DETAILED ACTION
of
SHOE FORCE DETECTION UNITS OF A FOOT FORCE DETECTION SYSTEM
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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 01/10/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show [(plurality of pressure sensors, in claim 1; second processing module, in claim 1; second communication unit in claim 1; second processing module, in claim 1)] as described in the specification
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). 37 C.F.R. 1.83.
Appropriate correction is required
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are made.
The following title is suggested: Shoe Force Detection System For Monitoring Physical Activities Has First and second Processing Module Operably Coupled To Produce First and second Digital Representation Of First Force Data.
Regarding the elements in the claims: The [(plurality of pressure sensors, in claim 1; second processing module, in claim 1; second communication unit in claim 1; second processing module, in claim 1)] does not have a reference number in the specification and is not described regarding the embodiment descriptions.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, claim line 3 and claim line 7: replace “first force data and second force data” with --- a first force data and a second force data – to maintain antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markison et al. [herein after Markison] (US 2018/0054663).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Markison discloses a foot force detection system comprises: a first shoe force detection unit (16-R) having a first plurality of pressure sensors (20-1 & 20-4) operably coupled to produce first force data (a first memory section); a first processing module (70-R) operably coupled to produce a first digital representation of the first force data (see claim 1, “ in accordance with a sampling signal, data from a plurality of pressure sensing elements of a shoe sensor system); and a first communication unit operably coupled to the first processing module (70-R); a second shoe force detection unit (16-L) having a second plurality of pressure sensors (20-9 & 20-10) operably coupled to produce second force data (a second memory section); a second processing module (70-L) operably coupled to produce a second digital representation of the second force data (70-L); and a second communication unit (25) operably coupled to the second processing module (Fig. 11); wherein the first communication unit communicates foot force data with the second communication unit (Fig. 8L).
Regarding claim 2, Markison further discloses the first communication unit including a first shoe (R- shoe) area network transceiver (34); the second communication unit (25) including a second shoe area network transceiver (34), wherein the foot force data is communicated via the first and second shoe (L- shoe) area network transceivers (34), and wherein at least one of the first and second communication units includes a transceiver for communicating with a computing entity (¶0057, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, Markison further discloses the first communication unit including a first light transceiver (36-1); the second communication unit including a second light transceiver (36-2), wherein the foot force data (Fig. 4) being communicated via the first and second light transceivers “a light-based communication protocol (e.g., Infrared, fiber optics, etc.). As a further example, a sensor communication link 36”, and wherein at least one of the first and second communication units includes a transceiver for communicating with a computing entity “a sensor communication link 36 includes a radio frequency (RF) communication path in accordance with a wireless communication protocol (e.g., 60 GHz, Bluetooth, WLAN, ZigBee, etc.)”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Prior arts made available do not teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination , a foot force detection system comprises: a first shoe force detection unit and a second shoe force detection unit having a first plurality of pressure sensors and a second plurality of pressure sensors operably coupled to produce second force data; a first processing module and a second processing module operably coupled to produce; a first and second digital representation of the first force data; and a first and second communication unit operably coupled to the first processing module; the first communication unit communicates foot force data with the second communication unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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 on (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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
