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 argued that the cited prior art failed to teach or suggest an instruction to withhold data received from an indicated type of physiological sensor. Mujica et al. (US 2024/0104907) disclosed selecting sensor data from a group of sensor data captured by different systems (Mujica [0033]). Each of the sensors is configured to capture a different type of sensor data than the other sensors. (Mujica [0036]). One or more different types of the sensors are better in certain environmental conditions…than other types of the one or more sensors. (Mujica [0039]). Voting modules…include one or more processes for selecting between different types of sensor data to use… (Mujica [0040]). By selecting sensor data only from certain types of sensor data from certain sensors, Mujica therefore teaches an instruction to withhold data received from an indicated type of … sensor. It would have been obvious to apply this to any type of sensor, including a physiological sensor.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 7, 21 and 22 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 4 recites the limitation "the one or more sensors" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 triggered this antecedent basis rejection, and can be fixed by removing “one or more” from the claim.
Similar issues exist in claim 7, 21 and 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 2015/0250385) in view of Newman-Toker et al. (US 2022/0245812) in view of Stern et al. (US 2019/0392162) in view of Mujica et al. (US 2024/0104907).
In regard to claim 1, Ahmed disclosed a method for facilitating a subject to record physiological data regarding him- or herself and to allow the subject to withhold a subset of the recorded physiological data from sharing, the method comprising:
providing a system for the subject comprising:
a plurality of types of physiological sensors…, and Ahmed [0008]
a micro-server comprising at least one communication interface, memory storing instructions, and at least one processor; Ahmed [0210]
…detect physiological data regarding the subject…; Ahmed [0006]
receiving, by the micro-server via the at least one communication interface, the physiological data detected by the sensors; Ahmed [0010]
storing, by the micro-server, data in the memory of the micro-server representative of the physiological data detected by the sensors for later sharing; Ahmed [0009]
receiving, by the micro-server via the at least one communication interface, an instruction from the subject to withhold an indicated set of the stored data from sharing; and Ahmed [0013], [0067]
based on the received instruction, withholding the indicated set of the stored data from sharing, wherein said withholding comprises at least one of: (i) deleting the indicated set of the stored data from the memory of the micro-server, or (ii) refraining from sending the indicated set of the stored data to an external device. Ahmed [0005]
Ahmed failed to disclose instructing the subject to deploy the sensors at a residence of the subject.
However, Ahmed did disclose wearing the sensor. Ahmed [0006]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the Ahmed sensor at the subject’s home/residence since Ahmed disclosed the goal was to provide “around the clock monitoring of fitness” (Ahmed [0003]) and the subject’s home/residence would necessarily be part of around the clock monitoring of fitness.
Ahmed failed to disclose a video camera that captures movement of the subject.
However, Newman-Toker disclosed a video camera that captures movement of the subject. Newman-Toker [0013]-[0015], [0018], [0021], [0024], [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a video camera with Ahmed to capture physiological sensor information about a patient since Ahmed was to monitor fitness of the subject.
Ahmed and Newman-Toker failed to teach failed to teach after receiving the physiological data and storing the data representative of the physiological data, prompting the subject regarding whether the stored data should be withheld from sharing.
However, Stern disclosed a consent request for a user (prompt) to allow the user to grant or deny consent for data sharing. Stern [0013]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prompt the user of the Ahmed and Newman-Toker combination to find out if sharing of the physiological data collected would be allowed for purposes of user privacy.
Ahmed, Newman-Toker, and Stern failed to teach or suggest an instruction to withhold data received from an indicated type of physiological sensor.
However, Mujica disclosed selecting sensor data from a group of sensor data captured by different systems (Mujica [0033]). Each of the sensors is configured to capture a different type of sensor data than the other sensors. (Mujica [0036]). One or more different types of the sensors are better in certain environmental conditions…than other types of the one or more sensors. (Mujica [0039]). Voting modules…include one or more processes for selecting between different types of sensor data to use… (Mujica [0040]). By selecting sensor data only from certain types of sensor data from certain sensors, Mujica therefore teaches an instruction to withhold data received from an indicated type of … sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and/or withhold specific sensor data types in the Ahmed / Newman-Toker / Stern combination in order to select only the relevant data necessary to achieve the needed medical monitoring in Ahmed / Newman-Toker / Stern. It would have been obvious to apply this to any type of sensor, including a physiological sensor.
In regard to claim 2, Ahmed disclosed wherein the one or more physiological sensors further comprise at least one of a wrist-mounted actigraphy sensor, a body-mounted actigraphy sensor, a mobile smartphone, a bed vibration sensor, an ambient audio recording device, or a wearable audio recording device. Ahmed [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0062]
In regard to claim 3, Ahmed disclosed retrieving the micro-server from the subject; and downloading the stored data from the memory of the micro-server. Ahmed [0013], [0050], [0066]-[0067]
In regard to claim 4, Ahmed disclosed transmitting, by the micro-server via the at least one communication interface, at least some of the data representative of the physiological data detected by the one or more sensors stored in the memory of the micro-server to the external device, wherein the data transmitted by the micro-server does not include the indicated set of the stored data. Ahmed [0067]
In regard to claim 5, Ahmed disclosed wherein the at least one communication interface comprises at least one wireless communication interface. Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
In regard to claim 6, Ahmed disclosed wherein the at least one wireless communication interface comprises a short- range wireless communication interface and a long-range wireless communication interface. Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
In regard to claim 7, Ahmed disclosed wherein the external device is at a remote location from the micro-server, and wherein the micro-server receives the physiological data detected by the one or more sensors via the short-range wireless communication interface, the method further comprising sending, by the micro-server via the long-range wireless communication interface, data indicative of a state of the micro-server to the external device at the remote location. Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
In regard to claim 8, Ahmed disclosed wherein the short-range wireless communication interface comprises a Wi-Fi wireless router, and the long-range wireless communication interface comprises a cellular network communication interface. Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
In regard to claim 9, Ahmed disclosed wherein the instruction from the subject to withhold the indicated set of the stored data is received via actuation of one or more physical actuators on a housing of the micro-server. Ahmed [0005], [0013], [0067]
In regard to claim 10, Ahmed disclosed wherein the instruction from the subject to withhold the indicated set of the stored data is received via a wireless signal transmitted by a mobile device or a wearable device of the subject. Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
In regard to claim 11, Ahmed disclosed wherein the instruction from the subject to withhold the indicated set of the stored data is received via a wireless signal transmitted over a cellular network by a server at a remote location. Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
In regard to claim 12, Ahmed disclosed wherein the instruction from the subject to withhold the indicated set of the stored data identifies at least one of a time period associated with data to be deleted or a physiological sensor associated with data to be deleted. Ahmed [0067], [0197]
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
In regard to claim 14, Ahmed disclosed:
sending, from the micro-server via the local wireless network, a request to the mobile device of the subject to confirm whether the indicated set of the stored data should be kept for sharing or withheld from sharing; and Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
receiving the indication from the mobile device regarding whether the indicated set of the stored data should be kept for sharing or withheld from sharing based on sending the request. Ahmed [0083], [0216]-[0217]
In regard to claim 15, Ahmed disclosed wherein the external device is a remote server, the method further comprising sending the stored data from the micro-server to the remote server via a cellular network separate from the local wireless network only when the indication from the mobile device indicates the indicated set of the stored data should be kept for sharing. Ahmed [0067]
In regard to claim 16, Ahmed disclosed wherein the external device is a remote server, the method further comprising sending at least one status update from the micro-server to the remote server via a cellular network separate from the local wireless network, the at least one status update including data representative at least one of (i) a battery charge of at least one of sensors or (ii) a connection status between at least one of the sensors and the micro-server. Ahmed [0067]
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
In regard to claim 18, Ahmed disclosed wherein the indicated set of the stored data is identified based on information, included in the indication, that indicates at least one of a time period associated with data to be deleted or a physiological sensor associated with data to be deleted. Ahmed [0067]
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 16.
Claim 22 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 24 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
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 Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445