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 Amendment
In response to amendment filed December 10, 2025, claims 1, 12 and 16 are amended. No claims are cancelled and no new claims are added. Claim 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Applicant failed to respond to the objection to the specification wherein the objection to the specification is included again in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 10, 2025, with respect to rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C 112b has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 101.
Applicant argues on p. 7-8 that “independent claim 1 is directed towards a sensing and processing system that includes a plurality of wearable sensing devices and a processor and cannot be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, and thus are not types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. However, applicant is conflating the abstract idea with the elements of the claim that are in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. the additional elements). The eligibility analysis does not require the capability of the additional elements to be practically performed in the mind. In this case, the claim limitations that constitute as abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group (the judicial exceptions) are identified as being “identifying near-fall events, which are indicative of the subject stumbling or nearly falling, based on the generated accelerometer signals and gyroscope signals” and “generating, for each of the near-fall events, subject response data indicative of a recovery response of the subject to recover after the near-fall event” as an experienced clinician can perform the claimed step of identifying near-fall events by mentally looking at generated signals and can further generate a subject response data that shows a recovery response of a subject after a near-fall event while mentally looking at generated data. It is not too burdensome as to be impractical to be performed in the human mind with a pen/pencil and paper. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that “the plurality of wearable sensing devices and the processor recited in claim 1 are concrete things and additional elements and thus meet the requirements of the second step of Alice” and that “There are a multiple of devices that are well-known in of themselves and that this does not preclude them from being additional elements that transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application” . Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are identified as being “a plurality of wearable sensing devices each including an IMU”; “a processor” and “a deep-brain stimulation device”. Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the Non-Patent literature cited previously. When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Examiner notes that claims 15-16 recite limitations that integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application and further explains below in the 35 U.S.C 101 section.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 12 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C 102 and claims 8-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C 103 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.
Specification
The use of the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application on p. 8; p.15; and p. 29. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are all within at least one of the four categories.
The independent claim 1 recites:
identify near-fall events, which are indicative of the subject stumbling or nearly falling down, based on the generated accelerometer signals and gyroscope signals; and
generate, for each of the near-fall events, subject response data indicative of a recovery response of the subject to recover after the near-fall event.
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. See footnotes 14 and 15.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution).
The claimed steps of identifying and generating can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
With respect to the pending claims, for example, an experienced clinician can perform the claimed step of identifying near-fall events by mentally looking at generated signals. The experienced clinician can then further generate a subject response data that shows a recovery response of a subject from a near-fall events while mentally looking at generated data. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-14, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. For example, dependent claims recite steps (e.g. extracting, performing, identifying, classifying, estimating, providing, and tuning) that can be performed in the mind. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 15-16, the steps of “providing feedback to a deep-brain-stimulation device” and “tuning neurostimulation parameters of a deep-brain stimulation device” integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in claims 1-14 is not integrated into a practical application because:
The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for identifying, generating, extracting, performing, classifying, estimating, providing, and tuning merely invoke a computer as a tool.
The data-output step (providing) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for identifying, generating, extracting, performing, classifying, estimating, providing, and tuning.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide information about fall risk.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for identifying, generating, extracting, performing, classifying, estimating, providing, and tuning. The claims do not apply the obtained data to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in an post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: a plurality of wearable sensing devices each including IMU; and a processor.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
the background section of applicant’s specification
the non-patent publication cited herewith:
Niswander, Wesley, Wei Wang, and Kimberly Kontson. "Optimization of IMU sensor placement for the measurement of lower limb joint kinematics." Sensors 20.21 (2020): 5993.
see Fig. 1 and Table 1 and Table 2
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grabiner (US 8990041 B2; cited by applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Grabiner discloses a sensing and processing system (see col 3 lines 23-40: fall detection device #10), comprising:
a plurality of wearable sensing devices each including an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to be positioned on a subject and generate accelerometer signals and gyroscope signals (see col 3 lines 23-40: fall detection device #10 may include one or more kinematic sensors #18 where the one or more kinematic sensors may include one or more of an accelerometer, a magnetometer, an angular velocity sensor and a gyroscope which measures kinematic information including acceleration, a displacement, a velocity and a jerk); and
a processor (see col 3 lines 23-40: fall detection device #10 may include a processor or controller #12) to identify near-fall events, which are indicative of the subject stumbling or nearly falling down, based on the generated accelerometer signals and gyroscope signals (see col 3 lines 58-67 – col 4 lines 1- 21: fall detection module #30 includes software that when executed by controller #12 detects and may predict an imminent fall that will be experienced by the wearer based on the kinematic information received by the kinematic sensors #18), and wherein the processor is to generate, for each of the near-fall events, subject response data indicative of a recovery response of the subject to recover after the near-fall event (see col 4 lines 65-67 – col 5 lines 1-45: fall detection module #30 discriminates between fall events and recovery events based on subject specific values of variables).
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner further discloses wherein the subject is a person with at least one of Parkinson's Disease, hydrocephalus, and age-related postural instability (see col 2 lines 66-67 – col 3 lines 1-8: fall detection device #10 is associated with a wearer such as an elderly person, someone who would benefit from fall monitoring, such as memory care patients, orthopedic patients, critical care patients, sleep disorder patients, cardiac patients, stroke patients, paraplegic or quadriplegic persons, persons with head injuries, persons with vertigo, persons with MS, CS or other neurological diseases, etc.).
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner further discloses wherein the processor is to automatically extract, for each of the identified near-fall events, a data segment from the generated accelerometer signals and gyroscope signals corresponding to the near-fall event (see col 8 lines 56-67 – col 9 lines 1-3: fall detection module #10 may be programed to sample one or more predetermined types of fall event kinematic information at one or more predetermined times after the onset of the disturbance that is after the time at which the fall event threshold is satisfied).
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner further discloses wherein the subject response data for each of the near-fall events includes chest velocity and acceleration data during the near-fall event (see col 4 lines 40-65: kinematic measurements may be taken place at one or more appropriate points of a wearer’s body such as the center of mass of the trunk which is the chest; see col 3 lines 23-40: fall detection device #10 may include one or more kinematic sensors #18 where the one or more kinematic sensors may include one or more of an accelerometer, a magnetometer, an angular velocity sensor and a gyroscope which measures kinematic information including acceleration, a displacement, a velocity and a jerk).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner in view of Alves (US 20230281831 A1).
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of sensing devices includes at least three sensing devices, each including an IMU, and wherein a first one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a shank of a left leg of the subject, wherein a second one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a shank of a right leg of the subject, and wherein a third one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a chest of the subject.
Alves teaches wherein the plurality of sensing devices includes at least three sensing devices, each including an IMU (see paragraph 0103-0104: motion tracking system includes one or more trackers #20a-20n that are inertial measurement units), and wherein a first one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a shank of a left leg of the subject (see Table 3: tracker on left shank), wherein a second one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a shank of a right leg of the subject (see Table 3: tracker on right shank), and wherein a third one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a chest of the subject (see paragraph 0077: the chest can be the predetermined body member for the thigh and shank where the chest can have a tracker).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Alves to have includes at least three sensing devices or even at least five sensing devices because it would have resulted in the predictable result of fully tracking a body for motion tracking procedures or physical exercise that is to be carried out (Alves: see [0005]; [0106]-[0108]) for each limb respectively without the need for supervision by a medical professional (Alves: see [0005]).
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 2 apply in which Alves further teaches wherein the plurality of sensing devices includes at least five sensing devices, each including an IMU (see paragraph 0103-0104: motion tracking system includes one or more trackers #20a-20n that are inertial measurement units), and wherein a fourth one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a thigh of the left leg of the subject (see Table 3: tracker on left thigh), and wherein a fifth one of the sensing devices is configured to be positioned on a thigh of the right leg of the subject (see Table 3: tracker on right thigh).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner in view of Hausdorff (US 20120101411 A1).
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not disclose wherein the subject response data for each of the near-fall events includes a reaction time of the recovery response, and a number of steps and step lengths for the recovery response.
Hausdorff teaches wherein the subject response data for each of the near-fall events includes a reaction time of the recovery response and a number of steps and step lengths for the recovery response (see paragraph 0110: near fall is called a misstep which is a momentary loss of balance by a person from which the person recovers; and see paragraph 0116: one or more gait parameters of gait acceleration profile can be used as a measure or indicator of over-control by a person in which the time it took them to recover from near fall; see paragraph 0114: quantifiable parameters whole value can be used to better assess a person at risk from near fall; and see paragraph 0177: useful parameters include step width, step or stride regularity and symmetry between steps; and see paragraph 0187: step or stride regularity refers to the length or the timing of the step; and see paragraph 0188: one stride equal two steps where if strides are being measured then step counts are known to be double the stride count).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Hausdorff to have include a reaction time, a number of steps and step lengths for a recovery response because it would have resulted in the predictable result of using the parameters to view how long it took a person to recover from a near fall (Hausdorff: see [0116]) to provide insight into a person’s condition that may assist in the diagnosis and prevention of subsequent real falls (Hausdorff: see [0113]).
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not disclose wherein a postural instability of the subject is characterized by first identifying the occurrence of the near-fall event and then subsequently estimating a reaction time of the subject in taking a balancing step for recovery and counting a number and length of balancing steps taken.
Hausdorff teaches wherein a postural instability of the subject is characterized by first identifying the occurrence of the near-fall event and then subsequently estimating a reaction time of the subject in taking a balancing step for recovery and counting a number and length of balancing steps taken (see paragraph 0110: near fall is called a misstep which is a momentary loss of balance by a person from which the person recovers; and see paragraph 0116: one or more gait parameters of gait acceleration profile can be used as a measure or indicator of over-control by a person in which the time it took them to recover from near fall; see paragraph 0114: quantifiable parameters whole value can be used to better assess a person at risk from near fall; and see paragraph 0177: useful parameters include step width, step or stride regularity and symmetry between steps; and see paragraph 0187: step or stride regularity refers to the length or the timing of the step; and see paragraph 0188: one stride equal two steps where if strides are being measured then step counts are known to be double the stride count).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Hausdorff to have determined a postural instability of a person because it would have resulted in the predictable result of providing insight into a person’s condition that may assist in the diagnosis and prevention of subsequent real falls (Hausdorff: see [0113]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner in view of Huang (US 20180279915 A1; previously cited).
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is to use an activity classification decision tree to perform activity recognition and identify the near-fall events.
Huang teaches a processor that uses an activity classification decision tree to perform activity recognition and identify near fall-events (see paragraph 0006, machine learning based classification can be applied to pattern related to gait, balance or posture to assign a clinical parameter to the pattern).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Huang to utilize decision trees because it would have resulted in organizing data collected and optimizing it (Huang: see [0031]).
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is to use support vector machines to perform activity recognition and identify the near- fall events.
Huang teaches using support vector machines to perform activity recognition and identify near fall events (see paragraph 0031-0032, support vector machines are used to process data; see paragraph 0006, machine learning based classification can be applied to pattern related to gait, balance or posture to assign a clinical parameter to the pattern).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Grabiner to utilize support vectors because it would have resulted in processing data to produce functions representing boundaries in a feature space defined by various attributes of interest (Huang: see [0031]-[0032]).
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 9 apply in which Huang further teaches wherein the support vector machines utilize chest acceleration or gyroscope data to identify bending, chest yaw rate data to identify turning, and leg acceleration or gyroscope data to identify whether the subject is taking steps (see paragraph 0021-0022, three-axis sensors in the form of accelerometers and gyroscopes to identity motion in pitch, roll and yaw directions of the subject’s motion).
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 9 apply in which Huang further teaches wherein the support vector machines utilize chest acceleration and gyroscope data to first identify an occurrence of bending, and then further classify a type of the bending as either a near-fall, fall, sit-to-stand transition, intentional bend, or a lie down event (see paragraph 0016 and 0021-0022, three-axis sensors in the form of accelerometers and gyroscopes to identity motion in pitch, roll and yaw directions of the subject’s motion and is classified as a slip, trip and fall event).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner in view of Parvanesh (US 20210052198 A1; previously cited).
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is to use a deep learning-based activity recognition method to identify the near-fall events.
Parvanesh teaches a processor that uses deep learning-based activity recognition to identify near fall events (see paragraph 0058, deep learning is used to assess fall events).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Parvanesh to have utilized deep learning because it would have resulted in the predictable result of identifying features in signals of data points most salient to the classification task (Parvanesh: see [0053]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner in view of Ziaie (US 20180064370 A1).
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is to estimate tilt angles of a chest and leg segments of the subject based on the accelerometer signals and gyroscope signals, and estimate step lengths based on limb lengths of the subject and the estimated tilt angles.
Ziaie teaches wherein the processor is to estimate tilt angles of a chest and leg segments of the subject based on the accelerometer signals and gyroscope signals, and estimate step lengths based on limb lengths of the subject and the estimated tilt angles (see paragraph 0043: measurability of angle of the foot; and see paragraph 0049: trunk angular motion; and see paragraph 0035, 0041: gait analyzer and fall predictor measures step length using data collected).
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 Grabiner in view of Ziaie to have estimate tilt angles to estimate step lengths because it would have resulted in the predictable result of providing a more precise measurement of body’s position relative to the ground (Ziaie: see [0049]) for monitoring and rehabilitation planning (Ziaie: see [0004]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner in view of Naujokat (US 20080058893 A1).
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not disclose wherein an occurrence of risky activities that pose a risk of falling including turning and sit-to-stand transitions are used by the processor to provide feedback to a deep-brain-stimulation device so that real-time neuromodulation can be utilized to improve postural stability of the subject.
Naujokat teaches wherein an occurrence of risky activities that pose a risk of falling including turning and sit-to-stand transitions are used by the processor to provide feedback to a deep-brain-stimulation device so that real-time neuromodulation can be utilized to improve postural stability of the subject (see paragraph 0024-0032: accelerometer sensor data is used to analyze motor activity of a patient where if a tremor is detected then a control algorithm of a controller turns a generator of a deep brain stimulation device on to generate electrical pulses to treat patient; and see paragraph 0002: posture instability can be treated).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Naujokat to have provided feedback to a deep brain stimulation device because it would have resulted in the predictable result of treating a patient with neurological diseases (Naujokat: see [0002]) by providing electrical stimulation in real time when a risk is detected (Naujokat: see [0024]-[0032]).
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Grabiner does not disclose wherein activity recognition and postural instability characterization are used by the processor to tune neurostimulation parameters of a deep-brain-stimulation device implanted in the subject.
Naujokat teaches wherein activity recognition and postural instability characterization are used by the processor to tune neurostimulation parameters of a deep-brain-stimulation device implanted in the subject (see paragraph 0024-0032: accelerometer sensor data is used to analyze motor activity of a patient where if a tremor is detected then a control algorithm of a controller turns a generator of a deep brain stimulation device on to generate electrical pulses to treat patient; and see paragraph 0002: posture instability can be treated).
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 Grabiner with the teachings of Naujokat to have provided feedback to a deep brain stimulation device because it would have resulted in the predictable result of treating a patient with neurological diseases (Naujokat: see [0002]) by providing electrical stimulation in real time when a risk is detected (Naujokat: see [0024]-[0032]).
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 NIDHI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2379. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791