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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular reference in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of deriving center of pressure trajectory data.
The limitation of deriving center of pressure trajectory data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a hardware processor” the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor, communications interface and output language, “deriving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating information from the data stream. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an inertial sensor. The sensor performs mere data gathering and amount to insignificant extra-solutional activity, specifically pre-solutional activity. Additionally, the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The claim recites that the sensor is borne by an end user thus encompassing the body of the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is 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. There is no antecedent basis for “the signal sensor” and it is unclear if this is the at least one inertial sensor or some other sensor.
Claim 4 is 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. The claim recites a signal inertial sensor and then using multiple inertial sensor. It is unclear if the claim is reciting using multiple sensors on one user or collecting data from multiple, signal sensor tests across multiple user.
Claim 5 is 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. It is unclear what is considered prototypical. It is also unclear what is meant by the CoP following each time. Does this just mean the CoP is tracked over time or through the gait cycle?
Claims 7 and 9 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. The claims recite “e.g. a phone” and “aka joint kinematics data characterizing the end user” and it is unclear if these are actual limitations or just clarifying examples.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele in view of Wu et al. US 2020/0054248.
Regarding claim 1 and 13, Steele discloses a gait analysis method comprising:
providing a data flow generated by at least one sensor borne by an end-user who is ambulating, thereby to define a data flow which describes the end-user's gait ([¶50] the device uses a four axis kinematic sensor ), and
providing a hardware processor configured to derive, from the data flow which describes the end-user's gait, center of pressure (COP) trajectory data characterizing the end-user ([¶54] center of pressure is determined).
Steel does not disclose specifically using an inertial sensor. Wu teaches a similar kinematic sensing device that uses inertial sensors ([¶19] the device uses gyroscopes and accelerometers to collect the movement data. ¶38 the movement data is used to determine center of gravity and center of pressure information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Steele with the sensors of Wu in order to provide more orientation information ([¶78]).
Regarding claim 5, Steele discloses the center of pressure (COP) trajectory data characterizing the end-user comprises a prototypical center of pressure (COP) trajectory which the end-user's COP approximately follows each time the end-user proceeds through her/his gait cycle ([¶53,54] the CoP is tracked through the gait analysis).
Regarding claim 8, Steele discloses that the at least one inertial sensor comprises a single sensor ([¶50] the sensor is one 4 axis sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Steele discloses the trajectory data which the hardware processor is configured to derive, comprises trajectory/ies of lower body joint angles aka joint kinematics data characterizing the end-user ([¶70,71] joint kinematic data is derived from the measurements).
Regarding claim 10, Steele discloses the trajectory data which the hardware processor is configured to derive, comprises center of pressure (COP) trajectory data characterizing the end-user ([¶70,71] joint kinematic data of the user is derived from the measurements).
Regarding claim 11, Steele discloses determining the COP but does not disclose the center of pressure (COP) trajectory data characterizing the end-user is presented to at least one user as a butterfly diagram. Wu teaches a similar kinematic sensing device that presents its information in a butterfly diagram ([¶76,77] Wu specifically presents center of gravity data but the graph format is still applicable to COP as they are closely related, ¶38 ).
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele and Wu in view of Zhang et al. US 2023/0114833.
Regarding claim 2, Steele discloses a gait analysis method comprising:
providing a data flow generated by at least one inertial sensor borne by an end- user who is ambulating, thereby to define a data flow which describes the end-user's gait ([¶50] the device uses a four axis kinematic sensor which as the inertial sensor is not further defined is Steele’s sensor is considered an inertial sensor as it give data indicative of inertia and movement),
providing a hardware processor configured to derive, from the data flow which describes the end-user's gait, kinematic data characterizing the end-user ([¶54,63-65] gait is analyzed);
Steele does not specifically disclose estimating validity of using the inertial sensor to estimate kinematic data and generating an output indication of the user's kinematics trajectory data only when said validity is over-threshold. Zhang teaches a similar wearable sensing device that analyzes walking and running that only outputs valid data ([¶140] the system will only display data that has reliability over a certain level). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Steele with the teachings of Zhang in order to provide a confident and accurate measurement ([¶140]).
Regarding claim 4, Steele collecting and analyzing the data from the inertial sensors but does not specifically using machine learning. Zhang discloses a similar wearable device that uses a machine-learning model resides in the processor and wherein the machine-learning model is trained, using training data including: plural data flows each generated by a single sensor borne by a user, thereby to define plural users, and plural labels comprising trajectory data regarding the plural users respectively which was collected using multiple sensors to sense each of the users' gaits ([¶17,117-120] machine learning model maybe trained on the sensor data from multiple users). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Steele with the teachings of Zhang in order to automatically identify features of the signal or gait ([¶17]).
Regarding claim 12, Steele discloses that the at least one inertial sensor comprises a single sensor ([¶50] the sensor is one 4 axis sensor).
Claim(s) 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele and Wu in view of Hsieh et al. “Smartphone accelerometry to assess postural control in individuals with multiple sclerosis”
Regarding claim 3 and 6-7, Steele does not specifically disclose the end-user bears a mobile phone having an integral accelerometer and wherein the single sensor comprises the mobile phone's integral accelerometer. Hsieh teaches a system that uses a mobile phone and its sensors to determine gait as a stand in for force sensors ([pg. 116 Col. 2]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Steele with the teachings of Hsieh in order to collect data with less expensive equipment than force plates and motion capture cameras ([pg. 114 Col. 2]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights