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 15-28 and 36-41 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 15 recites that “the condensed representation includes fewer data values than an output dimension of the final output layer”; it is entirely unclear how a number of data values can be compared to a geometric representation in space (dimension). Further, as a “layer” appears to be a plane, the invention as claimed appears to be calling for generating a single data value, as a plane is two-dimensional? Still further, as the “final output layer” is never defined or given any characteristics and does not appear to be an essential part of tasks performed by the processor, it is not clear whether this “final output layer”, if not a two-dimensional layer, has any limit to its “dimension” such that it is equally possible that it could be infinite and any amount of data values would be fewer than this undefined “layer”. It is entirely unclear what is being generated and how these parameters can be compared. The same issue is found in claims 28 and 36.
Claim 15 further calls for sending “at least one of” the condensed representation, the first data, the second data, or a visual somehow associated with the condensed representation. It is unclear what this visual might be or how it might be obtained or otherwise generated, as the claim only indicates generating the representation, not any sort of visual associated with it. Further, it is unclear why the invention is configured to execute the model and generate this representation when it is equally possible that that representation is not further used in any manner, including when only the received data is sent. The same issue is found in claim 28. Clarification is required.
Claim 17 defines characteristics of a dense layer of the final output layer of the model; however, per claim 15, only the first portion of the model which specifically excludes the final output layer is executed by the invention as claimed. It is unclear if the intent is to also define the claimed device as being configured to execute this part of the model, or if this is merely a general theoretical description of some unrelated potential program. The same issue is found in claim 38. Clarification is required.
Claim 22 calls for estimating the change in force over time, a gait cycle, a percentage of a gait cycle, or an activity type. It is entirely unclear how a change in force could be estimated over an activity type. The other options are all durations in time which are valid for estimations of a change in force, but an activity type merely describes a category of movement. Clarification is required.
Claim 27 now calls for “estimating and scaling a shape of at least a partial force curve based at least in part on the estimating of the change in force”; it is unclear what might be estimated and scaled beyond a partial force curve that would be encompassed by the “at least” portion of this parameter. Clarification is required.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 112, the Examiner notes that the amendments to the claims have resolved some issues but have raised numerous other issues such that the scope of the claims is now wholly indefinite.
Regarding the art rejections, Applicant’s remarks have been noted but, as the amendments to the claims have resulted in the claims being too indefinite to allow further examination on the merits, these will not be further addressed at this time but will be revisited if still applicable when the other issues in the claims have been resolved.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against the claims at this time; however, as all the claims are rejected under 112 they are not presently allowable, as discussed above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights