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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “at least one sensor” in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, creates a situation in which, a case wherein there are multiple sensors, the recitation of “the sensor” in claim 2, makes unclear which sensor is being referred to. The relevant limitation of claim 2 should read “wherein the device includes the at least one sensor, the processor, and a memory.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19-25 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.
Regarding claim 19, the term “smoothness” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 19 recites “measuring movements to calculate distance traveled and smoothness of the movement with each repetition of an exercise, then calculating performance metric(s) based on the average or median distance per repetition, the standard deviation of the distances with each repetition, and the average or deviations of smoothness of the movement.” For examination purposes, the relevant portion of the claim has been construed to mean “measuring movements to calculate distance traveled and average velocity of the movement with each repetition of an exercise, then calculating performance metric(s) based on the average or median distance per repetition, the standard deviation of the distances with each repetition, the average velocity of all repetitions, and the standard deviation of the velocities with each repetition.”
Claims 20-25 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 19.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0133551 Chang et al. (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Chang teaches a system and method for testing or improving balance of an associated user (Paragraph 0026 discloses a wearable activity monitoring system and method), comprising:
a wearable or holdable device (Paragraph 0026 discloses that the activity monitoring system may be wearable, and Paragraph 0031 discloses that the system may be integrated into a smart watch);
at least one sensor that senses movement of the device and transmits movement data to a processor operatively associated therewith (Fig. 1 shows the activity monitoring system comprising an inertial measuring system, Label 112, that communicates kinematic data to a processor system, Label 114); and
said processor configured to use the movement data from the at least one sensor to provide feedback representing balance or stability of the associated user (Fig. 1 shows the processor system, Label 114, responsible for processing squat workout data, and Paragraph 0036 discloses that during a squat motion, the system analyzes stability of the pelvis).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Chang teaches wherein the device includes the at least one sensor, the processor, and a memory (Fig. 1 shows the inertial measuring system, Label 112, and the processor system, Label 114, contained within the activity monitoring system, Label 110).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Chang teaches wherein the device includes a display that shows the associated user a lesson or exercise to perform (Fig. 1 shows a feedback interface, Label 130, and Paragraph 0061 discloses that the feedback interface may be a display integrated within the activity monitoring system running an application. Paragraph 0032 discloses the system may determine the sets of exercises to perform and Paragraph 0036 discloses that the system can walk a user through performing a workout via the software application, considered a lesson, and further, generate a future training plan).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Chang teaches wherein the at least one sensor includes an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope (Paragraph 0043 discloses that the inertial measurement unit can include at least one accelerometer and/or gyroscope).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chang.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Chang teaches wherein the exercise pertaining to balance or mobility is shown on the display to the user (Paragraph 0036 discloses walking a user through an exercise via the software application). Under an alternate interpretation, in which Chang lacks in explicitly teaching the display of the device showing a user an exercise, it would have been obvious to one in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chang to exemplify a movement before instructing a user to perform said movement. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that a user could have a visual representation, beyond just text, of how an exercise should be performed. Chang discloses the system and method integrated into a smartwatch (Paragraph 0031), and modifying an application of the smartwatch to display an exercise can be easily envisioned.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Chang teaches wherein movement of the device is measured by the accelerometer and/or gyroscope of the device while the associated user performs the lesson or exercise (Paragraph 0036 discloses the inertial measurement unit measuring multiple kinematic properties during an activity).
Regarding claim 13, Chang teaches further comprising using an algorithm to convert the measured movements to a stability score (Paragraph 0051 discloses a biomechanical processing module configured to process and transform kinematic data into metrics such as displacement consistency, core stability, and detecting smoothness, jerkiness, tremors, and other types of metrics).
Regarding claim 14, Chang teaches further comprising augmenting, diminishing, or ignoring measured movements in multiple dimensions for specific exercises (Paragraph 0093 discloses ignoring a pushup for a pushup count if the vertical displacement of a user does not reach a certain threshold. Paragraph 0073 discloses calibration, during which movements are ignored for metric measurement purposes, that can be triggered when the device detects walking in between training activities. Paragraph 0073 also discloses normalizing a set of kinematic data streams to one or more positions of a training activity, considered augmenting or diminishing said data streams).
Regarding claim 15, Chang teaches further comprising real-time feedback to the associated user on current stability (Paragraph 0066 discloses using the generated metrics in generating real-time feedback of user performance).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang.
Regarding claim 16, Chang lacks an explicit teaching wherein providing the real-time feedback includes at least one of a one-dimensional graph or multi-dimensional vector representation. The system of Chang detects properties of a motion path and at least generates representative data that could be easily plotted on a graph (see Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0120). The graph displayed in Fig. 4 is not explicitly disclosed as being presented to a user. Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application of Chang to display a graph of the data represented on Fig. 4, so that a user could have yet another visual indicator of exercise history.
Regarding claim 17, Chang teaches further comprising adjusting the score to account for noisy data by use of a baseline measurement (Paragraph 0073 discloses calibration of kinematic data to a user baseline). Chang lacks an explicit teaching of using arm sway and tremors in the baseline measurement; however, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Chang to specifically calibrate against an arm baseline. The system of Chang is designed to track arm motion paths (see Fig. 3), so one would have been motivated to make this modification to ignore unwanted noise in data and get a more accurate reading of an arm motion path.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, in view of US 2021/0060382 Douglas et al. (hereinafter Douglas).
Regarding claim 18, Chang lacks further comprising using training data to normalize scores across exercises and different surfaces on which the user performs the exercise so that a stability score can be compared across exercise and regardless of a duration of the exercise.
However, Douglas teaches a system and method for a wearable device that determines a balance index. Specifically, Douglas teaches normalizing data across exercises and multiple surfaces (Paragraph 0022 discloses analyzing normalized data against prior sets of data for discrete motions within an exercise session. Paragraph 0129 discloses the system also capable of using historic balance data on various flooring surfaces to determine possible irregularities or slopes in flooring surfaces). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system and method of Chang with the system and method of Douglas, resulting in a device that would reference previous data associated with different exercises and surfaces upon which said exercises were performed, then normalizing incoming data. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the system and method of Chang to be more consistent across a larger variety of applications. For example, the modified system could be used for a large range of exercises and more accurately across a variety of sloped or improperly balanced surfaces.
Regarding claim 19, Chang teaches measuring movements to calculate distance traveled with each repetition of an exercise, then calculating performance metric(s) based on distance per repetition (Paragraph 0090 discloses a pushup processing mode which can be used to generate metrics such as vertical displacement, core engagement classification, motion path, and core stability. Paragraph 0093 discloses using vertical displacement or pushup depth in classifying and judging pushups).
Chang lacks an explicit teaching wherein performance metrics are based on standard deviation from the average distance and standard deviation from the average velocity for each repetition of a movement. Regardless, Chang teaches tracking consistency of vertical displacement and consistency of velocity during pushups to quantify pushup performance (Paragraph 0096) and explicitly teaches tracking average displacement (Fig. 6 shows Avg. Displacement).
According to Dictionary.com, the statistics term standard deviation means a measure of how much the data in a certain collection are scattered around the mean such that a low standard deviation means that the data are tightly clustered, and a high standard deviation means that they are widely scattered. As discussed above, Chang explicitly tracks the average displacement and consistency of certain displacement values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used standard deviation in the determination of consistency of velocity and displacement in the system and method of Chang in order to determine consistency among measurements.
Regarding claim 20, Chang teaches further comprising using the performance metrics to be shown to the associated user (see Fig. 6, Avg. Displacement).
Regarding claim 21, the modification of Chang, discussed above, and as applied to claim 17, teaches further comprising normalizing data against arm movements (Paragraph 0073 discloses calibrating and normalizing kinematic data, preferably in the position an training activity is to be performed).
Chang lacks further comprising taking a pre-training assessment and determining a stability score.
However, Douglas teaches collecting a balance baseline through a series of assessments. More specifically, Douglas discloses collecting a baseline by capturing data for a time a user balances with eyes open and balances with eyes closed (Paragraphs 0120-0121). Further, Douglas teaches determining a stability score after measuring an exercise session (see Fig. 10, composite balance index, Label 1050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the modified method of Chang according to claim 17, to further collect a pre-training assessment and display a composite balance index at the end of an exercise session as taught by Douglas. One would have been motivated to make this modification so both a device and user could first obtain point of reference (via a pre-training assessment) from which a final score could be compared (via the composite balance index). This would provide a user the benefit of being able to quantify and log progress across multiple exercise sessions.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Douglas teaches further comprising determining a final stability score at the end of a given exercise or collection of exercises and normalizing the final stability score for a duration of the exercise performed (Paragraph 0022 discloses providing a quantified measurement of the motion, such as a normalized “score” over a single or discrete motions performed throughout a session).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Douglas, in view of US 2018/0279919 Bansbach et al. (hereinafter Bansbach).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Chang and Douglas lacks further comprising: providing trends to the associated user regarding the stability score and/or performance metrics. However, Bansbach teaches a method and system for sensing biomechanical activity. Specifically Bansbach teaches determining a stability index for a user during an exercise session and displaying trends over the course of multiple days (Paragraph 0098 and Fig. 6E disclose a graph showing a subject’s stability index for assessments taken on different days).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Chang and Douglas to display a graph representing data over multiple exercise sessions, over the course of multiple days, as taught by Bansbach. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that a user could have a visual aide to track progress in regards to improving stability.
Regarding claim 25, Bansbach lacks an explicit teaching of advising the associated user to perform less risky exercises to mitigate fall risk in response to low stability scores of falls. Regardless, Bansbach teaches providing predictive feedback related to injury risk and recommended training regimens based on collected movement information (Paragraph 0006). Further, Bansbach teaches adjusting training intensity by assessing a user over time (Paragraph 0089 discloses retesting a subject to see whether a training recommendation has a reduced injury risk than previously determined). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have further modified the combination of Chang, Douglas and Bansbach to change the intensity of an exercise, as taught by Bansbach, in response to a low stability index because a low stability index indicates an increased chance of falling. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to decrease the risk of injury while exercising, as taught by Bansbach.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LEE GARLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-0810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed, 8:30-8:30; Thu 8-12.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights