DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 08/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 08/18/2025, regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 9 that “the Office oversimplifies the specific technical implementation of the claim as amended. Claim 1 specifically recites “filter[ing] the first movement data and the second movement data to remove movements not related to muscle movement of the central nervous system” and that the “determination of the asymmetry of the user’s movement includes determining a differential between characteristics of the first movement data and the second movement data, the characteristics including at least one of movement speed, movement range, energy expenditure or activity.” These specific filtering and determining steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind and represent concrete technological processes rather than abstract mental processes.” Although Applicant may be correct to point out that filtering cannot be performed in the mind, newly amended limitations that recite determining a differential between the first and second movement data and determining a user’s movement is asymmetric is a mental process in which a human can analyze those datasets to determine asymmetry.
Applicant then argues on pages 9-10 that “claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application through implementation with a particular machine configuration…claim 1 recites "a first wearable sensor configured to measure movement on a first side of a plane of symmetry the user's body, and a second wearable sensor configured to measure movement on a second side of the plane of symmetry of the user's body, wherein the first wearable sensor and the second wearable sensor include a sensor package configured to measure at least one of an inclination, a position, an orientation, or an acceleration of said portion of the user’s body." At least these features represent a particular machine implementation that is integral to the stroke detection functionality, thereby integrating the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” Examiner disagrees because the wearable sensor with a wearable sensor package to measure position/acceleration are generic acquisition devices that are gathering structures for gathering insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, this additional element fails to integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the wearable accelerometer/gyroscope/orientation sensor is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant then argues on page 10 that “claim 1 provides a specific medical treatment functionality for a stroke condition by reciting “wherein a display of the control device is configured to prompt the user to perform a cognitive test when the data processing device determines the asymmetry of the user's movement, the cognitive test being a test of mental ability or an intellectual test; and wherein the data processing device is configured to generate an automated emergency alert in response to determining the user has failed the cognitive test.” At least these claim features provide a specific technological solution for stroke detection and emergency response that goes beyond mere data gathering and represents a particular treatment approach for a medical (stroke) condition.” Applicant is asserting the abstract idea itself as the improvement. However, the abstract idea cannot be an “additional element” that shows integration into a practical application. The order of calculations and the particular calculations claimed do not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims are currently structured as simply using a generic computer to implement the abstract idea (mental process), which is not enough to show a practical application.
Applicant then argues on page 11 that “At least the specific filtering of movement data to remove movements not related to muscle movement of the central nervous system and the particular determination of asymmetry based on characteristics including movement speed, movement range, energy expenditure or activity, represent additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea identified by the Office.” Examiner disagrees because filtering the data is a mathematical concept, which is a form of a transfer function, thereby an abstract idea. .
Applicant lastly argues on pages 11-12 that “the filtering of the movement data removes movements that are only an indirect consequence of signals from the central nervous system, thereby improving the accuracy of the stroke detection. In a more specific example, when walking along, electrical signals may stimulate the arms to swing forward and backward to ensure balance. However, the downward swing of the arms during walking may be the consequence of gravity and the mechanics of the body, rather than the stimulation of any muscles. Removing such motion improves accuracy and reduces the risk of false positive stroke detection. See, e.g., Applicants’ Spec., p. 13, Il. 7 — 22. Therefore, the filtering required by claim 1 represents significantly more in the form of a technological improvement in stroke detection systems that goes well beyond conventional computer functions. Similarly, the determination of asymmetry as more clearly defined in claim 1 also represents significantly more in the form of a technological improvement in stroke detection systems that goes well beyond conventional computer functions”. Examiner disagrees because "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures | LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The processing of data on a microcontroller unit is merely performing this process on a generic computer structure. The transmitting of signals is simply a generic computer function performed by a generic computer structure, wherein implementing the abstract idea with a generic computer is not enough to show integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The transmission of data to and from the sensor systems is merely data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-18, filed 08/18/2025, regarding 356 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 14 that “the filtering in Lee is specifically directed to compensating for data errors in vital sign measurements from a PPG sensor that are affected by wrist motion during calibration. See paras. 0089-90. This filtering addresses measurement artifacts in heart rate variability detection, which is fundamentally different from filtering movement data to isolate central nervous system-related muscle movements as required to meet the limitations of amended claim 1.” Examiner notes that the claimed filtering and filters described in the instant specification does not specify filters that are different filters that are different specifically for CNS muscle movements. Therefore, Examiner can read any filter, including noise removing filtering, from the Lederman reference, as seen in ([0077]).
Applicant then argues on page 15 that “the cited art could be properly combined as suggested by the Office, which Applicants do not admit, the alleged combination fails to teach or suggest “generat[ing] an automated emergency alert in response to determining the user has failed the cognitive test,” as specifically recited by amended claim 1. While Lee discloses contacting emergency services after failing physical symptom tests (see e.g., paras. 0118-119) and Abzhandadze discusses using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for evaluating cognitive functions, none of the references discloses or fairly suggests generating an emergency alert specifically triggered by failure of a cognitive test. Indeed, Abzhandadze only discloses using cognitive testing for longer- term assessment, noting that “cognitive functions measured with the MoCA administered 36-48 h post stroke can reflect on ADL performance.” Abzhandadze, p. 4, ll. 1-6. At best, this suggests assessment rather than emergency detection functionality.” Examiner disagrees because, as noted by Applicant, Lee teaches the contacting emergency services following physical symptom tests ([0118]-[0119]), which can be substituted for the MOCA test of Abzhandadze for alerting an emergency event.
Applicant then argues on pages 14-15 that “In fact, Abzhandadze only mentions a standardized questionnaire; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, to assess cognitive function of patients who have already had strokes. The aim of the study in the Abzhandadze is to investigate the feasibility of the MoCA to explain ADL (activities of daily living) dependence 36-48 h post stroke, not to detect the occurrence of the stroke… Applicants respectfully submit that the MoCA disclosure in Abzhandadze is irrelevant to the stroke detection apparatus of claim 1, which specifies a cognitive test as "a test of mental ability or an intellectual test," which is used to trigger generation of an automated emergency alert when the user has failed the cognitive test. Again, the MoCA test in Abzhandadze is a questionnaire taken by patients that have already had a diagnosed stroke.” Examiner disagrees because the instant claim fails to provide a timeline between the generation of a stroke detection signal based on the asymmetry and the issuing of the cognitive test, meaning the cognitive test can be administered directly following the stroke detection or hours/days/years following the stroke detection.
Lastly, Applicant teaches on page 17 that “Each of Lederman, Lee and Abzhandadze operate in different contexts. For example, Lederman focuses on bilateral asymmetry detection using sensors, Lee addresses comprehensive stroke assessment including vital signs and physical tests, and Abzhandadze discusses post-stroke cognitive assessment for rehabilitation planning. There is no apparent reason in the cited art or otherwise that would have prompted or motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine various specific elements of these references in the specific manner required by claim 1, without the benefit of Applicants' disclosure in hindsight. Therefore, Applicants can only conclude that the Office’s combination relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As pointed by Applicant, Lederman, Lee, and Abzhandadze is directed to stroke detection and diagnosis, where Lee and Lederman use motion sensor for stroke assessment and Abzhandadze and Lee use additional tests for the stroke diagnosis and confirmation of worsening conditions. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 14-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claims 1 and 16 recites a step determine asymmetry of the user's movement based on the first movement data and the second movement data, wherein determination of the asymmetry of the user's movement includes determining a differential between characteristics of the first movement data and the second movement data, the characteristics determining that the user's movement is asymmetric upon the differential being greater than a threshold value, which is a mental process, and filter the first movement data and the second movement data to remove movements not related to muscle movement of the central nervous system, which is a mathematical concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a data processing device), determining asymmetry, and generating stroke detection do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and generating stroke detection, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 16 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the following step is an abstract idea:
“determine asymmetry of the user's movement based on the first movement data and the second movement data, wherein determination of the asymmetry of the user's movement includes determining a differential between characteristics of the first movement data and the second movement data, the characteristics determining that the user's movement is asymmetric upon the differential being greater than a threshold value”, which is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could analyze 2 data sets for determining an irregularity in the signals to determine a stroke.
“filter the first movement data and the second movement data to remove movements not related to muscle movement of the central nervous system” , which is a mathematical concept when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In this case, the filtering of data uses a transfer function, thereby being a mathematical concept.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a data processing device”, “display”, and “control device” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “wearable sensors” and “sensor package” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “first/second movement data”, “inclination”, “position”, “orientation”, “acceleration”, “speed”, “range”, “energy expenditure”, “asymmetry”, “body gesture”, “first body gesture”, “emergency alert”, and “stroke detection” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a data processing device”, “display”, and “control device” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “wearable sensors” and “sensor package” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “first/second movement data”, “inclination”, “position”, “orientation”, “acceleration”, “speed”, “range”, “energy expenditure”, “asymmetry”, “body gesture”, “first body gesture”, “emergency alert”, and “stroke detection” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
The additional elements of claims 1 and 16, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the data processing device, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The motion sensors and accelerometers are claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure as shown in [0011]-[0012] of the instant specification that use motion sensors for gathering motor data of a user.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 21 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1. The dependent claim limitations are directed to the type of data (claims 2-5, 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 21), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 14-16, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “stroke detection signal” is not defined in the specification. Examiner interprets the language to mean a stroke condition that is generated.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lederman et al. (US 20180249967) (IDS) (Hereinafter Lederman) in view Lee et al. (US 20190279480) (priority to WO2018101886 published 06/07/2018) (Hereinafter Lee) and Abzhandadze et al. (“Feasibility of Cognitive Functions Screened With the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Determining ADL Dependence Early After Stroke” Front. Neurol. Vol. 9 -2018 , 26 August 2018)(Hereinafter Abzhandadze).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Lederman teaches A stroke detection apparatus (Abstract “Devices (100), systems (200), and methods for automatically evaluating a potential stroke condition”) comprising:
A plurality of wearable sensors configured to generate movement data of at least a portion of a user's body ([0051] “The example sensors shown in FIG. 2 include wristbands 216 that can include accelerometers”);
the plurality of wearable sensors including a first wearable sensor configured to measure movement on a first side of a plane of symmetry the user's body (Fig. 6c [0103] “In other cases, the arms will be moved one after the other. The wearable device may thus comprise a button (e.g. button 710 as shown in FIG. 7), so that the user must first lift one arm, then lift their second arm to the same position [second gesture] and press the button on the wearable device.”), and
a second wearable sensor configured to measure movement on a second side of the plane of symmetry of the user's body (Fig. 6d [0103] “In other cases, the arms will be moved one after the other. The wearable device may thus comprise a button (e.g. button 710 as shown in FIG. 7), so that the user must first lift one arm, then lift their second arm to the same position [second gesture] and press the button on the wearable device.”),
wherein the first wearable sensor and the second wearable sensor include a sensor package configured to measure at least one of an inclination, a position, an orientation, or an acceleration of said portion of the user's body ([0051] “non-limiting examples of sensors can include accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes, force gauges, pressure sensors, and any other type of sensor capable of measuring any potential stroke indication.”); and
a data processing device including a processor, the data processing device configured to process first movement data for a first movement received from the first wearable sensor and second movement data for a second movement received from the second wearable sensor ([0047] “processor 206” Fig. 6c and 6d showing the two signals.),
filter the first movement data and the second movement data to remove movements not related to muscle movement of the central nervous system ([0077] “sensor data can be filtered to reduce noise, or to enhance or otherwise emphasize relevant signal characteristics, waveforms, or features.”),
determine asymmetry of the user's movement based on the first movement data and the second movement data ([0075] “A comparison of FIGS. 4a and 4b clearly shows the asymmetry in motor activity that is expected from a stroke condition.”), and
wherein determination of the asymmetry of the user's movement includes determining a differential between characteristics of the first movement data and the second movement data, the characteristics including at least one of movement speed, movement range, energy expenditure or activity ([0075] “The following description refers to sensors and stroke indications as accelerometers and gyroscopes detecting indicators of bilateral motor asymmetries and/or hemiparesis.” [0077] “stroke assessment technology, bilateral asymmetry can be a beneficial stroke indicator. As such, it can be useful to calculate the differences between the left and right features as a measure of the level of bilateral asymmetry according to Equation I:” Examiner notes that accelerometers measure acceleration which is activity.), and
determining that the user's movement is asymmetric upon the differential being greater than a threshold value ([0066] “the processor can continuously or intermittently process incoming sensor data to monitor for a potential stroke indicator or level of a potential stroke indicator above a specified threshold.”),
generate a stroke detection signal based on the asymmetry ([0075] “A comparison of FIGS. 4a and 4b clearly shows the asymmetry in motor activity that is expected from a stroke condition.”)
wherein the first body gesture includes the first movement and the second movement ([0075] “A comparison of FIGS. 4a and 4b clearly shows the asymmetry in motor activity that is expected from a stroke condition.” [0042] “a subject is tested for drift by being asked to hold both arms fully extended in front at shoulder level”)
wherein the data processing device is configured to generate an automated emergency alert in response to determining the user has failed the cognitive test ([0040] “Upon the determination of a stroke or potential stroke condition, family, healthcare providers, emergency responders, or others, can be notified by the device so that swift medical attention can be provided.”).
Although Lederman teaches a FAST test for analyzing arm weakness and speech difficulty, Lederman does not teach a control device prompting a first body gesture and prompting a cognitive test following the determination of an asymmetry. Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a device for monitoring the movement of a user ([0030]) for stroke detection ([0060]), similar to the device of Lederman, and further teaches wherein the data processing device is in communication with a control device configured to prompt the user to perform a first body gesture ([0127] “the computer system 300 prompts the patient to perform the physical actions necessary to assess proper motor function to assess physical symptoms—namely movement of the arms, facial arrangement and/or speech.” [0103] “to which the wearable device is attached (i.e. may not affect the arm (the one arm), of the patient's two arms,to which the device is attached), it is desirable that the patient perform the arm lifts with both arms. In some cases the arms will be moved in unison [first body gesture].” [0112] “The patient may be instructed to recite a predetermined phrase—e.g. using audio commands issued from speaker 316, and/or visual commands issued on display 304.” Display is connected to the CPU of Fig. 3);
wherein a display of the control device is configured to prompt the user to perform a cognitive test when the data processing device determines the asymmetry of the user’s movement ([0099] “To ensure the appropriate measurements are taken by which the computer system 300 can assess the patient, instructions are delivered to the patient. The instructions advise the patient to perform the requisite arm, facial and/or speech functions that can be compared to the corresponding physical symptom baseline(s).” [0112] “The patient may be instructed to recite a predetermined phrase—e.g. using audio commands issued from speaker 316, and/or visual commands issued on display 304.” [0115] “Alternatively, Step 106D may be performed after each of Steps 106A, 106B and/or 106C separately. For example, once movement of the arm(s) has been measured, that movement may be compared to the baseline for arm movement (which may include a baseline for relative arm position during and after movement of both arms). Similarly, the facial arrangement imaged at Step 106B may be compared to the relevant facial arrangement baseline at Step 106D before speech [cognitive test as reading out a prompt requires thinking, see [0111]-[0112]] is received in accordance with Step 106C” In other words, step 106A can be performed by making the determination of arm movement exceeding the threshold thereby determining a stroke and then receiving speech/cognitive tested information to make the further determination.)
wherein the data processing device is configured to generate an automated emergency alert in response to determining the user has failed the cognitive test ([0119] “Emergency services may be contacted after the first failure at Step 106D, and further contacted if future performance of Steps 104 and 106D show that the first performance was a false alarm, if further repetitions are performed. In other words, emergency services may be initially notified of the potential onset of a stroke.”) to improve confidence that the patient is indeed experiencing the onset of a stroke ([0117]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lederman, with the control device prompting a first body gesture and prompting a cognitive test following the determination of an asymmetry of Lee, because such a modification would allow to improve confidence that the patient is indeed experiencing the onset of a stroke.
However, Lederman in view of Lee does not teach a cognitive test being a mental or intellectual test. Abzhandadze, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the use of a cognitive test following stroke (Abstract), similar to the devices of Lederman and Lee, and further teaches perform a cognitive test when the data processing device determines the asymmetry of the user’s movement, the cognitive test being a test of mental ability or an intellectual test (Pg. 4 left col. lines 6-13 “The study findings suggest that cognitive functions measured with the MoCA administered 36–48 h post stroke can reflect on ADL performance. Furthermore, patients with impaired cognitive functions, older age, and severe neurological deficits at this time are more likely to be dependent. The present findings strengthen the recommendation for using the MoCA in acute stroke settings to identify cognitive changes (20, 21). Additionally, the results provide more knowledge about the possible use of the MoCA as one of the variables associated with ADL dependence.” MoCA is a mental and intellectual test.) to increase the accuracy of stroke diagnosis (Pg. 4 right col. lines 12-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lederman, with the cognitive test being a mental or intellectual test of Abzhandadze, because such a modification would allow to increase the accuracy of stroke diagnosis.
Regarding claim 4, Lederman teaches wherein the data processing device is configured to generate the stroke detection signal in response to determining that the asymmetry of the user's movement exceeds a threshold ([0066] “the processor can continuously or intermittently process incoming sensor data to monitor for a potential stroke indicator or level of a potential stroke indicator above a specified threshold.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lederman teaches wherein the data processing device is configured to determine the threshold based on historical movement data for the user's body ([0066] “the processor can continuously or intermittently process incoming sensor data to monitor for a potential stroke indicator or level of a potential stroke indicator above a specified threshold…Such can be useful as the threshold can be set according to an individual subject, thus correcting for bilateral asymmetries [this is historic movement as these movements are not typical for that individual subject] that may already be present.”).
Regarding claim 9, Lederman teaches wherein the first wearable sensor is configured to be worn on one of the user's wrists, and
the second wearable sensor is configured to be worn on another of the user's wrists ([0073] “in data that includes accelerometer and gyroscopic data, rotation of the left and right hands [using the sensors of Fig. 2(216)] of the subject can be a useful indicator feature. In other examples, an indicator feature can be any bilateral difference in any feature that is associated with a possible stroke condition.”).
Regarding claim 11, Lederman teaches wherein the plane of symmetry of the user's body is one or more of a sagittal plane, a frontal plane or a transverse plane (0073] “in data that includes accelerometer and gyroscopic data, rotation of the left and right hands [using the sensors of Fig. 2(216)] of the subject can be a useful indicator feature. In other examples, an indicator feature can be any bilateral difference in any feature that is associated with a possible stroke condition.” Left hand is one side of the sagittal plane, the right hand is on the other side of the sagittal plane.).
Regarding claim 12, Lederman teaches wherein the first wearable sensor and the second wearable sensor are configured to measure respective movement data at the same time ([0075] “Sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, are monitored either continuously or intermittently to detect potential stroke indications such as hemiparesis or other prominent indications.”).
Regarding claim 14, Lederman teaches wherein the first wearable sensor is configured to transmit the first movement data to the data processing device, and the second wearable sensor is configured to transmit the second movement data to the data processing device ([0045] “device 100 can include an input channel 102 for receiving data 104 from a sensor or sensors associated with the subject, and a processor 106 coupled to the input channel 102.”).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lederman et al. (US 20180249967) (IDS) (Hereinafter Lederman) in view of Lee et al. (US 20190279480) (priority to WO2018101886 published 06/07/2018) (Hereinafter Lee), Abzhandadze et al. (“Feasibility of Cognitive Functions Screened With the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Determining ADL Dependence Early After Stroke” Front. Neurol. Vol. 9 -2018 , 26 August 2018)(Hereinafter Abzhandadze), and Da-Silva et al. (“Prompting arm activity after stroke: A clinical proof of concept study of wrist-worn accelerometers with a vibrating alert function”, Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering Volume 5: 1–8, 2018) (Hereinafter Da-Silva).
Regarding claim 15, Lederman teaches the invention of claim 1. However, Lederman does not teach the prompting of a user to perform additional gestures in response to determining asymmetry. Da-Silva, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the optimization of motor recovery following a stroke using a wristband that detects a user’s movements (Abstract), similar to the device of Lederman, and further teaches wherein the control device is configured to prompt the user to perform additional body gestures in response to determining the asymmetry of the user's movement (Examiner notes that claim 1 detects a stroke once the asymmetry is determined, so following the stroke determination, the device of Da-Silva may be used to observe further gestures. Pg. 2 right col. lines 12-20 “Participants wore a CueS wristband on their impaired arm for 12 h (8 a.m.–8 p.m.) every day over the four-week programme...If prompted, participants were instructed to increase impaired limb movements, ideally by performing pre-selected activities from a self-directed repetitive functional task practice programme.8 The programme had been previously developed to encourage practice of purposeful movements involving the affected arm which could be easily integrated into activities of daily living such as personal care, eating and drinking. This self-directed practice was recorded by the participant on a patient held log sheet and expanded throughout the four-week programme during twice weekly therapy reviews”) to optimize motor recovery after a stroke through the prompting of movement (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lederman, with the prompting of a user to perform additional gestures in response to determining asymmetry of Da-Silva, because such a modification would allow to optimize motor recovery after a stroke through the prompting of movement.
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 MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796