DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claim amendments and Applicant’s Remarks filed 10 March 2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 28, 30, 32, 34, 40, and 47-48. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 28, 30-32, 34-41, 44, and 46-48 are pending.
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 Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9, 28, 30-32, 34-41, 44, and 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Representative claim(s) 30 [representing all independent claims] recite(s):
A hearing assistance system comprising:
a hearing assistance device comprising a first control circuit;
a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) in electrical communication with the first control circuit, wherein the first IMU is configured to be disposed in a fixed position relative to a head of a subject wearing the hearing assistance device;
a first microphone in electrical communication with the first control circuit;
a first electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the first control circuit;
a memory in electrical communication with the first control circuit comprising data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements;
a first power supply circuit in electrical communication with the first control circuit;
wherein the first control circuit is configured to execute operations to:
receive an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject;
estimate a posture of the subject's body using the first IMU and at least one sensor other than the first IMU, the at least one other sensor comprising a blood pressure sensor, wherein the IMU and the blood pressure sensor are mounted in a first hearing assistance device; wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture;
compare the estimated posture of the subject's body to the predetermined posture;
if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the first predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the first predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the first predetermined posture;
if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the second predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the second predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the second predetermined posture;
wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the first predetermined posture if a measured blood pressure is at or above a threshold value, and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the second predetermined posture if the measured blood pressure is below the threshold value.
(Emphasis added: abstract idea, additional element)
Step 2A Prong 1
Representative claim(s) 30 recites the following abstract ideas, which may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper:
“receive an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject… wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture” – may be performed by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data
“estimate a posture of the subject's body” – may be performed by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data, and drawing mental conclusions therefrom based on derived thresholds, under no particular time constraints
“compare the estimated posture of the subject's body to the predetermined posture” – may be performed by merely observing at least a limited amount or known or previously collected data, and drawing mental conclusions therefrom based on derived thresholds, under no particular time constraints
“if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the first predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the first predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the first predetermined posture… wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the first predetermined posture if a measured blood pressure is at or above a threshold value, and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the second predetermined posture if the measured blood pressure is below the threshold value” – may be performed by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data, and drawing mental conclusions therefrom based on derived thresholds, under no particular time constraints; wherein “prompt the subject to move…” may be considered to refer to a step of organizing human activity [The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:… managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II))]
“if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the second predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the second predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the second predetermined posture… wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the first predetermined posture if a measured blood pressure is at or above a threshold value, and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the second predetermined posture if the measured blood pressure is below the threshold value” – may be performed by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data, and drawing mental conclusions therefrom based on derived thresholds, under no particular time constraints; wherein “prompt the subject to move…” may be considered to refer to a step of organizing human activity [MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)]
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extra-solutionary activity (and otherwise generic computer elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea [e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process] and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations].
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Representative claim 30 only recites additional elements of extra-solutionary activity – in particular, extra-solution activity [generic computer functions, data gathering] – without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 – the instant claim, for example does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection – via the claimed extra-solution activity, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 28, 35-39, 44, 46-48 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application/integration [the dependent claim(s) recite generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea].
Dependent claim(s) 9, 31, 35, 37-38, 41 encounter substantially the same issues as the independent claim(s) from which they depend in that they encompass further generic extra-solutionary activity [generic data gathering] and/or generic computer elements [storage, memory per se].
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 and 30 as individual wholes fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extra-solutionary activity [i.e., generic computer functions, data gathering] and generic computer elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea [MPEP § 2106.05(f)] and is further considered to merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer [MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality].
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extra-solutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more. The extra-solutionary activity of processor steps [acquiring, storing, transmitting signals, etc.] as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and functions [control circuit and memory recited at a high level of generality and functions therein], MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the generic computer elements and functions therein, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s).
Claim(s) 1 and 30 recites “a hearing assistance device comprising… a first microphone in electrical communication with the first control circuit; a first electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the first control circuit;…a first power supply circuit in electrical communication with the first control circuit” [wherein the Examiner notes that in claim 1, the recitation of ‘using’ a hearing assistance system is considered to refer intended use subject matter within the preamble, such that the hearing assistance system of claim 1 is not positively recited as being part of the method, but for the sake of compact prosecution is analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B], wherein claim(s) 32 and 34 recite “a second hearing assistance device comprising… a second microphone in electrical communication with the second control circuit; a second electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the second control circuit; a second power supply circuit in electrical communication with the second control circuit”. Such a hearing assistance device comprising the corresponding claimed elements and a second hearing device comprising the corresponding claimed elements is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Beck (US-20080123865-A1) [In principle, hearing aids have the following essential components: an input transducer, an amplifier and an output transducer. The input transducer is generally a sound pickup, for example a microphone, and/or an electromagnetic receiver, for example an induction coil. The output transducer is generally implemented as an electroacoustic transducer, for example a miniature loudspeaker, or as an electromechanical transducer, for example a bone conduction hearing aid. The amplifier is usually integrated in a signal processing unit… The power supply for the hearing aid and in particular for the signal processing unit 3 is provided by a battery 5 which is also integrated in the hearing aid housing 1 (Beck ¶0003)]
Claim(s) 1 and 30 recite “a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) that is in electrical communication with the first control circuit”, wherein claim(s) 3, 32, and 34 recite “a second IMU disposed in a fixed position relative to the subject’s head, wherein the second IMU is spaced apart from the first IMU by a distance of at least three centimeters”, and wherein claim(s) 6 recites “wherein the first IMU is mounted in the first hearing assistance device and a second IMU is mounted in a second hearing assistance device”. Such a first IMU and a second IMU is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed IMUs, and recites the IMUs at a high level of generality [As used herein the term "inertial measurement unit" or "IMU" shall 30 refer to an electric device that can generate signals related to a body's specific force and/or angular rate. IMUs herein can include one or more of an accelerometer (3, 6, or 9 axis) to detect linear acceleration and a gyroscope to detect rotational rate. In some embodiments, an IMU can also include a magnetometer to detect a magnetic field (Applicant’s Specification p. 22-23)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of activity monitoring. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Helwani (US-9848273-B1, previously presented) [The motion sensor 951a, 952a may comprise one or more accelerometers, one or more magnetometers, and/or one or more gyroscopes. A motion sensor may be disposed within the shell of each of the left and right hearing devices 901a, 902a (Helwani Col 14:44-48)]
Pedersen (US-20150230036-A1, previously presented) [The hearing aid device 2 comprises a sensor member 8 that is configured to detect motion of the hearing aid device 2 and thus the level of physical activity of the hearing aid user 4. The sensor member 8 comprises an accelerometer or a gyroscope or both (Pedersen ¶0143), wherein the Examiner notes that an accelerometer in combination with a gyroscope is considered to define an inertial measurement unit]
Bennett (US-20130343584-A1, wherein the Examiner notes that the presently cited Bennett reference is not the same as the previously cited Bennett reference in the Non-Final Rejection dated 10 December 2025) [hearing assist device 500 includes a plurality of medical sensors, including at least one… position/motion sensor 518 (Bennett ¶0053, Fig. 5); Position/motion sensor 518 includes one or more sensors that may be present to measure time of day, location, acceleration, orientation, vibrations, and/or other movement related characteristics of the user. For instance, position/motion sensor 518 may include one or more of… an accelerometer (to measure acceleration of the user), a gyroscope (to measure orientation of the head of the user), a magneto (to determine a direction the user is facing) (Bennett ¶0067), wherein the Examiner notes that an accelerometer in combination with a gyroscope is considered to define an “IMU”]
Claim(s) 1 and 30 recites “at least one sensor other than the first IMU, the at least one other sensor comprising a blood pressure sensor, wherein… the blood pressure sensor [is] mounted in a first hearing assistance device”. Such a blood pressure sensor is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed blood pressure sensor, and recites the blood pressure sensor at a high level of generality [The blood pressure sensor can be, for example, a pressure sensor (Applicant’s Specification p. 23)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of activity monitoring. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Husung (US-20170127193-A1, previously presented) [The sensor or biosensor captures a measurement value of the biological measured variable. By way of example, the pulse or the heartbeat, the body temperature or sweating are able to be captured as measured variables. It is also possible to measure oxygen saturation, blood sugar levels, blood pressure or further medical parameters (Husung ¶0017); a hearing aid system 1 containing a hearing aid 3 and an optical sensor 5 for capturing the heart rate of a hearing aid wearer (Husung ¶0040)]
Bennett (US-20130343584-A1) [Examples of health monitoring technology that may be incorporated in a hearing assist device include health sensors that determine (for example, sense/detect/measure/collect, or the like) various physical characteristics of the user, such as blood pressure (Bennett ¶0035); Sensors 106a and 106b are medical sensors that each sense a characteristic of the user and generate a corresponding sensor output signal. Although two sensors 106a and 106b are shown in hearing assist device 102 in FIG. 1, any number of sensors may be included in hearing assist device 102, including three sensors, four sensors, five sensors, etc. (e.g., tens of sensors, hundreds of sensors, etc.). Examples of sensors for sensors 106a and 106b include a blood pressure sensor,… a motion sensor (e.g., to detect falling down impacts, long periods of activity, etc.) (Bennett ¶0039)]
Frederiksen (US-20170289704-A1, previously presented) [The hearing device 8 may comprise sensors configured to detect or estimate one or more of the following parameters: heart rate, heart rate variability, oxygen saturation (level of oxygen), blood pressure (Frederiksen ¶0139)]
Claim(s) 9, 31, 35, 37 recites “a visual display device” / “a display screen of a visual display device”. Such a “visual display device” is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed visual display device, and recites visual display device at a high level of generality [an external visual display device such as a smart phone, a video monitor, a video display screen, a smart mirror, a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, a hologram generator, a tablet, a computer, or the like (Applicant’s Specification p. 7)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of image display. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Claim 40 recites “collecting heart rate data using a heart rate sensor”. Such a “heart rate sensor” is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed heart rate sensor, and recites the heart rate sensor at a high level of generality [The heart rate sensor can be, for example, an electrical signal sensor, an acoustic sensor, a pressure sensor, an infrared sensor, an optical sensor, or the like (Applicant’s Specification p. 23)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of biological sensors. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Husung [Husung ¶0040]
Frederiksen [Frederiksen ¶0139]
Bennett [¶¶0035, 0039]
Examiner’s Note Regarding Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim(s) 35 and 37-38 recite subject matter regarding “generating feedback data…generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data, the feedback image simultaneously including a visual representation of the first predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy and a visual representation reflecting the tracked movement, wherein the visual representation of the first predetermined movement comprises a display of a head reflect a position in which the subject’s head needs to be moved to in order to complete the first predetermined movement, and wherein the visual representation of the tracked movement comprises an image of the subject’s head reflecting a current position of the subject’s head” [emphasis applied; wherein the Examiner notes that claim 37 recites similar subject matter with respect to the claimed “visual representation” , claim 38 recites similar subject matter with respect to the claimed “silhouette”], which the Examiner notes is not considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as none of the identified claims positively recite or include language that is considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis [the Examiner notes that merely prompting the subject to move in a certain direction is not considered to positively recite a treatment; the Examiner further notes that the recitation of providing a visual representation of a tracked movement as compared to an expected movement as part of a predetermined movement is not considered to define a particular treatment] as an additional element to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)].
Accordingly, the claim(s) as whole(s) fail amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9, 28, 30-32, 34-38, 44, 46, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US-20130343584-A1, wherein the Examiner notes that the presently cited Bennett reference is not the same as the previously cited Bennett reference in the Non-Final Rejection dated 10 December 2025) in view of Crane (US-20120218285-A1, previously presented), Curchod (US-5826578-A, previously presented), and Eser (“The effect of different body positions on blood pressure”, NPL attached).
Regarding claim 1, Bennett teaches
A method of providing vestibular therapy to a subject using a hearing assistance system comprising a first control circuit [processing logic 108 may store and/or access sensor data in storage 112, processed or unprocessed. Furthermore, processing logic 108 may access one or more programs stored in storage 112 for execution. Storage 112 may include one or more types of storage, including memory (e.g., random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), etc.) that is volatile or non-volatile (Bennett ¶0041); For instance, FIG. 5 shows a hearing assist device 500 that is an example of hearing assist device 102 according to an exemplary embodiment (Bennett ¶0051)], a first microphone in electrical communication with the first control circuit [at least one microphone 524 (Bennett ¶0053, Fig. 5)], a first electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the first control circuit [hearing assist device 500 further includes a speaker 512 (Bennett ¶0053, Fig. 5)], a first power supply circuit in electrical communication with the first control circuit [Rechargeable battery 114 is a rechargeable battery that includes one or more electrochemical cells that store charge that may be used to power components of hearing assist device 102 (Bennett ¶0045)], and a memory [Bennett ¶0041], the method comprising:
estimating a posture of the subject's body using a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) that is in electrical communication with the first control circuit [hearing assist device 500 includes a plurality of medical sensors, including at least one… position/motion sensor 518 (Bennett ¶0053, Fig. 5); Position/motion sensor 518 includes one or more sensors that may be present to measure time of day, location, acceleration, orientation, vibrations, and/or other movement related characteristics of the user. For instance, position/motion sensor 518 may include one or more of… an accelerometer (to measure acceleration of the user), a gyroscope (to measure orientation of the head of the user), a magneto (to determine a direction the user is facing) (Bennett ¶0067), wherein the Examiner notes that an accelerometer in combination with a gyroscope is considered to define an “IMU”], wherein the IMU and a blood pressure are mounted in a first hearing assistance device [Examples of health monitoring technology that may be incorporated in a hearing assist device include health sensors that determine (for example, sense/detect/measure/collect, or the like) various physical characteristics of the user, such as blood pressure (Bennett ¶0035); Sensors 106a and 106b are medical sensors that each sense a characteristic of the user and generate a corresponding sensor output signal. Although two sensors 106a and 106b are shown in hearing assist device 102 in FIG. 1, any number of sensors may be included in hearing assist device 102, including three sensors, four sensors, five sensors, etc. (e.g., tens of sensors, hundreds of sensors, etc.). Examples of sensors for sensors 106a and 106b include a blood pressure sensor,… a motion sensor (e.g., to detect falling down impacts, long periods of activity, etc.) (Bennett ¶0039)].
However, while Bennett is generally directed towards assessing head orientation, Bennett fails to explicitly disclose the memory comprising data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements; and wherein the method includes receiving an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject; wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture.
Crane discloses systems for providing vestibular therapies to a subject using a head-worn device [Described herein are systems and methods for treatment of vestibular disorders, such as those that may produce vertigo for example, using a visual image such as a displayed graphic for example (Crane ¶0041); The measurement of the head movement can involve the use of one or more gyroscopes on a headgear, counting cycles, or other means of determining the velocity, frequency, and amplitude of head movement (Crane ¶0056)], wherein Crane discloses storing data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements [the headgear module 360 can be configured to (1) facilitate, by a processor, requesting movement of the user's head, so as to provide the relative movement between the graphic and the user's head, (2) receive, by a processor, information regarding movement of the user's head, (3) facilitate, by a processor, determining whether the user's head movement exceeds a threshold, and (4) facilitate, by a processor and responsive to the obtained information, displaying the graphic only when the user's head movement exceeds the threshold (Crane ¶0072); The processing system 602 may include a processor for executing instructions and may further include a machine-readable medium 619, such as a volatile or non-volatile memory, for storing data and/or instructions for software programs (Crane ¶0082)]; and executing operations to receive an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject [Referring to FIG. 1, various methods for treating a vestibular disorder can include generating a graphic 100. The method can include prompting relative movement between a graphic and a user's head 120. The relative movement can be provided while the user views the graphic… Responsive to the obtained information, the method can include repeating various steps, such as, for example, generating the display output 100, providing relative movement between the graphic and the user's head 120, and obtaining information regarding the user's perception of the graphic 130 (Crane ¶0042)]; wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture [Visual motion exposure can be useful as a rehabilitation strategy. The mainstay of vestibular rehabilitation is habituation to actual motion (Crane ¶0037); Side-to-side motion can be provided by rotation of the head about a generally vertical axis when the user is standing or seated generally upright. Up-and-down motion, can be provided by rotation of the head about a generally horizontal axis when the user is standing or seated generally upright. Although the nature of the motion has been described with reference to the user being in a standing or generally upright seated position, the similar motion of the head relative to the body can be provided with the user in a partially or fully reclined position (Crane ¶0044), wherein certain motions being measured while the user is standing or seated generally upright, or when the user is partially or fully reclined, are considered to respectively read on first and second predetermined postures].
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 of Bennett to employ the memory comprising data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements; and wherein the method includes receiving an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject; wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture, so as to train the central nervous system to appropriately recalibrate vestibular function and utilize proprioception in order to improve vestibular function over time [Crane ¶0036].
However, while Bennett in view of Crane as presently modified discloses that certain vestibular therapies requires certain predetermined postures to perform the vestibular therapies, Bennett in view of Crane fails to explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises comparing the estimated posture of the subject's body to the predetermined posture; wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the first predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the first predetermined posture, prompting the subject to move to the first predetermined posture; and wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the second predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the second predetermined posture, prompting the subject to move to the second predetermined posture.
Curchod discloses a system for measuring subject movement and determining adherence of the subject’s movement to a predetermined movement, wherein Curchod discloses estimating a posture of the subject’s body [In the present embodiment, image 50 represents the body position and body movements of golfer 20 of FIG. 2 (Curchod, Col 5:59-60, Figs. 6A-B)]; comparing the estimated posture of the subject’s body to a predetermined posture [With reference next to FIG. 6A, yet another embodiment of the present claimed invention is shown in which two images 50 and 60 are displayed concurrently on display unit 32. In the present embodiment, image 50 represents the body position and body movements of golfer 20 of FIG. 2. Dotted image 60 represents a "sample" golfer whose body position and movements are stored in the memory of processor 30. Image 60 represents, for example, a stored record of the best previous golf swing of golfer 20, a golf swing of the instructor of golfer 20, a golf swing of a professional golfer, or a computer generated golf swing. Therefore, the present invention allows for real time observation by golfer 20 of his own golf swing, and also allows for real time comparison by golfer 20 of his golf swing with an "ideal" golf swing. Thus, golfer 20 is able to immediately alter his body position and movements during his golf swing so that his movements duplicate the body position and body movements of an ideal golfer (Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6)]; and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject’s body does not match the required predetermined posture, prompting the subject to move to the predetermined posture [Therefore, the present invention allows for real time observation by golfer 20 of his own golf swing, and also allows for real time comparison by golfer 20 of his golf swing with an "ideal" golf swing. Thus, golfer 20 is able to immediately alter his body position and movements during his golf swing so that his movements duplicate the body position and body movements of an ideal golfer (Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6, Figs. 6A-B); With reference next to FIG. 7, another embodiment of the present invention is shown in which two images 50 and 60 are displayed concurrently and overly each other on display unit 32. As in FIGS. 6A and 6B, image 50 represents the body position and body movements of golfer 20 of FIG. 2. Image 60 again represents, for example, a stored record of the best previous golf swing of golfer 20, a golf swing of the instructor of golfer 20, or a golf swing of a professional golfer whose body position and movements are stored in the memory of processor 30. By overlying the images as set forth in the present embodiment, golfer 20 can easily determine differences between his body position as represented by image 50 and the ideal body position as represented by image 60 (Curchod, Col 7:1-14, Figs. 6A-B, 7)].
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 method of Bennett in view of Crane to employ comparing the estimated posture of the subject's body to the predetermined posture; wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the first predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the first predetermined posture, prompting the subject to move to the first predetermined posture; and wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the second predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the second predetermined posture, prompting the subject to move to the second predetermined posture, so as to allow for the subject to be in a correct starting posture for performing the assigned vestibular therapy prior to performing the assigned vestibular therapy [Crane ¶0044; Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6; Curchod, Col 7:1-14, Figs. 6A-B and 7].
However, Bennett fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one sensor other than the first IMU, the at least one other sensor comprising the blood pressure sensor, is used in estimating a posture of the subject's body; and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the first predetermined posture if a measured blood pressure is at or above a threshold value, and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the second predetermined posture if the measured blood pressure is below the threshold value.
Eser discloses methods for assessing blood pressure in different postures, wherein Eser discloses that there is a measurable difference in blood pressure between sitting, supine, and standing [In supine position, a significantly higher BP was obtained compared with the other positions in this study. Similarly, significantly lower BP was obtained in the standing position with the arm supported at the level of right atrium. In another study, both systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly higher in the supine position than in the sitting position (van der Steen et al. 2000). The position of the body is known to affect BP readings, with BP increasing successively from the supine to the sitting and the standing positions (Netea et al. 1998, Beevers et al. 2001). In this study we observed a decrease in SBP and DBP From the sitting and supine to the standing. Netea et al. (2003) found that both SBP and DBP were significantly higher in the supine than in the sitting position. The results of this study supports the observation of Netea et al. (2003) that both SBP and DBP were significantly higher in the supine than in the sitting position (Eser p. 139), wherein the Examiner notes that measurable differences is considered to read on an unspecified threshold separating postures of sitting, supine, and standing].
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 of Bennett in view of Crane and Curchod to employ wherein the blood pressure sensor is used in estimating a posture of the subject's body; and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the first predetermined posture if a measured blood pressure is at or above a threshold value, and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the second predetermined posture if the measured blood pressure is below the threshold value, so as to further provide additional context on patient health based on posture-induced changes in blood pressure and provide confirmation of subject posture, as blood pressure is considered to be indicative of posture.
Regarding claim 3, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising tracking movement of the subject using a second IMU disposed in a fixed position relative to the subject’s head, wherein the second IMU is spaced apart from the first IMU by a distance of at least three centimeters [As shown in FIG. 15, system 1500 includes a first hearing assist device 1501, a second hearing assist device 1503, and a portable electronic device 1505. First and second hearing assist devices 1501 and 1503 may each be implemented in a like manner to any of the hearing assist devices described above in Sections II-IV (Bennett ¶0144, Fig. 15), wherein as each hearing assist device is considered to comprise an IMU (Bennett ¶¶0053, 0067) and are considered to be worn in respective ears, a second is considered to be spaced apart at least three centimeters away from the first IMU].
Regarding claim 6, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the first IMU is mounted in the first hearing assistance device and a second IMU is mounted in a second hearing assistance device [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0067, 0144, Fig. 15]
Regarding claim 9, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 6, further comprising wirelessly transmitting data derived from the first IMU to a visual display device with the first hearing assistance device [Sensor data captured by hearing assist device 500 may likewise be delivered via such or other wired or wireless pathways to the external supporting device for (further) processing… Sensor data may be stored and displayed in some form locally on the external supporting device along with similar audio, graphical or textual content, commands or queries… Sensors within one or both hearing assist device 500 and an external supporting device may be medical sensors or environmental sensors (e.g., latitude/longitude, velocity, temperature, wearer's physical orientation, acceleration, elevation, tilt, humidity, etc.) (Bennett ¶0063)], and
wirelessly transmitting data derived from the second IMU to the visual display device with the second hearing assistance device [Bennett ¶0063].
Regarding claim 28, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the posture of the subject’s body includes matching data from the first IMU and the blood pressure sensor against a set of predetermined data patterns representing body postures using a pattern matching algorithm [information provided by any accelerometers, gyros or magnetos included within device 1603 may be used to provide enhanced information regarding a current body position (for example, standing up, leaning over or lying down) and/or orientation of the wearer of hearing assist device 1601 (Bennett ¶0212); Eser p. 139, wherein identifying a measured value for either IMU data and blood pressure data that is associated with a certain posture is considered to read on the claimed limitation].
Regarding claim 30, Bennett teaches
A hearing assistance system comprising:
a hearing assistance device comprising a first control circuit [processing logic 108 may store and/or access sensor data in storage 112, processed or unprocessed. Furthermore, processing logic 108 may access one or more programs stored in storage 112 for execution. Storage 112 may include one or more types of storage, including memory (e.g., random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), etc.) that is volatile or non-volatile (Bennett ¶0041); For instance, FIG. 5 shows a hearing assist device 500 that is an example of hearing assist device 102 according to an exemplary embodiment (Bennett ¶0051)];
a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) in electrical communication with the first control circuit, wherein the first IMU is configured to be disposed in a fixed position relative to a head of a subject wearing the hearing assistance device [hearing assist device 500 includes a plurality of medical sensors, including at least one… position/motion sensor 518 (Bennett ¶0053, Fig. 5); Position/motion sensor 518 includes one or more sensors that may be present to measure time of day, location, acceleration, orientation, vibrations, and/or other movement related characteristics of the user. For instance, position/motion sensor 518 may include one or more of… an accelerometer (to measure acceleration of the user), a gyroscope (to measure orientation of the head of the user), a magneto (to determine a direction the user is facing) (Bennett ¶0067), wherein the Examiner notes that an accelerometer in combination with a gyroscope is considered to define an “IMU”, and wherein the IMU being included in the hearing assist device is considered to read on being disposed in a fixed position relative to the subject’s head];
a first microphone in electrical communication with the first control circuit [at least one microphone 524 (Bennett ¶0053, Fig. 5)];
a first electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the first control circuit [hearing assist device 500 further includes a speaker 512 (Bennett ¶0053, Fig. 5)];
a memory in electrical communication with the first control circuit [Bennett ¶0041];
a first power supply circuit in electrical communication with the first control circuit [Rechargeable battery 114 is a rechargeable battery that includes one or more electrochemical cells that store charge that may be used to power components of hearing assist device 102 (Bennett ¶0045)];
wherein the first control circuit is configured to execute operations to:
estimate a posture of the subject's body using the first IMU [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0067; For example, information provided by any accelerometers, gyros or magnetos included within device 1603 may be used to provide enhanced information regarding a current body position (for example, standing up, leaning over or lying down) and/or orientation of the wearer of hearing assist device 1601 (Bennett ¶0212)], wherein the IMU and a blood pressure sensor are mounted in a first hearing assistance device [Examples of health monitoring technology that may be incorporated in a hearing assist device include health sensors that determine (for example, sense/detect/measure/collect, or the like) various physical characteristics of the user, such as blood pressure (Bennett ¶0035); Sensors 106a and 106b are medical sensors that each sense a characteristic of the user and generate a corresponding sensor output signal. Although two sensors 106a and 106b are shown in hearing assist device 102 in FIG. 1, any number of sensors may be included in hearing assist device 102, including three sensors, four sensors, five sensors, etc. (e.g., tens of sensors, hundreds of sensors, etc.). Examples of sensors for sensors 106a and 106b include a blood pressure sensor,… a motion sensor (e.g., to detect falling down impacts, long periods of activity, etc.) (Bennett ¶0039)].
However, while Bennett is generally directed towards assessing head orientation, Bennett fails to explicitly disclose wherein the memory comprises data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements; and wherein the first control circuit is configured to execute operations to receive an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject; wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture.
Crane discloses systems for providing vestibular therapies to a subject using a head-worn device [Described herein are systems and methods for treatment of vestibular disorders, such as those that may produce vertigo for example, using a visual image such as a displayed graphic for example (Crane ¶0041); The measurement of the head movement can involve the use of one or more gyroscopes on a headgear, counting cycles, or other means of determining the velocity, frequency, and amplitude of head movement (Crane ¶0056)], wherein Crane discloses storing data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements [the headgear module 360 can be configured to (1) facilitate, by a processor, requesting movement of the user's head, so as to provide the relative movement between the graphic and the user's head, (2) receive, by a processor, information regarding movement of the user's head, (3) facilitate, by a processor, determining whether the user's head movement exceeds a threshold, and (4) facilitate, by a processor and responsive to the obtained information, displaying the graphic only when the user's head movement exceeds the threshold (Crane ¶0072); The processing system 602 may include a processor for executing instructions and may further include a machine-readable medium 619, such as a volatile or non-volatile memory, for storing data and/or instructions for software programs (Crane ¶0082)]; and executing operations to receive an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject [Referring to FIG. 1, various methods for treating a vestibular disorder can include generating a graphic 100. The method can include prompting relative movement between a graphic and a user's head 120. The relative movement can be provided while the user views the graphic… Responsive to the obtained information, the method can include repeating various steps, such as, for example, generating the display output 100, providing relative movement between the graphic and the user's head 120, and obtaining information regarding the user's perception of the graphic 130 (Crane ¶0042)]; wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture [Visual motion exposure can be useful as a rehabilitation strategy. The mainstay of vestibular rehabilitation is habituation to actual motion (Crane ¶0037); Side-to-side motion can be provided by rotation of the head about a generally vertical axis when the user is standing or seated generally upright. Up-and-down motion, can be provided by rotation of the head about a generally horizontal axis when the user is standing or seated generally upright. Although the nature of the motion has been described with reference to the user being in a standing or generally upright seated position, the similar motion of the head relative to the body can be provided with the user in a partially or fully reclined position (Crane ¶0044), wherein certain motions being measured while the user is standing or seated generally upright, or when the user is partially or fully reclined, are considered to respectively read on first and second predetermined postures].
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 of Bennett to employ wherein the memory comprises data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements; and wherein the first control circuit is configured to execute operations to receive an assigned vestibular therapy from the selection of vestibular therapies for the subject to perform based on a vestibular-related problem of the subject; wherein the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in one of a plurality of predetermined postures, the plurality of predetermined postures comprising a first predetermined posture and a second predetermined posture, so as to train the central nervous system to appropriately recalibrate vestibular function and utilize proprioception in order to improve vestibular function over time [Crane ¶0036].
However, while Bennett in view of Crane as presently modified discloses that certain vestibular therapies requires certain predetermined postures to perform the vestibular therapies, Bennett in view of Crane fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operations include steps to compare the estimated posture of the subject's body to the predetermined posture; wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the first predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the first predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the first predetermined posture; and wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the second predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the second predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the second predetermined posture.
Curchod discloses a system for measuring subject movement and determining adherence of the subject’s movement to a predetermined movement, wherein Curchod discloses estimating a posture of the subject’s body [In the present embodiment, image 50 represents the body position and body movements of golfer 20 of FIG. 2 (Curchod, Col 5:59-60, Figs. 6A-B)]; comparing the estimated posture of the subject’s body to a predetermined posture [With reference next to FIG. 6A, yet another embodiment of the present claimed invention is shown in which two images 50 and 60 are displayed concurrently on display unit 32. In the present embodiment, image 50 represents the body position and body movements of golfer 20 of FIG. 2. Dotted image 60 represents a "sample" golfer whose body position and movements are stored in the memory of processor 30. Image 60 represents, for example, a stored record of the best previous golf swing of golfer 20, a golf swing of the instructor of golfer 20, a golf swing of a professional golfer, or a computer generated golf swing. Therefore, the present invention allows for real time observation by golfer 20 of his own golf swing, and also allows for real time comparison by golfer 20 of his golf swing with an "ideal" golf swing. Thus, golfer 20 is able to immediately alter his body position and movements during his golf swing so that his movements duplicate the body position and body movements of an ideal golfer (Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6)]; and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject’s body does not match the required predetermined posture, prompting the subject to move to the predetermined posture [Therefore, the present invention allows for real time observation by golfer 20 of his own golf swing, and also allows for real time comparison by golfer 20 of his golf swing with an "ideal" golf swing. Thus, golfer 20 is able to immediately alter his body position and movements during his golf swing so that his movements duplicate the body position and body movements of an ideal golfer (Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6, Figs. 6A-B); With reference next to FIG. 7, another embodiment of the present invention is shown in which two images 50 and 60 are displayed concurrently and overly each other on display unit 32. As in FIGS. 6A and 6B, image 50 represents the body position and body movements of golfer 20 of FIG. 2. Image 60 again represents, for example, a stored record of the best previous golf swing of golfer 20, a golf swing of the instructor of golfer 20, or a golf swing of a professional golfer whose body position and movements are stored in the memory of processor 30. By overlying the images as set forth in the present embodiment, golfer 20 can easily determine differences between his body position as represented by image 50 and the ideal body position as represented by image 60 (Curchod, Col 7:1-14, Figs. 6A-B, 7)].
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 of Bennett in view of Crane to employ steps to compare the estimated posture of the subject's body to the predetermined posture; wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the first predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the first predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the first predetermined posture; and wherein if the assigned vestibular therapy requires the subject's body to be in the second predetermined posture and upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject's body does not match the second predetermined posture, prompt the subject to move to the second predetermined posture, so as to allow for the subject to be in a correct starting posture for performing the assigned vestibular therapy prior to performing the assigned vestibular therapy [Crane ¶0044; Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6; Curchod, Col 7:1-14, Figs. 6A-B and 7].
However, Bennett in view of Crane and Curchod fails to explicitly disclose wherein the blood pressure sensor is also used to estimate the posture of the subject's body; wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the first predetermined posture if a measured blood pressure is at or above a threshold value, and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the second predetermined posture if the measured blood pressure is below the threshold value.
Eser discloses methods for assessing blood pressure in different postures, wherein Eser discloses that there is a measurable difference in blood pressure between sitting, supine, and standing [In supine position, a significantly higher BP was obtained compared with the other positions in this study. Similarly, significantly lower BP was obtained in the standing position with the arm supported at the level of right atrium. In another study, both systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly higher in the supine position than in the sitting position (van der Steen et al. 2000). The position of the body is known to affect BP readings, with BP increasing successively from the supine to the sitting and the standing positions (Netea et al. 1998, Beevers et al. 2001). In this study we observed a decrease in SBP and DBP From the sitting and supine to the standing. Netea et al. (2003) found that both SBP and DBP were significantly higher in the supine than in the sitting position. The results of this study supports the observation of Netea et al. (2003) that both SBP and DBP were significantly higher in the supine than in the sitting position (Eser p. 139), wherein the Examiner notes that measurable differences is considered to read on an unspecified threshold separating postures of sitting, supine, and standing].
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 of Bennett in view of Crane and Curchod to employ wherein the blood pressure sensor is also used to estimate the posture of the subject's body; wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the first predetermined posture if a measured blood pressure is at or above a threshold value, and wherein the estimated posture of the subject matches the second predetermined posture if the measured blood pressure is below the threshold value, so as to further provide additional context on patient health based on posture-induced changes in blood pressure and provide confirmation of subject posture, as blood pressure is considered to be indicative of posture.
Regarding claim 31, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The hearing assistance system of claim 30, wherein the hearing assistance system is configured to wirelessly transmit feedback data to a visual display device [Bennett ¶0063].
Regarding claim 32, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The hearing assistance system of claim 31, further comprising
a second hearing assistance device comprising
a second control circuit [As shown in FIG. 15, system 1500 includes a first hearing assist device 1501, a second hearing assist device 1503, and a portable electronic device 1505. First and second hearing assist devices 1501 and 1503 may each be implemented in a like manner to any of the hearing assist devices described above in Sections II-IV (Bennett ¶0144, Fig. 15): Bennett ¶¶0041, 0051],
a second IMU in electrical communication with the second control circuit, wherein the second IMU is disposed in a second fixed position relative to the head of the subject wearing the hearing assistance device [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0067, 0144],
a second microphone in electrical communication with the second control circuit [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0144],
a second electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the second control circuit [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0144],
a second power supply circuit in electrical communication with the second control circuit [Bennett ¶¶0045, 0144].
Regarding claim 34, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The hearing assistance system of claim 30, further comprising
a second control circuit [Bennett ¶¶0041, 0051, 0144];
a second IMU in electrical communication with the second control circuit, wherein the second IMU is configured to be disposed in a second fixed position relative to the head of the subject wearing the hearing assistance device [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0067, 0144];
a second microphone in electrical communication with the second control circuit [Bennett ¶¶0041, 0144];
a second electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the second control circuit [Bennett ¶¶0041, 0144];
a second power supply in electrical communication with the second control circuit [Bennett ¶¶0045, 0144];
wherein the second control circuit is configured to execute operations to:
track movement of the subject using the second IMU [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0067, 0144, 0212].
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second control circuit is configured to execute an operation to generate feedback data reflecting a comparison of the tracked movement of the subject against a predetermined direction and predetermined amount of movement using data from the second IMU.
Curchod discloses generating feedback data reflecting a comparison of tracked movement of the subject against a predetermined direction and predetermined amount of movement using data from a plurality of movement sensors [Curchod, Col 7:1-14, Figs. 6A-B, 7].
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 of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ an operation to generate feedback data reflecting a comparison of the tracked movement of the subject against a predetermined direction and predetermined amount of movement using data from the second IMU, so as to allow the subject to modify their movements in real time in order to match the ideal movements [Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6].
Regarding claim 35, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising,
generating feedback data at the first control circuit by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against the predetermined direction and predetermined amount of the first predetermined movement [see § 103 modification of claim 1 above; Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6, Figs. 6A-B].
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser fails to explicitly disclose further comprising generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data, the feedback image simultaneously including a visual representation of the first predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy and a visual representation reflecting the tracked movement, wherein the visual representation of the first predetermined movement comprises a display of a head reflecting a position in which the subject's head needs to be moved to in order to complete the first predetermined movement, and wherein the visual representation of the tracked movement comprises an image of the subject's head reflecting a current position of the subject's head.
Curchod discloses generating a feedback image, the feedback image simultaneously including a visual representation of the first predetermined movement and a visual representation reflecting the tracked movement [Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6], and wherein the first predetermined movement comprises a display of a head reflecting a position in which the subject’s head needs to be moved to in order to complete the first predetermined movement, and wherein the visual representation of the tracked movement comprises an image of the subject’s head reflecting a current position of the subject’s head [Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6].
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 method of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data, the feedback image simultaneously including a visual representation of the first predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy and a visual representation reflecting the tracked movement, wherein the visual representation of the first predetermined movement comprises a display of a head reflecting a position in which the subject's head needs to be moved to in order to complete the first predetermined movement, and wherein the visual representation of the tracked movement comprises an image of the subject's head reflecting a current position of the subject's head, so as to allow the subject to modify their movements in real time in order to match the ideal movements [Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6].
Regarding claim 36, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the selection of vestibular therapies comprises any of Brandt-Daroff exercises, the Epley maneuver, habituation [Crane ¶0037], gaze stabilization, and balance training.
Regarding claim 37, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1.
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose the method further comprising: generating feedback data at the first control circuit by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against the predetermined direction and predetermined amount of the first predetermined movement; and generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data; after generating the feedback data for the first predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy: prompting the subject to move in a second predetermined direction by a second predetermined amount as part of a second predetermined movement of the series of predetermined movements of the assigned vestibular therapy; tracking movement of the subject using the first IMU as the subject performs the second predetermined movement; generating second feedback data by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against the second predetermined direction and the second predetermined amount of the second predetermined movement; and generating a second feedback image on the display screen of the visual display device using the feedback data, the feedback image simultaneously including a visual representation of the second predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy and a visual representation reflecting the tracked movement of the second predetermined movement of the series of predetermined movements of the assigned vestibular therapy.
Curchod discloses generating feedback data by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against a predetermined direction and predetermined amount of a first predetermined movement; and generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data, the feedback image simultaneously including a visual representation of the predetermined movement and a visual representation reflecting the tracked movement of the subject [Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6, Col 7:1-14; wherein the stored record is considered to read on the claimed silhouette].
As such, since Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser as presently modified teaches that the assigned vestibular therapy may comprise a series of predetermined movements [Crane ¶0042] and tracking the subject’s movements [Bennett ¶¶0053, 0067, 0212], 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 method of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ generating feedback data at the first control circuit by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against the predetermined direction and predetermined amount of the first predetermined movement; and generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data; after generating the feedback data for the first predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy: prompting the subject to move in a second predetermined direction by a second predetermined amount as part of a second predetermined movement of the series of predetermined movements of the assigned vestibular therapy; tracking movement of the subject using the first IMU as the subject performs the second predetermined movement; generating second feedback data by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against the second predetermined direction and the second predetermined amount of the second predetermined movement; and generating a second feedback image on the display screen of the visual display device using the feedback data, the feedback image simultaneously including a visual representation of the second predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy and a visual representation reflecting the tracked movement of the second predetermined movement of the series of predetermined movements of the assigned vestibular therapy, so as to allow the subject to modify their movements in real time in order to match the ideal movements [Curchod, Col 5, line 56-Col 6, line 6] as the subject performs vestibular therapies [Crane ¶0042].
Regarding claim 38, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1.
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser fails to explicitly disclose further comprising, generating feedback data at the first control circuit by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against the predetermined direction and predetermined amount of the first predetermined movement; and generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data, wherein the feedback image comprises a silhouette illustrating the position the subject’s head needs to be moved to in order to complete the first predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy.
Curchod discloses generating feedback data by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against a predetermined direction and predetermined amount of a first predetermined movement; and generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data, wherein the feedback image comprises a silhouette illustrating the position the subject’s head needs to be moved to in order to complete the first predetermined movement [Curchod, Col 7:1-14; wherein the stored record is considered to read on the claimed silhouette].
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 method of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ generating feedback data at the first control circuit by comparing the tracked movement of the subject against the predetermined direction and predetermined amount of the first predetermined movement; and generating a feedback image on a display screen of a visual display device using the feedback data, wherein the feedback image comprises a silhouette illustrating the position the subject’s head needs to be moved to in order to complete the first predetermined movement of the assigned vestibular therapy, so as to allow the subject to modify their movements in real time in order to match the ideal movements [Curchod, Col 5:56-Col 6:6] and determine differences between the subject’s movements and known predetermined ideal movements [Curchod, Col 7:1-14].
Regarding claim 44, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined posture comprises a standing or seated position, and wherein the second predetermined posture comprises a supine position [Crane ¶0044].
Regarding claim 46, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the posture of the subject’s body comprises determine a position of the subject’s head [Bennett ¶0067].
Regarding claim 48, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the posture of the subject’s body comprises determining whether the subject is sitting or standing [Eser p. 139].
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Venkataraman (US-20140316305-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 40, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
collecting heart rate data using a heart rate sensor [Examples of health monitoring technology that may be incorporated in a hearing assist device include health sensors that determine (for example, sense/detect/measure/collect, or the like) various physical characteristics of the user, such as… heart rate (Bennett ¶0035); Examples of sensors for sensors 106a and 106b include… a heart rate sensor (Bennett ¶0039)].
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser fails to explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: monitoring for sedentary behavior of the subject over a predefined time window, wherein sedentary behavior of the subject is detected when any of: first IMU data crosses a threshold value, heart rate data crosses a threshold value, or blood pressure data crosses a threshold value.
Venkataraman discloses systems and methods for health monitoring of a subject, wherein Venkataraman discloses collecting blood pressure data using a blood pressure sensor [the biometric monitoring device may include an optical sensor to detect, sense, sample and/or generate data that may be used to determine information representative of, for example,… blood pressure (Venkataraman ¶0103)]; and monitoring for sedentary behavior of the subject over a predefined time window, wherein sedentary behavior of the subject is detected when any of: first motion data crosses a threshold value [when motion detector circuitry detects or determines that the biometric monitoring device wearer's motion is below a threshold (for example, if the biometric monitoring device determines the user is sedentary or asleep) (Venkataraman ¶0111); a similar set of operations may be performed on the motion signal and the output may be used to do activity discrimination (e.g., sedentary,…) (Venkataraman ¶0168)], heart rate data crosses a threshold value [heart rate as a function of speed may be "plotted" for the user, or the data may be broken down into different levels including, but not limited to, sleeping, resting, sedentary, moderately active, active, and highly active (Venkataraman ¶0212)], or blood pressure data crosses a threshold value.
As such, since Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser as modified is directed towards prompting the subject to perform vestibular therapy activities or exercises [Crane ¶0044], 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 method of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ monitoring for sedentary behavior of the subject over a predefined time window, wherein sedentary behavior of the subject is detected when any of: first IMU data crosses a threshold value, heart rate data crosses a threshold value, or blood pressure data crosses a threshold value, so as to maintain user compliance with a therapy schedule [the biometric monitoring device may automatically wake the user up at 7:30 am to allow the user enough time to prepare for and/or get to the meeting… A similar functionality may be used for calendar events other than meetings such as… exercise times (Venkataraman ¶0268); In addition to informing users regarding a potential development of disease, recommended life-style including exercise regime and recipes with healthier ingredients and methods of preparation may be provided to the users (Venkataraman ¶0349)].
Regarding claim 39, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, Eser, and Venkataraman teaches
The method of claim 40, wherein the predefined time window corresponds to a normal awake period of the subject [This disclosure is directed at biometric monitoring devices (which may also be referred to herein and in any references incorporated by reference as "biometric tracking devices," "personal health monitoring devices," "portable monitoring devices," "portable biometric monitoring devices," "biometric monitoring devices," or the like), which may be generally described as wearable devices, typically of a small size, that are designed to be worn relatively continuously by a person (Venkataraman ¶0093)].
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wells (US-20180096111-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 41, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1.
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser as presently modified fails to explicitly that upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject’s body matches the required predetermined posture, performing a step to prompt the subject to perform a first predetermined movement of the series of predetermined movements of the assigned vestibular therapy.
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 method of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ that upon determining that the estimated posture of the subject’s body matches the required predetermined posture, performing a step to prompt the subject to perform a first predetermined movement of the series of predetermined movements of the assigned vestibular therapy, so as to train the central nervous system to appropriately recalibrate vestibular function and utilize proprioception in order to improve vestibular function over time [Crane ¶0036].
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser fails to explicitly disclose performing a step of transmitting a warning to a care provider if the subject does not respond to the prompt to move to the first predetermined posture or the second predetermined posture.
Wells discloses systems and methods for monitoring and evaluating a subject’s adherence to a therapy, wherein Wells discloses transmitting a warning to a care provider if the subject misses a certain exercise or routine [In an example, a machine learning technique (e.g., as provided by a cloud service, via a remote server, or the like) may be used to determine whether to notify a clinician using the clinician user interface 100. For example, when a patient missed a specified number of days in a row of exercises, routines, or protocol elements, then the clinician may be notified. In another example, when a surgery is completed, the clinician may be notified within a few hours if the patient has not done an activity. In an example, a patient user interface may notify the patient when there are situations that the patient needs to move. The clinician user interface 100 may recommend that the clinician cause a notification or alert to be sent to a patient if the patient has not moved in a while or has not done an exercise (Wells ¶0021)].
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 method of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ transmitting a warning to a care provider if the subject does not respond to the prompt to move to the first predetermined posture or the second predetermined posture, so as to allow for a care provider to monitor subject adherence to a therapy routine or progress [Wells ¶0021].
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wong (US-20120139722-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 47, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser teaches
The method of claim 1.
However, Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser fails to explicitly disclose wherein estimating the posture of the subject’s body comprises determining whether the subject is lying on their side.
Wong discloses systems and methods for monitoring user orientation, wherein Wong discloses head-worn sensors configured to pro [The sleeping pose sensing system of the present invention is configured to differentiate and identify sleeping poses including, but not limited to, flat on the back, flat on the stomach, and on the left side or the right side, or some orientation in between, for example, where the head is inclined to one side while the back is horizontal on the bed surface (Wong ¶0007); Sleeping pose sensors 12 may each take the form of an accelerometer, a position ball switch, a bubble switch, a gyroscope, a gyroscope I.C., etc. (Wong ¶0058); A sleeping pose sensor 12 may be in the form and size of an "in-ear" ear plug which could completely locate inside the external ear well (Wong ¶0060)].
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 method of Bennett in view of Crane, Curchod, and Eser to employ wherein estimating the posture of the subject’s body comprises determining whether the subject is lying on their side, so as to provide additional context with respect to the subject’s orientation and position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 10, filed 10 March 2026, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 47-48 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 10, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 32 and 34 under § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 10-13, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that as claim 1 requires “a hearing assistance system comprising a first control circuit, a first microphone in electrical communication with the first control circuit, a first electroacoustic transducer for generating sound in electrical communication with the first control circuit, a first power supply circuit in electrical communication with the first control circuit, and a memory comprising data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements," claim 1 is directed towards a particular machine. However, the Examiner notes that the limitations directed towards the structure of the hearing assistance system are considered to refer to a well understood, routine, and conventional hearing aid, as disclosed by at least Beck [¶0003], such that the structure of the hearing assistance system is an additional element that fails integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2 and fails to allow the claim as a whole to amount to significantly more at Step 2B. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards the memory “comprising data associated with a selection of vestibular therapies, each of the vestibular therapies comprising a series of predetermined movements” are considered to merely recite the use of a generic computer element [memory] and corresponding generic computer functions [store data], such that the corresponding limitations fails to allow the claim as a whole to amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
The Applicant further asserts that the posture estimation of claim 1 cannot be formed from a mental process because blood pressure estimation cannot be performed in the mind, and further notes that estimating a posture of a subject’s body using an IMU and a blood pressure sensor mounted in a hearing assistance device is an unconventional technical feature. While the Examiner agrees that the blood pressure cannot be measured in the mind or by hand, such that the blood pressure sensor as claimed is considered to be an additional element, further analysis at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B shows that a blood pressure sensor mounted in a hearing aid is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional [Husung ¶¶0017, 0040; Bennett ¶¶0035, 0039; Frederiksen ¶0139]. However, the Examiner disagrees that the posture estimation itself is considered to be an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong 1, as the posture estimation may merely be performed by observing known or previously collected data, and the use of an IMU and a blood pressure sensor is considered to refer to extra-solution data gathering, such that the IMU and the blood pressure sensor fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 13-17, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 30, and those dependent therefrom under § 103 as being obvious over Pedersen (US-20150230036-A1) in view of Crane (US-20120218285-A1, previously presented), Curchod (US-5826578-A, previously presented), and Corbucci (US-20120108915-A1, previously presented) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bennett (US-20130343584-A1) in view of Crane (US-20120218285-A1, previously presented), Curchod (US-5826578-A, previously presented), and Eser (“The effect of different body positions on blood pressure”, NPL attached).
The Applicant asserts that the previously cited Pedersen reference lacks any disclosure of incorporating a blood pressure sensor into the hearing aid or of measuring the blood pressure of a subject, such that Pedersen fails to teach or suggest the amended limitations of claim 1 directed towards a blood pressure sensor and the posture estimation being based on a measured blood pressure relative to a threshold value. The Applicant further notes that the previously cited Corbucci, Crane, and Curchod fail to teach or suggest the argued subject matter. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Bennett (US-20130343584-A1, wherein the Examiner notes that the presently cited Bennett reference is not the same as the previously cited Bennett reference in the Non-Final Rejection dated 10 December 2025) in view of Crane (US-20120218285-A1, previously presented), Curchod (US-5826578-A, previously presented), and Eser (“The effect of different body positions on blood pressure”, NPL attached) is presently applied to teach claims 1 and 30, wherein the Examiner notes that Bennett discloses a hearing assistance system comprising a blood pressure sensor [Examples of health monitoring technology that may be incorporated in a hearing assist device include health sensors that determine (for example, sense/detect/measure/collect, or the like) various physical characteristics of the user, such as blood pressure (Bennett ¶0035); Sensors 106a and 106b are medical sensors that each sense a characteristic of the user and generate a corresponding sensor output signal. Although two sensors 106a and 106b are shown in hearing assist device 102 in FIG. 1, any number of sensors may be included in hearing assist device 102, including three sensors, four sensors, five sensors, etc. (e.g., tens of sensors, hundreds of sensors, etc.). Examples of sensors for sensors 106a and 106b include a blood pressure sensor,… a motion sensor (e.g., to detect falling down impacts, long periods of activity, etc.) (Bennett ¶0039)] and Eser discloses measurable differences in blood pressure between different postures [In supine position, a significantly higher BP was obtained compared with the other positions in this study. Similarly, significantly lower BP was obtained in the standing position with the arm supported at the level of right atrium. In another study, both systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly higher in the supine position than in the sitting position (van der Steen et al. 2000). The position of the body is known to affect BP readings, with BP increasing successively from the supine to the sitting and the standing positions (Netea et al. 1998, Beevers et al. 2001). In this study we observed a decrease in SBP and DBP From the sitting and supine to the standing. Netea et al. (2003) found that both SBP and DBP were significantly higher in the supine than in the sitting position. The results of this study supports the observation of Netea et al. (2003) that both SBP and DBP were significantly higher in the supine than in the sitting position (Eser p. 139), wherein the Examiner notes that measurable differences is considered to read on an unspecified threshold separating postures of sitting, supine, and standing].
Regarding claim 41, the Applicant asserts that the citation of Wells ¶0021 as disclosing the limitation of “transmitting a warning to a care provider if the subject does not respond to the prompt to move to the first predetermined posture or the second predetermined posture” is improper, as the Applicant notes that the claimed transmitted warning in light of lack of responsiveness to a prompt differs from not complying with an exercise program [Wells ¶0021] and can be indicative of a serious problem with the subject, such that the combination of Pedersen, Crane, Curchod, Corbucci, and Wells fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 41. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed transmitted warning in light of lack of responsiveness to a prompt… can be indicative of a serious problem with the subject”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner further notes that as Wells discloses transmitting a warning to a care provider in light of a patient not performing a certain action within an exemplary time frame of a few hours [In another example, when a surgery is completed, the clinician may be notified within a few hours if the patient has not done an activity. In an example, a patient user interface may notify the patient when there are situations that the patient needs to move. The clinician user interface 100 may recommend that the clinician cause a notification or alert to be sent to a patient if the patient has not moved in a while or has not done an exercise (Wells ¶0021)], Wells is considered to teach the argued limitation, as there is no particularly claimed time frame.
Conclusion
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 SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/S.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights