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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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.
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:
Analysis module in claim 1 (par. 66, 71, and 99)
Reporting module in claim 1 (par. 67, 71, and 99)
Monitoring module in claim 4 (par. 68, 71, and 99)
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.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1.
The claim(s) recite(s) a system/method for ambient mobility testing which is directed to one of the for statutory categories (machine and process).
Step 2A Prong 1.
Claim 1/Claim 11 – “to determine a set of timed-up-and-go actions of a TUG test and determine results of a complete TUG test” is a mental process which may be performed in the human mine alone or with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or combination of elements integrates the identified judicial exception into practical application.
“at least one sensor configured to passively collect data associated with an individual's normal daily movement;
an analysis module configured to analyze the collected data to determine a set of timed-up-and-go (TUG) actions of a TUG test and determine results of a complete TUG test; and
a reporting module configured to provide the results of the TUG test.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the judicial exception and/or outputting a result). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 11 is rejected and analyzed in a similar manner in Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as they pertain to implementing the judicial exception on a generically claimed processor (analysis module/reporting module) utilizing a conventional sensor (at least one sensor, further limited to a privacy mm-wave radar, LIDAR, or WIFI sensor) to obtain widely known types of physiological data and outputting the results on a generically recited display (reporting module).
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routing, and conventional means for data gathering and computing as demonstrated by:
Applicant’s specification (e.g. par. 99 which discloses the system resides on a generic processor that is configured to perform the generic computing functions (e.g. determining…) that are well understood, routing, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Applicant’s background in the specification.
The references of record.
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).” Berheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite additional limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and/or recite additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as above. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neumann (2021/0133604).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Neumann discloses a system for ambient mobility testing comprising:
At least one sensor configured to passively collect data associated with an individuals normal daily movement (par. 88, list of sensors)
An analysis module (items 104, 504, par. 73, 127; essentially the computing for the system that takes in sensor results) configured to analyze the collected data to determine a set of timed up and go actions of a TUG test and determine results of a complete tug test (par. 32)
A reporting module (par. 110, 127, item 536) configured to provide the results of the TUG test.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Neumann further discloses a privacy preserving sensor (par. 68, consideration of protecting patient’s privacy requires sensors to be used to preserve privacy).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Neumann further discloses wherein a monitoring module configured to monitor for TUG actions to update the results of the TUG test (results are monitored and updated through various inputs, par. 27, 98)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Neumann further discloses wherein the analysis module is further configured to determine a decline in mobility from the TUG actions (par. 89, results can be positive or negative).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Neumann further discloses wherein the analysis module is further configured to determine an abnormality within the results of the TUG test or within the TUG actions (system considered outlier actions of user which would change normal range thus considers abnormal results, par 19, 111-113).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Neumann further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is configured to commence monitoring the individuals movement on a start command (system needs to be turned on, start up is disclosed and essentially inherent in electronic systems, par. 124).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Neumann further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is configured to continuously monitor (par. 114, noting the system can run continuously when on, and computing device 104 may run in perpetuity for 1 to 5 years) and the analysis module is configured to determine which collected data is associated with a TUG action (performing of the TUG action would perform this function/step).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Neumann discloses wherein the collected data is an aggregate of a plurality of TUG actions performed separately during a predetermined period of time to determine the TUG actions of the TUG test. (Par. 15, 32).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saporito (EP3461403).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Saporito discloses a system for ambient mobility testing comprising:
At least one sensor (item 10 assembly) configured to passively collect data associated with an individuals normal daily movement (par. 44);
An analysis module (item 4) configured to analyze the collected data to determine a set of timed up and go actions of a TUG test and determine results of a complete tug test (par. 45)
A reporting module (item 8) configured to provide the results of the TUG test (par. 46).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Saporito further discloses wherein a monitoring module configured to monitor for TUG actions to update the results of the TUG test (par. 57)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Saporito further discloses wherein the analysis module is further configured to determine a decline in mobility from the TUG actions (determination of mobility can get worse).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Saporito further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is configured to continuously monitor (par. 57) and the analysis module is configured to determine which collected data is associated with a TUG action (par. 57).
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, 5, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanning (US 10568547 B1) in view of DeMers (2021/0393166).
Regarding claim 1 Johanning discloses A system for ambient mobility testing comprising: at least one sensor configured to collect data associated with an individual's movement; ((Col. 6, Line 11-13) …The ambient sensors 112 can be utilized to collect data about the subject's ambulatory mobility, (Col. 10, Line 8-11) …detect and monitor the subject’s mobility exercise (e.g. TUG, extended-TUG, walking speed etc.) occurring with the FOV of the cameras 104). an analysis module configured to analyze the collected data to determine a set of timed-up-and-go (TUG) actions of a TUG test and determine results of a complete TUG test; ((Col. 9, Line 56-65) In one or more implementations the multifunctional assessment system 100 may be utilized to track a subject's mobility. For example, the cameras 104 may be affixed to the chair 102. The subject's regimen may include one or more mobility exercises (e.g., TUG test, extended TUG test, walking speed test, etc.). Thus, the multifunctional assessment system 100 may be utilized to track the subject's progress. As shown in FIG. 2, the first computing device 106 includes a mobility module 234 that is storable in memory 204 and executable by the processor 202). and a reporting module configured to provide the results of the TUG test. ((Col. 4, Line 20-27) …the multifunctional assessment system is configured to generate and analyze data based on the subject's exercises and input based on normative values. The first computing device is configured to generate reports or instructions, allowing for a complete subject assessment to be performed. The first computing device can be configured to communicate the reports or instructions to the second computing device.
Johanning fails to disclose the sensor is passively collecting data during normal daily movement.
However, DeMers teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor that allows for passive data gathering (par. 61, “sensors 110 can collect data continuously or periodically over a period of time” construed as they are just on during the day) during normal daily movement (e.g. walking, abstract, par. 103 further list normal activities).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize continuous/passive data collection during normal daily activities as taught by DeMers to the system of Johanning, the motivation being this allows for better and more data to more reliably predict mobility.
Regarding claim 5 Johanning discloses wherein the analysis module is further configured to determine a decline in mobility from the TUG actions. ((Col. 2, Line 8-14) The walking speed test is a known performance measure used to assess walking speed over a short distance. Walking speed is an indicator that can be used to determine functional mobility, gait and vestibular function; can be predictive of future events such as mortality and functional decline; is a predictor of outcomes of rehabilitation; and can reflect underlying neuromotor physiological processes).
Regarding claim 11 Johanning discloses A method for ambient mobility testing, the method comprising: collecting data associated with an individual's movement, via at least one sensor; ((Col. 6, Line 11-13) …The ambient sensors 112 can be utilized to collect data about the subject's ambulatory mobility, (Col. 10, Line 8-11) …detect and monitor the subject’s mobility exercise (e.g. TUG, extended-TUG, walking speed etc.) occurring with the FOV of the cameras 104).
analyzing the collected data to determine timed-up-and-go (TUG) actions of a TUG test; determining results of a complete TUG test; ((Col. 9, Line 56-65) In one or more implementations the multifunctional assessment system 100 may be utilized to track a subject's mobility. For example, the cameras 104 may be affixed to the chair 102. The subject's regimen may include one or more mobility exercises (e.g., TUG test, extended TUG test, walking speed test, etc.). Thus, the multifunctional assessment system 100 may be utilized to track the subject's progress. As shown in FIG. 2, the first computing device 106 includes a mobility module 234 that is storable in memory 204 and executable by the processor 202). and providing the results of the TUG test. ((Col. 4, Line 20-27) …the multifunctional assessment system is configured to generate and analyze data based on the subject's exercises and input based on normative values. The first computing device is configured to generate reports or instructions, allowing for a complete subject assessment to be performed. The first computing device can be configured to communicate the reports or instructions to the second computing device.
Johanning fails to disclose the sensor is passively collecting data during normal daily movement.
However, DeMers teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor that allows for passive data gathering (par. 61, “sensors 110 can collect data continuously or periodically over a period of time” construed as they are just on during the day) during normal daily movement (e.g. walking, abstract, par. 103 further list normal activities).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize continuous/passive data collection during normal daily activities as taught by DeMers to the system of Johanning, the motivation being this allows for better and more data to more reliably predict mobility.
Regarding claim 15 Johanning discloses determining a decline in mobility from the TUG actions based on the results of the TUG test. ((Col. 2, Line 8-14) The walking speed test is a known performance measure used to assess walking speed over a short distance. Walking speed is an indicator that can be used to determine functional mobility, gait and vestibular function; can be predictive of future events such as mortality and functional decline; is a predictor of outcomes of rehabilitation; and can reflect underlying neuromotor physiological processes).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanning (US 10568547 B1) in view of DeMers (2021/0393166) in view of Winter et al. (US 20210315467 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the at least one sensor is a privacy preserving sensor. However, Winter teaches an mm wave sensor which according to [0076] of Applicant’s specification isa privacy preserving sensor. ([0127] In some embodiments, the ambient monitoring device 120 is used for cmWave and mmWave radar collaboration for fine movement detection. When an individual is in the same room as the monitoring device, movement and position can be measured with both shorter wave and longer wave radars. Both 3d maps may then be combined to have a more stable, more accurate and more robust model of the human body). It would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Johanning to add a mm wave radar sensor as taught by Winter to allow for fine movement detection.
Regarding claim 3 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the at least one sensor is an mm-wave radar, LIDAR sensor or a WI-Fl sensor. However, Winter teaches an mm wave sensor. ([0127] In some embodiments, the ambient monitoring device 120 is used for cmWave and mmWave radar collaboration for fine movement detection. When an individual is in the same room as the monitoring device, movement and position can be measured with both shorter wave and longer wave radars. Both 3d maps may then be combined to have a more stable, more accurate and more robust model of the human body). It would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Johanning to add a mm wave radar sensor as taught by Winter to allow for fine movement detection.
Regarding claim 12 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the data is collected via a privacy preserving sensor. However, Winter teaches an mm wave sensor which according to [0076] of Applicant’s specification isa privacy preserving sensor. ([0127] In some embodiments, the ambient monitoring device 120 is used for cmWave and mmWave radar collaboration for fine movement detection. When an individual is in the same room as the monitoring device, movement and position can be measured with both shorter wave and longer wave radars. Both 3d maps may then be combined to have a more stable, more accurate and more robust model of the human body). It would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Johanning to add a mm wave radar sensor as taught by Winter to allow for fine movement detection.
Regarding claim 13 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the least one sensor is an mm-wave radar, LIDAR sensor or a WI-Fl sensor. However, Winter teaches wherein the least one sensor is an mm-wave radar, LIDAR sensor or a WI-Fl sensor. ([0127] In some embodiments, the ambient monitoring device 120 is used for cmWave and mmWave radar collaboration for fine movement detection. When an individual is in the same room as the monitoring device, movement and position can be measured with both shorter wave and longer wave radars. Both 3d maps may then be combined to have a more stable, more accurate and more robust model of the human body). It would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the with the mm wave radar as taught by Winter to allow for fine movement detection.
Claim(s) 4, 6-8, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanning (US 10568547 B1) in view of DeMers (2021/0393166) in view of Jovanov et al. (US 20140330172 A1).
Regarding claim 4 Johanning discloses the module of the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing a monitoring module configured to monitor for TUG actions to update the results of the TUG test. However, Jovanov teaches a monitoring module configured to monitor for TUG actions to update the results of the TUG test. ([0017] A system 100 for measuring multiple phases of a diagnostic posture change procedure is shown in FIG. 1…., … Additionally, the server 105 comprises logic 110, referred to herein as "diagnostic logic," that is configured to analyze the stored data related to measurements taken during the diagnostic posture change procedure. In this regard, the diagnostic logic 110 is configured to analyze physiological responses to a person performing the diagnostic posture change procedure along with analyzing extracted mobility-related parameters specific to the diagnostic posture change procedure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module as taught by Johanning, with a program to monitor physiological responses to update the results of the posture change procedure test as taught by Jovanov, because it would improve the device by increasing the diagnosis accuracy of a user to provide exceptional health care for the user.
Regarding claim 6 Johanning discloses the analysis module of the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the analysis module is further configured to determine an abnormality within the results of the TUG test or within the TUG actions. However, Jovanov teaches wherein the analysis module is further configured to determine an abnormality within the results of the TUG test or within the TUG actions. ([0036] the test logic 255 may determine how much the heart rate measurement described above for the lift-up phase changes over time and use such rate of change to calculate a health indicator indicative of the likelihood of the patient experiencing a deterioration of an acute condition, such as heart attack or viral infection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis module as taught by Johanning to determine an abnormality as taught by Jovanov, because to be able to determine an abnormality within testing a user(s) can improve on health as well as save a user(s) life.
Regarding claim 7 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the at least one sensor is configured to commence monitoring the individual's movement on a start command. However, Jovanov teaches wherein the at least one sensor is configured to commence monitoring the individual's movement on a start command. ([0063] An example MCD 125 is shown in FIG. 8. The MCD 125 is illustratively depicted as a smartphone 800. The smartphone 800 comprises a display touch screen 801 displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) 802 for engaging in an automated application run by logic 255. The GUI 802 includes, for example, a record button 805 for initiating the start of the posture change procedure that the user will perform.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smartphone as taught by Johanning with a start button as taught by Jovanov, because incorporating a start button would improve the system by giving the user more control of when to start monitoring.
Regarding claim 8 Johanning discloses the analysis module of the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the at least one sensor is configured to continuously monitor and the analysis module is configured to determine which collected data is associated with a TUG action. However, Jovanov teaches wherein the at least one sensor is configured to continuously monitor and ([0062] The diagnostic logic 110 or test logic 255 may also determine user's health condition from the biometric data 252…, …The gait assessment, conducted by logic 110 or 255, also determines the effectiveness of rehabilitation or therapeutic treatment of the user as the user walks several times during the day or over the course of other periods, including minutes, hours, and months, for example). the analysis module is configured to determine which collected data is associated with a TUG action. ([0031] the test logic 255 is configured to detect various phases of the TUG procedure, such as the beginning of the sit-to-stand transition, based on the mobility data 253). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Johanning with a sensor configured to monitor continuously with a program to determine transitions and phases of the TUG procedure as taught by Jovanov, because by incorporating multiple components performing different functions creates efficiency that improves the system.
Regarding claim 14 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing further comprising: monitoring for TUG actions to update the results of the TUG test. However, Jovanov teaches further comprising: monitoring for TUG actions to update the results of the TUG test. ([0017] A system 100 for measuring multiple phases of a diagnostic posture change procedure is shown in FIG. 1…., … Additionally, the server 105 comprises logic 110, referred to herein as "diagnostic logic," that is configured to analyze the stored data related to measurements taken during the diagnostic posture change procedure. In this regard, the diagnostic logic 110 is configured to analyze physiological responses to a person performing the diagnostic posture change procedure along with analyzing extracted mobilityrelated parameters specific to the diagnostic posture change procedure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module as taught by Johanning, with a program to monitor physiological responses to update the results of the posture change procedure test as taught by Jovanov, because it would improve the device by increasing the diagnosis accuracy of a user to provide exceptional health care for the user.
Regarding claim 16 Johanning discloses determining an abnormality within the results of the TUG test or within the TUG actions. However, Jovanov teaches determining an abnormality within the results of the TUG test or within the TUG actions. ([0036] the test logic 255 may determine how much the heart rate measurement described above for the lift-up phase changes over time and use such rate of change to calculate a health indicator indicative of the likelihood of the patient experiencing a deterioration of an acute condition, such as heart attack or viral infection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis module as taught by Johanning to determine an abnormality as taught by Jovanov, because to be able to determine an abnormality within the testing can improve health as well as save a user(s) life.
Regarding claim 17 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the collecting of data commences on a start command. However, Jovanov teaches wherein the collecting of data commences on a start command. ([0063] An example MCD 125 is shown in FIG. 8. The MCD 125 is illustratively depicted as a smartphone 800. The smartphone 800 comprises a display touch screen 801 displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) 802 for engaging in an automated application run by logic 255. The GUI 802 includes, for example, a record button 805 for initiating the start of the posture change procedure that the user will perform.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smartphone as taught by Johanning with a start button as taught by Jovanov, because incorporating a button would improve the system by giving the user more control of when to start monitoring.
Regarding claim 18 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the data may be continuously collected and analyzed to determine which collected data is associated with a TUG action. However, Jovanov teaches wherein the data may be continuously collected and ([0062] The diagnostic logic 110 or test logic 255 may also determine user's health condition from the biometric data 252…, …The gait assessment, conducted by logic 110 or 255, also determines the effectiveness of rehabilitation or therapeutic treatment of the user as the user walks several times during the day or over the course of other periods, including minutes, hours, and months, for example). analyzed to determine which collected data is associated with a TUG action. ([0031] the test logic 255 is configured to detect various phases of the TUG procedure, such as the beginning of the sit-tostand transition, based on the mobility data 253). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Johanning with a sensor configured to monitor continuously with a program to determine transitions and phases of the TUG procedure as taught by Jovanov, because by incorporating multiple components performing different functions creates efficiency that improves the system.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanning (US 10568547 B1) in view of DeMers (2021/0393166) in view of Neumann et al. (US20210133604).
Regarding claims 9 and 19 Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the collected data is an aggregate of a plurality of TUG actions performed separately during a predetermined period of time to determine the TUG actions of the TUG test.
However, Neumann teaches wherein the collected data is an aggregate of a plurality of TUG actions performed separately during a predetermined period of time to determine the TUG actions of the TUG test. (Par. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Johanning with the teachings of Neumann, the motivation being the larger data samples would allow for initial guesses at a relationship before refinement (par. 25).
Regarding claims 10 and 20 a modified Johanning discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the predetermined period of time may be between 1 hour and 1 week. However, DeMers and Neumann each disclose varying time periods which teaches wherein the predetermined period of time may be between 1 hour and 1 week. (DeMers: Fig 8, suggestion of different activities which are known to range in the hour time frame, par. 13; Neumann: par. 114 suggestion of wearing device for years would include multiple feedback sessions within said year).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the analyses module as taught by Johanning with the analysis module with a predetermined period of time as taught by DeMers and Neumann as it involves only adjusting the time of the time component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis module of Johanning by making the period of time be between 1 hour and 1 week as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentations.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791