
if the measured parameters are within the acceptable threshold, the gait and/or stance
are considered as regular, and then:
verifying the cues status by verifying if one or more cues are already on, and
if no cues are on then keep the cues off, else determining the next cue action, and
wherein based on the user profile and cues status the next cue action is selected
from any of: turning the cues off that are on, continuing to maintain the cues on
that are on, or lowering the intensity of the cues that are on so as to have them fade
away.”
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al discloses the task or the wireless smart sensing task may comprise: object detection, presence detection, proximity detection, object recognition, activity recognition, object verification, object counting, daily activity monitoring, well-being monitoring, vital sign monitoring, health condition monitoring, baby monitoring, elderly monitoring, sleep monitoring, sleep stage monitoring, walking monitoring, exercise, monitoring, tool detection, fall-down detection, fall-down recognition, fall-down estimation, fall-down verification, emotion detection, emotion recognition, emotion estimation, emotion verification, motion detection, motion degree estimation, motion recognition, motion estimation, motion verification, periodic motion detection, periodic motion recognition, periodic motion estimation, periodic motion verification, repeated motion detection, repeated motion recognition, repeated motion estimation, repeated motion verification, stationary motion detection, stationary motion recognition, stationary motion estimation, stationary motion verification, cyclo-stationary motion detection, cyclo-stationary motion recognition, cyclo-stationary motion estimation, cyclo-stationary motion verification, transient motion detection, transient motion recognition, transient motion estimation, transient motion verification, environment informatics detection, environment informatics recognition, environment informatics estimation, environment informatics verification, gait detection, gait recognition, gait estimation, gait verification.
[US 2022/0299619]
Dean et al discloses the sensor track fusion 500 is tasked with track management for the SAC 302B. Track management includes track initiation, track number assignment, and track deletion. FIG. 18 depicts an example of possible sensor reports received by sensor track fusion 500 for two possible targets. Assume that target 1 is located in the first region 1802 and target 2 is located in the second region 1804. What is needed is an approach to track management that will use sensor reports 1806, 1808, and 1810 to create a Track 1 associated with target 1. Similarly, sensor reports 1812 and 1814 will be used to create Track 2 associated with target 2. Adding to the complexity, some sensor reports (e.g. 1816) may need to be rejected as unrelated to any track and/or target. The STF 500 executes a joint probabilistic data association filter (JPDAF) for track management and data association of multiple targets. Additionally or alternatively, STF 500 employs a nearest-neighbor JPDAF. Both probabilistic data association filters are Bayesian approaches that compute the probability that each measurement in a track's validation region (e.g. 1704 FIG. 17) is the correct measurement and the probability that none of the validated measurements is the correct measurement. [US 2024/0280988]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from examiner should be directed to primary examiner craft is Van Trieu whose telephone number is (571) 2722972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached on (571) 272-3114.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786- 9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VAN T TRIEU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
01/16/2026