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 .
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 12 and 14 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.
In regards to claim 12 it is unclear if the “cognitive state of the user based on the determination of the life space size of the user” is the same as the “cognitive function of the user based on the quantity of successful responses” that is determined in claim 6. For purposes of examination they are being treated as separate determinations.
In regards to claim 14 it is unclear if the “cognitive state of the user based on the determination that the activity of daily living was performed” is the same as the “cognitive function of the user based on the quantity of successful responses” that is determined in claim 6. For purposes of examination they are being treated as the same determinations.
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 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 6 follows.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including determining cognitive function of the user based on the quantity of successful responses. 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 determining using a processor cognitive function of the user based on the quantity of successful responses. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). 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. 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 also recites following steps which are merely abstract ideas in the form of mental processes: determining, by the personal terminal based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was not performed by a user; and determining, by the personal terminal based on the additional proximity detection information and the additional sensor data, a quantity of successful responses to the plurality of alerts, wherein a successful response is the user performing an action of the plurality of actions within the predetermined amount of time after an alert of the plurality of alerts is sent. Besides the Abstract Ideas, the claim recites additional steps of: receiving, by a personal terminal from a wearable device, proximity detection information, the proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and a tag device, and receiving, by the personal terminal from the wearable device, sensor data received by the wearable device from the tag device; transmitting, by the personal terminal to the wearable device, an alert to complete the first action in response to the first action not being performed by the user; repeating steps (A) to (D) for each of a plurality of actions such that a plurality of alerts are transmitted to the wearable device, the plurality of actions including the first action and the plurality of alerts including the alert: and receiving, by the personal terminal from the wearable device and subsequent to each alert of the plurality of alerts being transmitted, additional proximity detection information and additional sensor data, the additional proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and the tag device for a predetermined amount of time after each alert of the plurality of alerts is sent. Receiving sensor data is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the receiving steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step 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 gathering and comparing 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 obtaining and comparing 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.
The same rationale applies to claims 1 and 15
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited wearable device and tag device are generic devices configured to perform detecting and receiving proximity and morion data, and the processor and memory is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. 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 rationale applies to claim 15.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and abstract ideas in the form of mental processes. The comparing and calculating 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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 20180325426 A1- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.”- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.” - previously cited) in view of Lee US (20190150820 A1- previously cited), in view of Olch (US 20080256445 A1 - previously cited) in view of McCabe (“Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL)”).
In regards to claim 1 Shaw teaches a system, comprising: a wearable device (Fig 1A Device 104); and a personal terminal (Fig 1A Intermediary device 106, [0053]) , wherein the personal terminal comprises a processor (Fig 3D Processor 330) configured to perform steps comprising:
receiving, from the wearable device, proximity detection information (Proximity receiver is in the wearable device, see figure 2 below), the proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and a tag device ([0028 and 0106] Beacons are tag devices);
receiving, from the wearable device, sensor data received by the wearable device ([0028 and 0034]);
and determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was performed by a user ([0028, 0034, and 0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shaw fails to teach receiving, from the wearable device, sensor data received by the wearable device from the tag device. Lee teaches activity sensors that include motion and proximity sensors on specific appliances within a user's environment in order to determine parameters related to performance and/or non-performance of activities of daily living (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
Shaw/Lee fails to teach determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was not performed by a user; transmitting, to the wearable device, an alert to complete the first action in response to the first action not being performed by the user; repeating the previous steps for each of a plurality of actions such that a plurality of alerts are transmitted to the wearable device, the plurality of actions including the first action and the plurality of alerts including the alert; and receiving, from the wearable device and subsequent to each alert of the plurality of alerts being transmitted, additional proximity detection information and additional sensor data, the additional proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and the tag device for a predetermined amount of time after each alert of the plurality of alerts is sent.
Olch teaches determining, based on sensor data, that a first action was not performed by a user ([0113] “This would help to detect if the user picked up an item and then mistakenly put the item down, without taking it. An effector outside the home could remind the user to return and take the missed item(s)”);
transmitting, an alert to complete the first action in response to the first action not being performed by the user ([0113] :An effector outside the home could remind the user to return and take the missed item(s)” [0120] “AA could remind the person several times to take the medication. If the person still does not take the medication, the AA may store this information and/or notify interested people as described above”);
repeating reviving and determining for each of a plurality of actions such that a plurality of alerts are transmitted to the wearable device, the plurality of actions including the first action and the plurality of alerts including the alert ([0119] “Nonlimiting examples of activities that may benefit from coaching from AAs according to embodiments of the present invention include health monitoring and medication adjustment assistance, pet care, home control assistance, and dental hygiene” [0120] teaches taking medicine as an action, [0126] teaches pet care as an action):
receiving, from the wearable device and subsequent to each alert of the plurality of alerts being transmitted, additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time after each alert of the plurality of alerts is sent ([0120] “If the person does not move this bottle, thereby implying that they did not take the medication, the AA could remind the person several times to take the medication. If the person still does not take the medication, the AA may store this information and/or notify interested people as described above” device must receive sensor data after the alert in order to determine that the user has completed/hasn’t competed the action);
and determining, based on the additional sensor data, a quantity of successful responses to the plurality of alerts, wherein a successful response is the user performing an action of the plurality of actions within the predetermined amount of time after an alert of the plurality of alerts is sent ([0126-0127] “If the person does not complete the requested action after repeated prompts within a preset time interval” device can inherently determine if the user competed the action, [0127] teaches determining that the user completed a task ) ;
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shaw/Lee to carry out the method of Olch and determine a user hasn’t completed actions and send alerts in order to notify a user/caregiver when the user has not completed a task/action/ADL and note if they do complete them.
Shaw/Lee/Olch fails to teach determining cognitive function of the user based on the quantity of successful responses.
McCabe teaches determining cognitive function of the user based on a quantity of successfully completed ADLs (Page 2 Scoring sheet teaches multiple ADLs wherein each successful ADL is a point towards the cognitive score). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shaw/Lee/Olch to calculate a cognitive score using successful responses like the method of McCabe in order to evaluate the health status of a user.
In regards to claim 2 modified Shaw teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Shaw fails to teach a system wherein the sensor data comprises motion data indicative of motion of the tag device. Lee teaches a system wherein the sensor data comprises motion data indicative of motion of the tag device (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of modified Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
In regards to claim 6 Shaw teaches a method ([0005]), comprising:
receiving, by a personal terminal from a wearable device, proximity detection information, the proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and a tag device ([0028 and 0106] Beacons are tag devices);
receiving, from the wearable device, sensor data received by the wearable device ([0028 and 0034]);
and determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was performed by a user ([0028, 0034, and 0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shaw fails to teach receiving, from the wearable device, sensor data received by the wearable device from the tag device. Lee teaches activity sensors that include motion and proximity sensors on specific appliances within a user's environment in order to determine parameters related to performance and/or non-performance of activities of daily living (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
Shaw/Lee fails to teach determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was not performed by a user; transmitting, to the wearable device, an alert to complete the first action in response to the first action not being performed by the user; repeating the previous steps for each of a plurality of actions such that a plurality of alerts are transmitted to the wearable device, the plurality of actions including the first action and the plurality of alerts including the alert; and receiving, from the wearable device and subsequent to each alert of the plurality of alerts being transmitted, additional proximity detection information and additional sensor data, the additional proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and the tag device for a predetermined amount of time after each alert of the plurality of alerts is sent.
Olch teaches determining, based on sensor data, that a first action was not performed by a user ([0113] “This would help to detect if the user picked up an item and then mistakenly put the item down, without taking it. An effector outside the home could remind the user to return and take the missed item(s)”);
transmitting, an alert to complete the first action in response to the first action not being performed by the user ([0113] :An effector outside the home could remind the user to return and take the missed item(s)” [0120] “AA could remind the person several times to take the medication. If the person still does not take the medication, the AA may store this information and/or notify interested people as described above”);
repeating reviving and determining for each of a plurality of actions such that a plurality of alerts are transmitted to the wearable device, the plurality of actions including the first action and the plurality of alerts including the alert ([0119] “Nonlimiting examples of activities that may benefit from coaching from AAs according to embodiments of the present invention include health monitoring and medication adjustment assistance, pet care, home control assistance, and dental hygiene” [0120] teaches taking medicine as an action, [0126] teaches pet care as an action):
receiving, from the wearable device and subsequent to each alert of the plurality of alerts being transmitted, additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time after each alert of the plurality of alerts is sent ([0120] “If the person does not move this bottle, thereby implying that they did not take the medication, the AA could remind the person several times to take the medication. If the person still does not take the medication, the AA may store this information and/or notify interested people as described above” device must receive sensor data after the alert in order to determine that the user has completed/hasn’t competed the action);
and determining, based on the additional sensor data, a quantity of successful responses to the plurality of alerts, wherein a successful response is the user performing an action of the plurality of actions within the predetermined amount of time after an alert of the plurality of alerts is sent ([0126-0127] “If the person does not complete the requested action after repeated prompts within a preset time interval” device can inherently determine if the user competed the action, [0127] teaches determining that the user completed a task ) ;
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shaw/Lee to carry out the steps of Olch and determine a user hasn’t completed actions and send alerts in order to notify a user/caregiver when the user has not completed a task/action/ADL and note if they do complete them.
Shaw/Lee/Olch fails to teach determining cognitive function of the user based on the quantity of successful responses.
McCabe teaches determining cognitive function of the user based on a quantity of successfully completed ADLs (Page 2 Scoring sheet teaches multiple ADLs wherein each successful ADL is a point towards the cognitive score). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shaw/Lee/Olch to calculate a cognitive score using successful responses like the method of McCabe in order to evaluate the health status of a user.
In regards to claim 7 modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 6. Modified Shaw fails to teach a method wherein the sensor data comprises motion data indicative of motion of the tag device. Lee teaches a method wherein the sensor data comprises motion data indicative of motion of the tag device (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of modified Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
In regards to claim 9 Modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving at least one of motion data or location data sensed by the wearable device, determining that an action of the plurality of actions was performed by the user based on the received motion data or location data (Shaw [0034]).
In regards to claim 15 Shaw teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a processor; and a memory ((Fig 3D Processor 330, Memory 336), wherein the processor is configured to perform steps comprising:
receiving, from the wearable device, proximity detection information, the proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and a tag device ([0028 and 0106] Beacons are tag devices);
receiving, from the wearable device, sensor data received by the wearable device ([0028 and 0034]);
and determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was performed by a user ([0028, 0034, and 0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shaw fails to teach receiving, from the wearable device, sensor data received by the wearable device from the tag device. Lee teaches activity sensors that include motion and proximity sensors on specific appliances within a user's environment in order to determine parameters related to performance and/or non-performance of activities of daily living (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
Shaw/Lee fails to teach determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was not performed by a user; transmitting, to the wearable device, an alert to complete the first action in response to the first action not being performed by the user; repeating the previous steps for each of a plurality of actions such that a plurality of alerts are transmitted to the wearable device, the plurality of actions including the first action and the plurality of alerts including the alert; and receiving, from the wearable device and subsequent to each alert of the plurality of alerts being transmitted, additional proximity detection information and additional sensor data, the additional proximity detection information identifying proximity between the wearable device and the tag device for a predetermined amount of time after each alert of the plurality of alerts is sent.
Olch teaches determining, based on sensor data, that a first action was not performed by a user ([0113] “This would help to detect if the user picked up an item and then mistakenly put the item down, without taking it. An effector outside the home could remind the user to return and take the missed item(s)”);
transmitting, an alert to complete the first action in response to the first action not being performed by the user ([0113] :An effector outside the home could remind the user to return and take the missed item(s)” [0120] “AA could remind the person several times to take the medication. If the person still does not take the medication, the AA may store this information and/or notify interested people as described above”);
repeating reviving and determining for each of a plurality of actions such that a plurality of alerts are transmitted to the wearable device, the plurality of actions including the first action and the plurality of alerts including the alert ([0119] “Nonlimiting examples of activities that may benefit from coaching from AAs according to embodiments of the present invention include health monitoring and medication adjustment assistance, pet care, home control assistance, and dental hygiene” [0120] teaches taking medicine as an action, [0126] teaches pet care as an action):
receiving, from the wearable device and subsequent to each alert of the plurality of alerts being transmitted, additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time after each alert of the plurality of alerts is sent ([0120] “If the person does not move this bottle, thereby implying that they did not take the medication, the AA could remind the person several times to take the medication. If the person still does not take the medication, the AA may store this information and/or notify interested people as described above” device must receive sensor data after the alert in order to determine that the user has completed/hasn’t competed the action);
and determining, based on the additional sensor data, a quantity of successful responses to the plurality of alerts, wherein a successful response is the user performing an action of the plurality of actions within the predetermined amount of time after an alert of the plurality of alerts is sent ([0126-0127] “If the person does not complete the requested action after repeated prompts within a preset time interval” device can inherently determine if the user competed the action, [0127] teaches determining that the user completed a task ) ;
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shaw/Lee to carry out the steps of Olch and determine a user hasn’t completed actions and send alerts in order to notify a user/caregiver when the user has not completed a task/action/ADL and note if they do complete them.
Shaw/Lee/Olch fails to teach determining cognitive function of the user based on the quantity of successful responses.
McCabe teaches determining cognitive function of the user based on a quantity of successfully completed ADLs (Page 2 Scoring sheet teaches multiple ADLs wherein each successful ADL is a point towards the cognitive score). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shaw/Lee/Olch to calculate a cognitive score using successful responses like the method of McCabe in order to evaluate the health status of a user.
In regards to claim 16 modified Shaw teaches the apparatus of claim 15. Modified Shaw fails to teach an apparatus wherein the sensor data comprises motion data indicative of motion of the tag device. Lee teaches an apparatus wherein the sensor data comprises motion data indicative of motion of the tag device (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of modified Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
In regards to claim 18 modified Shaw teaches the apparatus of claim 15, further comprising: receiving at least one of motion data or location data sensed by the wearable device, wherein the determination that the first action was performed by the user is further based on the received motion data or location data (Shaw [0034]).
In regards to claim 4 Modified Shaw teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Shaw fails to teach a system wherein the processor is further configured to perform steps comprising: alerting the user of a scheduled action, wherein the step of determining comprises determining that the scheduled action was performed by the user. Olch teaches a system wherein the processor is further configured to perform steps comprising: alerting the user of a scheduled action, wherein the step of determining comprises determining that the scheduled action was performed by the user (Olch [0042-0043]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Modified Shaw to alert the user when a scheduled action was performed by the user like the system of Olch in order to simultaneously monitor and coach one or more users through several tasks of daily living (Olch [0056]).
In regards to claim 10 Modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 9. Modified Shaw fails to teach a method further comprising: alerting, by the personal terminal, the user of a scheduled action, wherein the step of determining comprises determining that the scheduled action was performed by the user. Olch teaches a method further comprising: alerting, by the personal terminal, the user of a scheduled action, wherein the step of determining comprises determining that the scheduled action was performed by the user (Olch [0042-0043]). It would have been 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 Shaw to alert the user when a scheduled action was performed by the user like the method of Olch in order to simultaneously monitor and coach one or more users through several tasks of daily living (Olch [0056]).
In regards to claim 19 Modified Shaw teaches the apparatus of claim 15. Modified Shaw fails to teach an apparatus wherein the processor is further configured to perform steps comprising: alerting, by the personal terminal, the user of a scheduled action, wherein the step of determining comprises determining that the scheduled action was performed by the user; and notifying, by the personal terminal, a remote terminal that the action was performed by the user. Olch teaches an apparatus wherein the processor is further configured to perform steps comprising: alerting, by the personal terminal, the user of a scheduled action, wherein the step of determining comprises determining that the scheduled action was performed by the user; and notifying, by the personal terminal, a remote terminal that the action was performed by the user (Olch [0042-0043]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Shaw to alert the user when a scheduled action was performed by the user like the apparatus of Olch in order to simultaneously monitor and coach one or more users through several tasks of daily living (Olch [0056]).
Claim(s) 3, 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 20180325426 A1- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.”- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.” - previously cited) in view of Lee US (20190150820 A1- previously cited), in view of Olch (US 20080256445 A1 - previously cited) in view of McCabe (“Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL)”) as applied to claims 2, 7, 16, further in view of Kutzik (US 20050278409 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 3 modified Shaw teaches the system of claim 2, including determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was performed by a user comprises determining that the user has taken a shower (Shaw [0098]). Modified Shaw fails to teach that the motion data comprises motion data indicating adjustment of a water faucet; and determining, determining that the user has taken a shower based on the proximity detection information and the sensed motion data indicating adjustment of a water faucet. Lee teaches activity sensors that include motion and proximity sensors on specific appliances within a user's environment in order to determine parameters related to performance and/or non-performance of activities of daily living (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee, and place one of those beacons on a water faucet (a household appliance). Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
Modified Shaw fails to teach using sensor data to determine that a first action was performed by a user comprises determining that the user has taken a shower. Kutzik teaches using sensor data to determine that a user has taken a shower ([0138]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Shaw to use the determining method of Kutzik in combination with the proximity and sensor data of a beacon placed in the bathroom on a shower faucet (household appliance). Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining a user has taken a shower. MPEP 2143.I
In regards to claim 8 modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 7, including determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was performed by a user comprises determining that the user has taken a shower [0098]. Modified Shaw fails to teach that the motion data comprises motion data indicating adjustment of a water faucet; and determining, determining that the user has taken a shower based on the proximity detection information and the sensed motion data indicating adjustment of a water faucet. Lee teaches activity sensors that include motion and proximity sensors on specific appliances within a user's environment in order to determine parameters related to performance and/or non-performance of activities of daily living (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of modified Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee, and place one of those beacons on a water faucet (a household appliance. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
Modified Shaw fails to teach using sensor data to determine that a first action was performed by a user comprises determining that the user has taken a shower. Kutzik teaches using sensor data to determine that a user has taken a shower ([0138]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Shaw to use the determining method of Kutzik in combination with the proximity and sensor data of a beacon placed in the bathroom on a shower faucet (household appliance). Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining a user has taken a shower. MPEP 2143.I
In regards to claim 17 Modified Shaw teaches the apparatus of claim 16, including determining, based on the proximity detection information and the sensor data, that a first action was performed by a user comprises determining that the user has taken a shower (Shaw [0098]). Modified Shaw fails to teach that the motion data comprises motion data indicating adjustment of a water faucet; and determining, determining that the user has taken a shower based on the proximity detection information and the sensed motion data indicating adjustment of a water faucet. Lee teaches activity sensors that include motion and proximity sensors on specific appliances within a user's environment in order to determine parameters related to performance and/or non-performance of activities of daily living (Lee [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the beacons of modified Shaw with the activity sensors of Lee, and place one of those beacons on a water faucet (a household appliance). Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known element (the activity sensors of Lee) for another (the beacons of Shaw) to obtain the predictable result of providing motion data related to a tag device.
Modified Shaw fails to teach using sensor data to determine that a first action was performed by a user comprises determining that the user has taken a shower. Kutzik teaches using sensor data to determine that a user has taken a shower ([0138]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Modified Shaw to use the determining method of Kutzik in combination with the proximity and sensor data of a beacon placed in the bathroom on a shower faucet (household appliance). Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining a user has taken a shower. MPEP 2143.I
Claim(s) 5, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 20180325426 A1- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.”- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.” - previously cited) in view of Lee US (20190150820 A1- previously cited), in view of Olch (US 20080256445 A1 - previously cited) in view of McCabe (“Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL)”) as applied to claims 1 and 6, further in view of Jaiswal (US 20190377916 A1- cited by applicant as “Tata Consultancy”- previously cited).
In regards to claim 5 modified Shaw teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Shaw fails to teach a system wherein the processor is further configured to perform steps comprising: determining, based on the proximity detection information, that a second action of the plurality of actions was performed by the user; determining, based on the proximity detection information, that a third action of the plurality of actions was performed by the user; determining, by the personal terminal based on the determination that the second action was performed and based on the determination that the third action was performed, that an activity of daily living was performed by the user.
Jaiswal teaches a processor configured to perform steps comprising: determining, based on proximity detection information, that a second action was performed by a user (Jaiswal [0041] chair usage is first action, glass usage is second action); based on proximity detection information, that a third action was performed by a user ([0041] spoon usage is third action); determining, by a personal terminal based on the determination that a first action was performed and based on the determination that the second action was performed, that an activity of daily living was performed by the user (Jaiswal [0041]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Shaw to use the determination of multiple actions in order determine activity of daily living was performed by the user like the system of Jaiswal. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 13 modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: determining, based on the proximity detection information, that a second action of the plurality of actions was performed by the user; determining, based on the proximity detection information, that a third action of the plurality of actions was performed by the user; determining, by the personal terminal based on the determination that the second action was performed and based on the determination that the third action was performed, that an activity of daily living was performed by the user.
Jaiswal teaches a processor configured to perform steps comprising: determining, based on proximity detection information, that a second action was performed by a user (Jaiswal [0041] chair usage is first action, glass usage is second action); based on proximity detection information, that a third action was performed by a user ([0041] spoon usage is third action); determining, by a personal terminal based on the determination that a first action was performed and based on the determination that the second action was performed, that an activity of daily living was performed by the user (Jaiswal [0041]). It would have been 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 Shaw to use the determination of multiple actions in order determine activity of daily living was performed by the user like the system of Jaiswal. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 14 modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising, determining a cognitive state based on activities of daily living performed by subject (McCabe Page 2, see remarks regarding claim 6).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 20180325426 A1- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.”- cited by applicant as “algorithmic intuition inc.” - previously cited) in view of Lee US (20190150820 A1- previously cited), in view of Olch (US 20080256445 A1 - previously cited) in view of McCabe (“Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL)”) as applied to claims 6 and 15, further in view of Boissy (US 20120232430 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 11 modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 6, including determining what room a user is in using proximity information (Shaw [0106]). Modified Shaw fails to teach determining, by the personal terminal, a life space size of the user based on the proximity detection information. Boissy teaches determining a life size space of a user using sensor data that determines where the user is (Boissy [0008] [0074]). It would have been 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 Shaw to use the proximity information to track what rooms the user is in and use that data to determine a life space size as taught by Boissy. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield the predicable result of determining a life space size of a user.
In regards to claim 12 modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 11. Modified Shaw fails to teach a method further comprising determining a cognitive state of the user based on the determination of the life space size of the user. Lee teaches determining a cognitive state based on sensor data (Lee [0014] “lucidity level”). It would have been obvious It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Shaw to carry out the lucidity determination method of Lee using the life size space data of modified Shaw. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Restricted life space size being an indicator of a poor cognitive state is well known in the art as further evidenced by Boissy ([0008] “constricted life space may be a consequence of poor health. Impaired sensory, motor, or cognitive functioning make it difficult to move around in the community at the same level as before onset”). In regards to claim 20 modified Shaw teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the step of determining that an action was performed by a user comprises determining that the user entered one or more predetermined rooms, (Shaw [0106]). Modified Shaw fails to teach an apparatus wherein the processor is further configured to perform steps comprising determining a life space size for the user based, at least in part, on the determination that the user entered the one or more predetermined rooms. Boissy teaches determining a life size space of a user using sensor data that determines where the user is ([0008] [0074]). It would have been 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 Shaw to use the proximity information to track what rooms the user is in and use that data to determine a life space size as taught by Boissy. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield the predicable result of determining a life space size of a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 in regards to the 35 U.S.C. rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Paragraph [0005] of the provided specification fails to provide evidence of the improvement. The amendments to the independent claims are either insignificant presolution activity or abstract ideas.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 15-16, and 18 under Shaw in view of Lee 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 Shaw in view of Lee, in view of Olch, in view of McCabe. The same applies to the arguments for the dependent claims which were dependent on the independent claims containing allowable subject matter.
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 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
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791