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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection sensor” in claims 1, 10, 16, 20, and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0107] of the provided specification defines a detection sensor as an infrared ray camera, pulse wave sensor, or a temperature sensor
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 16-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time" in lines 39-42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Living body information is never acquired subsequent to the predetermined time within the method of claim 1. The same issue is present in claims 10 and 16.
In regards to claim 24 it is unclear how a sound sensor can also be a motion sensor. It is also unclear if the steps of claim 24 are in addition to the steps in lines 18-34 of claim 1. It is unclear how a sound sensor can acquire motion information for the right and left sides of a user. For purposes of examination the sound sensor is being interpreted as a separate sensor from the motion sensor.
In regards to claim 26, It is unclear how a single point in time can be daily. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as “the method is performed daily”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
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, 6, 8-13, 16-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including deriving motion information and determining whether an abnormal state in which there is a possibility of cerebral infarction in the subject is present. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of the step of determining whether an abnormal state in which there is a possibility of cerebral infarction in the subject is present based on the derived reference motion information and motion information on the left half of the body of the subject and motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at a detection time subsequent to the predetermined period sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claim recites the step of deriving reference motion information from the machine learning model on a left half of a body of the subject and reference motion information on a right half of the body of the subject. This step describes a mathematical concept, which is another abstract idea. The claim also describes the steps of step of determining, by respectively comparing the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject at the detection time, and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the second motion information on the right half of the body at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject in the predetermined period; and determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.. These steps describe concepts performed in the human mind, which is another abstract idea. Besides the Abstract Ideas, the claim recites additional steps of acquiring motion information detected by a motion detection device, the motion detection device configured to detect a motion of a subject; acquiring, by the computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information. Acquiring and detecting motion data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the acquiring and detecting steps are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data acquiring, detecting, and storing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the acquiring, detecting, and storing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The computer is merely a generic computer configured to perform the Abstract Idea pre-solution activity. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application. The same applies to the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data processing and outputting of data. The dependent claims regarding determining steps are also drawn to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes. The determining steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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, 6, 8-13, 16-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (20150018723 – Previously cited ) in view of Kostic (US 20170007167 A1- Previously cited) in view of Tzvieli (US 20200221956 A1) in view of Ericson (US 20220061738 A1).
In regards to claim 1 Lee teaches an information processing method that is executed by a computer, the method comprising:
acquiring motion information with a motion sensor, the motion sensor device configured to detect a motion of a subject (Lee [0038]);
storing the acquired motion information in a computer ([0061], In order to process data over a 30 minute period, the data from that 30 minute period needs to be stored somewhere on the computer);
deriving by the computer, reference motion information on a left half of a body of the subject and reference motion information on a right half of the body of the subject based on the motion information in a predetermined period (Lee [0038] and [0046], reference value is inherently derived from reference left and right limb data);
determining whether an abnormal state in which there is a possibility of cerebral infarction in the subject is present based on the derived reference motion information and motion information on the left half of the body of the subject and motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at a detection time subsequent to the predetermined period (Lee [0044] and [0046]);
and wherein the acquired motion information includes first motion information in which a motion in the left half of the body of the subject is detected and second motion information in which a motion in the right half of the body of the subject is detected (Lee [0044] and [0046]).
Lee fails to teach a method wherein the information processing method further comprises: acquiring, by the computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject in the predetermined period; determining, by respectively comparing the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject at the detection time, and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present; and determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Kostic teaches a facial test, arm test, and speech test in order to detect a stroke ([0040]). The arm test includes a step of determining, by respectively comparing the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject at the detection time, and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present ([0103-0104]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee to include the tests of Kostic in order to more comprehensively detect a stroke at an early stage. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
Lee in view of Kostic fails to teach a method wherein the information processing method further comprises: acquiring, by the computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject in the predetermined period; and determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Tzvieli teaches acquiring, by a computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject ([0194] [0252] Thermal asymmetry is living body information, a baseline is previously found which would inherently include a reference information of a left and right half of a body), which is used to determine stroke. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee in view of Kostic to include the living body information gathering and stroke detection of Tzvieli. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli fails to teach a method wherein the information processing method further comprises: determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Ericson teaches performing a second test if a first test indicates a user is having a stroke in order to determine a false positive ([0053]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli to use a second test to determine the results from the first test are a false positive like the method of Ericson. Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli in view of Ericson would perform the motion test first and then determine if the stroke indication from the motion test is a false positive by performing the thermal asymmetry test (described by Tzvieli), and if the thermal asymmetry test if negative for stroke (under a threshold Tzvieli [0252]) then the stroke determined by the first test is a false positive. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of determining false positives.
In regards to claim 2 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: outputting, by the computer a notification to a display when it has been determined that the abnormal state is present (Lee [0008] [0010]).
In regards to claim 3 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the computer, whether the abnormal state continues for a predetermined time (Lee [0072]).
In regards to claim 4 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, when it has been determined that the abnormal state is present, based on the motion information on the left half of the body of the subject and the right half of the body of the subject, whether the false abnormal state is present in which a predetermined change occurs in the left half of the body of the subject or the right half of the body of the subject due to a factor other than the cerebral infarction (Ericson [0053], see argument for claim 1).
In regards to claim 6 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, determining by the computer, by comparing a difference value between the first motion information on left half of the body of the subject and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with a difference value between the first motion information on left half of the body of the subject and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present. (Lee [0047]).
In regards to claim 9 Lee teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the motion detection device includes a plurality of motion sensors, and the information processing method further comprises: acquiring a plurality of motion information on the subject from the plurality of motion sensors (Lee [0036]).
In regards to claim 10 Lee teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising:
acquiring motion information detected by a motion detection device, the motion detection device configured to detect a motion of a subject (Lee [0038]);
storing the acquired motion information (Lee [0038], Lee stores the motion information in order to extract an electrical signal from the motion characteristic value);
deriving reference motion information on a left half of a body of the subject and reference motion information on a right half of the body of the subject based on the motion information in a predetermined period (Lee [0038] and [0046], derives a reference value from reference left and right limb data);
determining whether an abnormal state in which there is a possibility of cerebral infarction in the subject is present based on the derived reference motion information on the left half of the body of the subject and the right half of the body of the subject and motion information on the left half of the body of the subject and motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at a detection time subsequent to the predetermined period (Lee [0044] and [0046]);
and wherein the acquired motion information includes first motion information in which a motion in the left half of the body of the subject is detected and second motion information in which a motion in the right half of the body of the subject is detected (Lee [0044] and [0046]).
Lee fails to teach a process wherein the information processing method further comprises: acquiring, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject in the predetermined period; determining, by respectively comparing the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject at the detection time, and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present; and determining, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Kostic teaches a facial test, arm test, and speech test in order to detect a stroke ([0040]). The arm test includes a step of determining, by respectively comparing the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject at the detection time, and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present ([0103-0104]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lee to include the tests of Kostic in order to more comprehensively detect a stroke at an early stage. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
Lee in view of Kostic fails to teach a method wherein the information processing method further comprises: acquiring, by the computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject in the predetermined period; and determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Tzvieli teaches acquiring, by a computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject ([0194] [0252] Thermal asymmetry is living body information, a baseline is previously found which would inherently include a reference information of a left and right half of a body), which is used to determine stroke. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee in view of Kostic to include the living body information gathering and stroke detection of Tzvieli. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli fails to teach a method wherein the information processing method further comprises: determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Ericson teaches performing a second test if a first test indicates a user is having a stroke in order to determine a false positive ([0053]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli to use a second test to determine the results from the first test are a false positive like the method of Ericson. Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli in view of Ericson would perform the motion test first and then determine if the stroke indication from the motion test is a false positive by performing the thermal asymmetry test (described by Tzvieli), and if the thermal asymmetry test if negative for stroke (under a threshold Tzvieli [0252]) then the stroke determined by the first test is a false positive. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of determining false positives.
In regards to claim 11 Lee teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 10, wherein the process further comprises: outputting a notification when it has been determined that the abnormal state is present (Lee [0008]).
In regards to claim 12 Lee teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 10, wherein the process further comprises: determining whether the abnormal state continues for a predetermined time (Lee [0072]).
In regards to claim 13 modified Lee teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 10, further comprising: determining, when it has been determined that the abnormal state is present, based on the motion information on the left half of the body of the subject and the right half of the body of the subject, whether the false abnormal state is present in which a predetermined change occurs in the left half of the body of the subject or the right half of the body of the subject due to a factor other than the cerebral infarction (Ericson [0053], see argument for claim 10).
In regards to claim 16 Lee teaches an information processing device, comprising:
a motion information acquisition unit configured to acquire motion information detected by a motion detection device configured to detect a motion of a subject ((Lee [0038], FIG.1 Sensing unit 100 acquires motion data from sensors within the unit);
a storage unit configured to store the motion information acquired by the motion information acquisition unit (Lee [0038], FIG.1 Motion Disorder Determination Unit 200 stores the motion information in order to extract an electrical signal from the motion characteristic value);
a derivation unit configured to derive reference motion information on a left half of a body of the subject and reference motion information on a right half of a body of the subject based on the motion information in a predetermined period stored by the storage unit (Lee [0038] and [0046], FIG.1 Motion Disorder Determination Unit 200 contains a sensing unit derives a reference value from stored left and right limb data from left and right limb data when paralysis is not occurring);
and a determination unit configured to determine whether an abnormal state in which there is a possibility of cerebral infarction in the subject is present based on the reference motion information derived by the derivation unit and motion information on the left half of the body of the subject and motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at a detection time subsequent to the predetermined period (Lee [0044] and [0046], FIG.1 Motion Disorder Determination Unit 200);
and wherein the acquired motion information includes first motion information in which a motion in the left half of the body of the subject is detected and second motion information in which a motion in the right half of the body of the subject is detected (Lee [0044] and [0046]).
Lee fails to teach a process wherein the information processing method further comprises: acquiring, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject in the predetermined period; determining, by respectively comparing the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject at the detection time, and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present; and determining, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Kostic teaches a facial test, arm test, and speech test in order to detect a stroke ([0040]). The arm test includes a step of determining, by respectively comparing the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the first motion information on the left half of the body of the subject at the detection time, and the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject in the reference motion information with the second motion information on the right half of the body of the subject at the detection time, whether the abnormal state is present ([0103-0104]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee to include the tests of Kostic in order to more comprehensively detect a stroke at an early stage. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
Lee in view of Kostic fails to teach a device wherein the information processing method further comprises: acquiring, by the computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject in the predetermined period; and determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Tzvieli teaches acquiring, by a computer, living body information detected by a detection sensor configured to detect the living body information on the subject; storing, in the computer, the acquired living body information; deriving, by the computer, reference living body information from the stored living body information on the left half of the body of the subject and reference living body information on the right half of the body of the subject ([0194] [0252] Thermal asymmetry is living body information, a baseline is previously found which would inherently include a reference information of a left and right half of a body), which is used to determine stroke. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee in view of Kostic to include the living body information gathering and stroke detection of Tzvieli. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli fails to teach a device wherein the information processing method further comprises: determining, by the computer, when the abnormal state is present, whether the abnormal state is a false abnormal state based on the reference motion information and the reference living body information, the false abnormal state being defined by the reference motion information and the reference living body information and comparing the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time to the reference living body information, and when the acquired living body information subsequent to the predetermined time is within predetermined values, determining that the acquired motion information subsequent to the predetermined time on the subject corresponds to the false abnormal state.
Ericson teaches performing a second test if a first test indicates a user is having a stroke in order to determine a false positive ([0053]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli to use a second test to determine the results from the first test are a false positive like the method of Ericson. Lee in view of Kostic in view of Tzvieli in view of Ericson would perform the motion test first and then determine if the stroke indication from the motion test is a false positive by performing the thermal asymmetry test (described by Tzvieli), and if the thermal asymmetry test if negative for stroke (under a threshold Tzvieli [0252]) then the stroke determined by the first test is a false positive. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of determining false positives.
In regards to claim 18 Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 16, further comprising: an output unit configured to output a notification to one or more notification destinations when it has been determined that the abnormal state is present (Lee [0008], FIG.1 Display 500).
In regards to claim 19 modified Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, when it has been determined that the abnormal state is present, based on the motion information, whether the false abnormal state is present in which a predetermined change occurs in the left half of the body of the subject or the right half of the body of the subject due to a factor other than the cerebral infarction. (Ericson [0053], see argument for claim 16).
In regards to claim 20 modified Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 16 wherein the detection sensor comprises one or more sensors or cameras, the one or more sensors or cameras configured to detect one or more of blood flow of the subject, surface temperature of the subject, a body pressure of the subject, a pulse wave of the subject, and a body temperature of the subject (Tzvieli [0194] blood flow sensors).
In regards to claim 21 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim : wherein the detection sensor is one or more sensors or cameras, the one or more sensors or cameras configured to detect one or more of blood flow of the subject, surface temperature of the subject, a body pressure of the subject, a pulse wave of the subject, and a body temperature of the subject (Tzvieli [0194] blood flow sensors).
In regards to claim 23 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 21, wherein the one or more sensors or cameras include an infrared ray camera configured to detect blood flow and a surface temperature of the subject, a surface pressure sensor configured to detect the body pressure of the subject, and a wearable device configured to detect the pulse wave or the body temperature of the subject (Tzvieli [0017] [0081]).
In regards to claim 24 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein a sound sensor, the method further comprising: acquiring, by a computer, voice data from a sound sensor (Kostic [0087]); analyzing, by the computer, the voice data from the sound sensor (Kostic [0087]); extracting, by the computer, a word pattern set in advance from the analyzed voice data (Kostic [0088]); determining, by the computer, a magnitude relationship of a difference value between the voice data corresponding to the extracted word pattern and voice data serving as the reference motion information, and a threshold value set in advance (Kostic [0088] characteristics are a pattern); and determining, by the computer, that the abnormal state is present when the difference value is equal to or greater than the threshold value (Kostic [0088] “controller compares the current sound samples to the corresponding baseline sound samples and issues an alert if the various characteristics differ by more than an acceptable amount”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee to include the voice test Kostic. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
In regards to claim 25 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 24. Modified Lee fails to teach a method wherein the sound sensor includes a camera configured to detect a motion of a face of the subject. Kostic teaches a camera configured to detect a motion of a face of the subject ([0081]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors of Lee to include the camera of Kostic. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of detecting a stroke more comprehensively.
In regards to claim 26 information processing method according to claim 24. Modified Lee fails to teach a method wherein the detection time subsequent to the predetermined period is on a daily basis. Kostic teaches daily monitoring ([0113]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Lee to assess the user every day like Kostic. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable result of monitoring the user every day.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (20150018723 – Previously cited ) in view of Kostic (US 20170007167 A1- Previously cited) in view of Tzvieli (US 20200221956 A1) in view of Ericson (US 20220061738 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Larson (US 20170360357 A1- Previously cited).
In regards to claim 8 modified Lee teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: comparing the reference motion information with the motion information at the detection time, using a threshold value (Lee [0015]).
Modified Lee fails to teach a threshold value that is different in accordance with a detection place of the motion information. Larson teaches location specific thresholds (Larson [0214]) in order to account for measurement differences due to the different locations on a user’s body that the sensors are placed. It would It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Lee to use location specific thresholds in order to account for differencing limb movement activity from location to location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filled 12/05/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filled 12/05/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application. The step of ruling out a false abnormal state is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process, Furthermore, the claimed motion sensor, detection sensor, and computer are all generic devices to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filled 12/05/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 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 Lee (20150018723 – Previously cited ) in view of Kostic (US 20170007167 A1- Previously cited) in view of Tzvieli (US 20200221956 A1) in view of Ericson (US 20220061738 A1). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791