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.
Claim 4-9, 14 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.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the calculation unit compares areas within two closed curves on upper and lower sides, respectively, displayed on the display unit”. It is unclear what areas that Claim is referring. It is unclear what this limitation represents.
Claim 5 (6-9, 14 by dependency) recites “wherein the polar coordinate is represented by the closed curve on the upper side”. It is unclear what curve and what coordinate Applicant is referring to.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the calculation unit integrates the left ground reaction force signal and the right ground reaction force signal to calculate a center of pressure x-coordinate (COPx) in a human body in a medial-lateral direction of the human body, and uses the calculated COPx to estimate a gait cycle”. The abstract idea is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Organizing Human Activity group(s) identified in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity; there is no improvement to a computer or other technology; does not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine. The additional elements are identified as follows: sole sensors and a calculation unit. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional computer and data-gathering elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer and data-gathering functions that do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the abstract idea.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by Sunarya et al. Feature Analysis of Smart Shoe Sensors for Classification of Gait Patterns; Sensors 2020, 20, 6253. Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has held that combining additional elements for data-gathering with abstract ideas does not make a claim patent-eligible. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data gathering that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known data-gathering equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2020-0102162 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches: A wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus, comprising: a plurality of left sole sensor units that measure a left ground reaction force signal generated from a left sole during walking; a plurality of right sole sensor units that measure a right ground reaction force signal generated from a right sole during walking (figure 1-2; paragraph 0025; claim 1); and a calculation unit that receives and calculates the left ground reaction force signal and the right ground reaction force signal, wherein the calculation unit integrates the left ground reaction force signal and the right ground reaction force signal (figures 1-4) to calculate a center of pressure x-coordinate (COPx) in a human body in a medial-lateral direction of the human body (paragraph 12 of the provided English translation), and uses the calculated COPx to estimate a gait cycle (figure 5-6; claim 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches: The wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus of claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates a change in the COPx according to the estimated gait cycle (figure 7), and the wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus further includes a gait disturbance diagnosis unit that diagnoses gait disturbance based on the change in the COPx (paragraph 63 of the provided English Translation).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches: The wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus of claim 1, wherein the COPx in the human body is viewed in real time through a smart device (paragraph 17-18 of the provided English Translation).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches: The wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an amplifier that amplifies the left ground reaction force signal and the right ground reaction force signal (figure 2; op-Amp).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches: The wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a timer that synchronizes the left ground reaction force signal and the right ground reaction force signal (paragraph 15; 32 of provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches: The wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of left sole sensor units and the plurality of right sole sensor units are installed on a big toe, a 1st metatarsal bone, a 5th metatarsal bone, a cuboid bone, and a heel of the left and right feet, respectively (figure 1; paragraph 16 of provided English translation).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Fuss et al. (US 2016/0166178 A1), hereinafter Fuss.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches: The wearable gait disturbance analysis apparatus of claim 2 further comprising a display unit (figure 2), but fails to mention that it displays the change in the COPx according to the gait cycle in polar coordinates.
Fuss teaches that COPx measures can be made in polar coordinates (paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include displaying the change in the COPx according to the gait cycle in polar coordinates as the substitution of one coordinate system for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights