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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are hereby under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 03/28/2023 and 04/10/2023 have been considered.
Specification
The use of the term Wi-Fi, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: "swallowing sensing system" should read "system for sensing swallowing" for claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: "user swallowing sensing system" should read "system for sensing swallowing" for claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: "comprises" should read "further comprises" and "the swallowing analysis system" should read "system for analyzing swallowing" for claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: "the swallowing analysis system" should read "system for analyzing swallowing" for claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: "swallowing sensing system" should read "system for sensing swallowing" for claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: "swallowing analysis system" should read "system for analyzing swallowing" for claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a method” should read “the method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display module” in claim 7.
Three Prong Analysis for “display module”
“module” has been interpreted as a generic placeholder for “means”
“configured to simultaneously display the at least one user swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least user swallowing signal” has been interpreted as functional language
There is not sufficient structure cited in the claim to perform the aforementioned function. Therefore, “display module is herein interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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. All instances of “display module” are herein interpreted to be “a screen or any other type of device for displaying data to a user of the remote analysis device 2 such as a practitioner” [0043].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “the user swallowing signal”. When “at least one user swallowing signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user swallowing signal “the user swallowing signal” refers. There is also lack of proper antecedent basis for “the user swallowing signal”. For the purposes of examination, “the user swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user swallowing signal”. The claim also recites “the sensor”. It is unclear if “the sensor” is the same as or different than “at least one swallowing detection sensor”. If the “the sensor” is interpreted to be the same as “at least one swallowing detection sensor”, there is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one swallowing detection sensor” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing detection sensor “the sensor” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the sensor” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one swallowing detection sensor”. The claim also recites “the swallowing detection device”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one swallowing detection device” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing detection device “the swallowing detection device” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the swallowing detection device” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one swallowing detection device”. The claim also recites “the motion capture system”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. It is unclear if “the motion capture system” is the same as or different than “at least one user motion capture system”. When “the motion capture system” is interpreted to be the same as “at least one user motion capture system” and “at least one user motion capture system” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user motion capture system “the motion capture system” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the motion capture system” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion capture system”. The claim also recites “the user motion signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one user motion signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user motion signal “the user motion signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user motion signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion signal”. The claim also recites “the user”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for “the user”. When “at least one user” is interpreted to be more than one, it unclear to which user “the user” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user”. The claim also recites “upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal”. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Paragraph [0042] of the specification states “the at least one user motion signal sensed by the motion capture system 10 upon sensing the at least one swallowing signal of the user UA. Thus, the remote analysis device jointly receives both signals measured during the same time period”. For the purposes of examination, “upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to mean “simultaneously with the at least one user swallowing system”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. Claim 11 is rejected because it includes the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “the motion capture system”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. It is unclear if “the motion capture system” is the same as or different than “at least one user motion capture system” recited in claim 1. When “the motion capture system” is interpreted to be the same as “at least one user motion capture system” and “at least one user motion capture system” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user motion capture system “the motion capture system” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the motion capture system” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion capture system”. The claim also recites “the at least one camera”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. For the purposes of examination, “the at least one camera” is herein interpreted to be “one of the two cameras”, “another of the two cameras”, or both. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 2 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “the at least one camera”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. For the purposes of examination, “the at least one camera” is herein interpreted to be “one of the two cameras”, “another of the two cameras”, or both. The claim also recites “the head, neck, and thorax”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. For the purposes of examination, “the head, neck, and thorax” is herein interpreted to be “a head, a neck, and a thorax”. The claim also recites “the user”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for “the user”. When “at least one user” is interpreted to be more than one, it unclear to which user “the user” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 3 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “the swallowing detection sensor”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one swallowing detection sensor” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing detection sensor “the swallowing detection sensor” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the swallowing detection sensor” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one swallowing detection sensor”. Due to the aforementioned reason, claim 4 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “the user swallowing detection system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one user” is interpreted to be more than one, it unclear to which user “the user” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user”. It is unclear if “the swallowing detection system” refers to “system for sensing swallowing of at least one user” or “at least one swallowing detection device”. For the purposes of examination, “the swallowing detection system” is herein interpreted to be the “system for sensing swallowing of at least one user” or the “at least one swallowing detection device”. The claim also recites “the swallowing detection device”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one swallowing detection device” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing detection device “the swallowing detection device” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the swallowing detection device” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one swallowing detection device”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 5 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, the claims recite “upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal”. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Paragraph [0042] of the specification states “the at least one user motion signal sensed by the motion capture system 10 upon sensing the at least one swallowing signal of the user UA. Thus, the remote analysis device jointly receives both signals measured during the same time period”. For the purposes of examination, “upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to mean “simultaneously with the at least one user swallowing system”. Therefore, claims 6 and 7 are rendered indefinite. Claims 7-10 are rejected because they include the indefinite subject matter of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “the user’s swallowing from the user swallowing signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for “the user’s swallowing”. When “at least one user” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user’s swallowing “the user’s swallowing” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user’s swallowing” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user’s swallowing”. There is also lack of proper antecedent basis for “the user swallowing signal”. When “at least one user swallowing signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user swallowing signal “the user swallowing signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user swallowing signal”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 8 is rendered indefinite. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected because they include the indefinite subject matter of claims 1 and 6-8.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “the swallowing signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for “the swallowing signal”. When “at least one user swallowing signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing signal “the swallowing signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user swallowing signal”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 9 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “the processor”. It is unclear if “the processor” refers to the “a processor” recited in claim 1 or if “the processor” is supposed to refer to “a processor” of the remote analysis device recited in claim 8. If “the processor” refers to the “a processor” recited in claim 1, it is unclear how claim 10 further limits claim 7. If “the processor” is supposed to refer to “a processor” of the remote analysis device recited in claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation because claim 10 is not dependent on claim 8. For the purposes of examination, “the processor” is herein interpreted to be the same as the “a processor” recited in claim 1. The claim also recites “swallowing of the user”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for “the user”. When “at least one user” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user’s swallowing “swallowing of the user” refers. For the purposes of examination, “swallowing of the user” is herein interpreted to be “swallowing of the at least one user”. The claim also recites “the user motion signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one user motion signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user motion signal “the user motion signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user motion signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion signal”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 10 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “a swallowing sensing system”. It is unclear if “a swallowing sensing system” is the same as or different than “a system for sensing swallowing”. If it is the same, “a swallowing sensing system” should read “the system for sensing swallowing”. For the purposes of examination, “a swallowing sensing system” is herein interpreted to be the same as or different than “the system for sensing swallowing” according to claim 1. The claim also recites “sensing at least one swallowing signal by a swallowing detection device”. It is unclear if “at least one swallowing signal” is the same as or different than “at least one user swallowing signal” of the system for sensing swallowing according to claim 1. For the purposes of examination, “at least one swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to be the same as or different than “at least one user swallowing signal” of the system for sensing swallowing according to claim 1. It is unclear if “a swallowing detection device” is the same as or different than “at least one swallowing detection device" of the system for sensing swallowing according to claim 1. For the purposes of examination, a swallowing detection device” is herein interpreted to be the same as or different than “at least one swallowing detection device" of the system for sensing swallowing according to claim 1. The claim also recites “the motion capture system”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. It is unclear if “the motion capture system” is the same as or different than “at least one user motion capture system” of the system for sensing swallowing according to claim 1. When “the motion capture system” is interpreted to be the same as “at least one user motion capture system” and “at least one user motion capture system” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user motion capture system “the motion capture system” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the motion capture system” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion capture system” of the system for sensing swallowing according to claim 1. The claim also recites “the user motion signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one user motion signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which user motion signal “the user motion signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the user motion signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion signal” of the system for sensing swallowing according to claim 1. The claim also recites “the swallowing signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one swallowing signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing signal “the swallowing signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one swallowing signal”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 11 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “a swallowing analysis system”. It is unclear if “a swallowing analysis system” is the same as or different than “a system for analysing swallowing”. If it is the same, “a swallowing analysis system” should read “the system for analysing swallowing”. For the purposes of examination, “a swallowing analysis system” is herein interpreted to be the same as or different than “the system for analysing swallowing” according to claim 8. The claim also recites “the swallowing signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one swallowing signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing signal “the swallowing signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one swallowing signal”. The claim also recites “the motion signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one user motion signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which motion signal “the motion signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the motion signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion signal”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 12 is rendered indefinite. Claim 13 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites “swallowing signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one swallowing signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which swallowing signal “swallowing signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “swallowing signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one swallowing signal”. The claim also recites “the motion signal”. There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation. When “at least one user motion signal” is interpreted to be more than one, it is unclear to which motion signal “the motion signal” refers. For the purposes of examination, “the motion signal” is herein interpreted to be “the at least one user motion signal”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 13 is rendered indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lever et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20180289308 – cited by Applicant) hereinafter Lever in view of el Kaliouby et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20170238860) hereinafter el Kaliouby.
Regarding Claim 1, Lever discloses a system for sensing swallowing of at least one user (system 204 [0025]; mastication and swallowing tasks are also contemplated to evaluate swallowing function (and bulbar function more generally) [0031]; fig 2), the system comprising:
at least one swallowing detection device comprising at least one swallowing detection sensor configured to acquire at least one user swallowing signal (microphone 208 may capture audio data of the task [0032]),
at least one user motion capture system configured to acquire at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal by the sensor of the swallowing detection device (while camera 206 may capture video of the subject's head, neck and/or face as they perform the task [0032]),
and a processor configured to characterise the user's swallowing from the user swallowing signal and the user motion signal (Processor 210 functions to process the video data from camera 206, the audio data from microphone 208 and/or data from any other sensors of system 204 [0028]; the sensor data is analyzed, to identify key events... in a swallowing test, the key event may be the individual swallows [0033]; fig 3).
Lever also discloses the system comprises multiple sensors (a first device may include sensors for gathering data on bulbar function [0025]) and the at least one user motion capture system is configured to acquire images of the user in any orientation (Camera 206 may be any form of camera oriented so as to capture imagery of part or all of the head, face, and neck region of subject 202 [0026]).
Lever fails to disclose the motion capture system comprising two cameras, one of the two cameras being configured to acquire frontal images of the user and another of the two cameras being configured to obtain profile images of the user.
However, el Kaliouby teaches a user motion capture system (Facial data can be collected from a plurality of people using any of a variety of cameras [0069]) for swallowing of a user (captured facial data can be analyzed using the facial action coding system (FACS)...FACS encodings include action units (AUs)...AUs include...ross behavior codes (sniff, swallow, etc.) [0073]) comprising at least one camera (multiple webcams used to capture different views of individuals, or any other type of image capture apparatus that allows image data to be captured and used by an electronic system. [0109]; fig 18). El Kaliouby also teaches a camera of the user motion capture system can be configured to acquire frontal images of the user (mobile device camera (including, but not limited to, a front side camera) [0109]; fig 19). El Kaliouby also teaches a camera of the user motion capture system being configured to acquire frontal images of the user (Facial data can include the tilting of the head to the side [0061]; the camera 930 being positioned to the side of the person [0089]; fig 9).
Lever and el Kaliouby are considered analogous art to the present invention because both inventions are directed towards the same field of endeavor as the present invention.
Since Lever teaches multiple sensors can be used with the system for sensing swallowing and the camera can be configured to capture images of the user’s head, face, and neck from any orientation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system for sensing swallowing of Lever such that the at least one user motion capture system comprises two cameras, one of the two cameras being configured to acquire frontal images of the user and another of the two cameras being configured to obtain profile images of the user, as taught by el Kaliouby. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 4, Lever in view of el Kaliouby teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1. Lever discloses the swallowing detection sensor is a microphone for detecting swallowing sound and/or an accelerometer to detect swallowing vibration (microphone 208 may capture audio data of the task [0032]; fig 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Lever in view of el Kaliouby teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1. Lever further discloses the system for sensing swallowing further comprising a network module configured to send through a network the at least one user swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal (network interface card (NIC) 124 is also attached to system bus 104 and allows computer 102 to communicate over a network such as network 126 [0023]; Examiner notes that module network (NIC) can be configured to send the at least one user swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal through the network (network 126) because the network module allows for communication over a network).
Regarding Claim 11, Lever in view of el Kaliouby teaches a method for sensing swallowing of at least one user (a method in accordance with embodiments of the invention [0029 of Lever]; mastication and swallowing tasks are also contemplated to evaluate swallowing function (and bulbar function more generally) [0031 of Lever]; fig 3 of Lever) by a swallowing sensing system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), the method comprising:
sensing at least one swallowing signal by a swallowing detection device of the swallowing sensing system (microphone 208 may capture audio data of the task [0032 of Lever]);
acquiring, by the motion capture system, the user motion signal simultaneously with sensing the swallowing signal by the swallowing detection device (while camera 206 may capture video of the subject's head, neck and/or face as they perform the task [0032 of Lever]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lever (US Patent Pub. No. 20180289308 – cited by Applicant) in view of el Kaliouby (US Patent Pub. No. 20170238860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klett (US Patent Pub. No. 20090179986).
Regarding Claim 2, Lever in view of el Kaliouby teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1. Lever in view of el Kaliouby fails to disclose the motion capture system further comprises at least one motion capture marker in cooperation with the at least one camera.
However, Klett teaches a motion capture system comprises at least one motion capture marker in cooperation with the at least one camera (a graphic marker is connected with the body part or the instrument and an image of the body comprising the graphic marker is generated by an image recording camera (5, 6, 7) (abstract); fig 1). Klett also teaches advantages of using a motion capture system with a motion capture marker in cooperation with a camera (The invention offers, without the need of manual calibration of the measuring system, a substantial automatization and a high measuring precision during the determination of position and movement in the three-dimensional space. Simultaneously, the expenditure on equipment can be reduced and the reaction to the object or body part to be measured or to the patient can be minimized. (abstract)).
Klett is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system for sensing swallowing of Lever in view of el Kaliouby such that the motion capture system further comprises at least one motion capture marker in cooperation with the at least one camera, as taught by Klett, because doing so would eliminate the need for calibration of cameras and increase precision of the movement measurements.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lever (US Patent Pub. No. 20180289308 – cited by Applicant) in view of el Kaliouby (US Patent Pub. No. 20170238860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamano et al. (JP 2017060548 A) hereinafter Kamano.
Regarding Claim 3, Lever in view of el Kaliouby teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1. Lever discloses the at least one camera is configured to acquire images of the head and neck of the user (while camera 206 may capture video of the subject's head, neck and/or face as they perform the task [0032]; fig 2).
Lever in view of el Kaliouby fails to disclose the at least one camera is configured to acquire images of a thorax of the user.
However, Kamano discloses a system for sensing swallowing of at least one user (an eating and drinking behavior detecting apparatus capable of discriminating chewing and swallowing of a subject [0008]) comprising: at least one camera is configured to acquire images of a thorax of a user (when the sensor is a video camera, the video camera is installed toward the neck or chest of the subject. Also, when the sensor is a video camera, the video camera is installed toward the neck or chest of the subject. Then, in the image signal obtained by the video camera, a vibration signal representing the vibration of muscles or bones in the mouth or the throat is acquired by a change in the luminance value or the like of the pixel in which the subject's neck or chest appears. [0017]).
Kamano is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is related towards the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system for sensing swallowing of Lever in view of el Kaliouby such that the at least one camera is configured to acquire images of the head, neck, and thorax of the user, as taught by Kamano, because images of the chest can be used to detect swallowing of a user. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lever (US Patent Pub. No. 20180289308 – cited by Applicant) in view of el Kaliouby (US Patent Pub. No. 20170238860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20190110751) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 5, Lever in view of el Kaliouby teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1. Lever discloses the system comprises multiple sensors (a first device may include sensors for gathering data on bulbar function [0025]).
Lever in view of el Kaliouby fails to disclose the swallowing detection device further comprises at least one sensor from heart rate, body temperature, sweating, breath sound, respiratory rate and muscle activity sensors.
However, Lee teaches a swallowing detection device comprises at least one sensor from heart rate, body temperature, sweating, breath sound, respiratory rate and muscle activity sensors (a sensor that detects a user's chest movement or respiratory...a piezoelectric sensor that detects the user's swallowing or muscle movement of a neck [0051]).
Lee is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is directed towards the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system for sensing swallowing of Lever in view of el Kaliouby such that the swallowing detection device further comprises at least one sensor from heart rate, body temperature, sweating, breath sound, respiratory rate and muscle activity sensors, as taught by Lee, because it would it provide a more comprehensive view of a user’s physiological condition. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lever (US Patent Pub. No. 20180289308 – cited by Applicant) in view of el Kaliouby (US Patent Pub. No. 20170238860) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20110066010) hereinafter Moon.
Regarding Claim 7, Lever in view of el Kaliouby teaches a system for analysing swallowing of at least one user (system 204 [0025 of Lever]; mastication and swallowing tasks are also contemplated to evaluate swallowing function (and bulbar function more generally) [0031 of Lever]; fig 2 of Lever) comprising: the user swallowing sensing system according to claim 6 (see claim 6 above) and a remote analysis device (a separate, third device [0025]) comprising:
a display module (The results of the analysis may be presented on either device or a separate, third device. [0025]).
Lever in view of el Kaliouby fails to teach a remote analysis device comprising: a network module configured to receive from the network module of the sensing system, via the network, the at least one user swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal, and a display module configured to simultaneously display the at least one user swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal.
However, Moon teaches a remote analysis device (a remote device [0027]) comprising: a network module (the remote device is a device comprising a microprocessor, a display, and a compatible communications transceiver [0027]) configured to receive from a network module of a sensing system (wrist-worn transceiver [0027]), via a network (hospital's wireless network [0027]), signals (a transceiver that transmits a digital data stream representing the digital ECG waveform [0016]), and a display module configured to simultaneously display the signals (The wrist-worn transceiver can communicate with a remote device through a wireless connection that operates on the hospital's wireless network, or alternatively through a peer-to-peer connection. In another aspect of the invention, for example, the remote device is configured to simultaneously display vital signs [0027]). Moon also teaches an advantage for sending data over a network (the hospital network is accessible through a cellular network associated with the portable device, and the medial professional can select and view information for a particular patient from any remote location, provided it has good coverage in the cellular network [0109]).
Moon is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system for analysing swallowing of Lever in view of el Kaliouby such that the remote analysis device comprises: a network module configured to receive from the network module of the sensing system, via the network, the at least one user swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal, and a display module configured to simultaneously display the at least one user swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal upon sensing the at least one user swallowing signal, as taught by Moon, because doing so would allow medical professionals to view all vital signs of a patient from a remote location. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 10, Lever in view of el Kaliouby, and further in view of Moon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Lever discloses the processor is configured to characterise swallowing of the user by further using the user motion signal (Processor 210 functions to process the video data from camera 206, the audio data from microphone 208 and/or data from any other sensors of system 204 [0028]; the sensor data is analyzed, to identify key events... in a swallowing test, the key event may be the individual swallows [0033]; fig 3).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lever (US Patent Pub. No. 20180289308 – cited by Applicant) in view of el Kaliouby (US Patent Pub. No. 20170238860) and further in view of Moon et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20110066010) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ashby (US Patent Pub. No. 20150250418).
Regarding Claim 8, Lever in view of el Kaliouby, and further in view of Moon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Lever in view of el Kaliouby, and further in view of Moon teaches the remote analysis device comprises a processor (the remote device is a device comprising a microprocessor [0027 of Moon]) and a processor configured to characterise the user's swallowing from the user swallowing signal (Processor 210 functions to process the video data from camera 206, the audio data from microphone 208 and/or data from any other sensors of system 204 [0028 of Lever]; the sensor data is analyzed, to identify key events... in a swallowing test, the key event may be the individual swallows [0033 of Lever]; fig 3 of Lever).
Lever in view of el Kaliouby, and further in view of Moon fails to teach the remote analysis device comprises a processor configured to characterise the user's swallowing from the user swallowing signal.
However, Ashby teaches data processing can occur at a sensing/local device or a remote device (These determinations may be calculated in the earring 10 and sent to the remote device 18 so that the data can be displayed to the user in real time. In other embodiments, the calculations occur at the remote device 18 or another device in communication with the remote device 18. [0052]; With the computations occurring in the remote device, the processing power needed in the sensing unit/monitoring device can be reduced. [0097]).
Ashby is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the swallowing analysis system of Lever in view of el Kaliouby, and further in view of Moon such that a processor of the remote analysis device is configured to characterise the user's swallowing from the user swallowing signal, as taught by Ashby, because characterizing the user’s swallowing from the user swallowing signal using the processor of the remote analysis device would reduce processing power needed in the user swallowing sensing system. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element (remote data processing) for another (local data processing) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 9, Lever in view of el Kaliouby, in view of Moon, and further in view of Ashby teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Lever in view of el Kaliouby, in view of Moon, and further in view of Ashby teaches characterising swallowing by the processor comprises classifying the swallowing signal (a functional quantification is calculated in some embodiments... frequency based measures can be directly computed from the audio signal, or in the case of facial motion analysis, from displacement signals through signal frequency analysis [0036 of Lever]; the functional quantification is used to diagnose a disorder, different threshold between normal and deficient function are instead used for different demographic groups. The adjusted functional quantification may be compared to baseline population data or to a previous functional quantification for the patient [0038 of Lever]; fig 3 of Lever).
Regarding Claim 12, Lever in view of el Kaliouby, in view of Moon, and further in view of Ashby teaches a method for analysing swallowing of at least one user (a method in accordance with embodiments of the invention [0029 of Lever]; mastication and swallowing tasks are also contemplated to evaluate swallowing function (and bulbar function more generally) [0031 of Lever]; fig 3 of Lever) by a swallowing analysis system according to claim 8 (see claim 8 above), the method comprising:
receiving, by the remote analysis device (the remote device is configured to simultaneously display vital signs [0027 of Moon]; The results of the analysis may be presented on either device or a separate, third device. [0025 of Lever] Examiner notes the remote device has to receive signals to be able to display the signals), the at least one swallowing signal and the at least one user motion signal acquired simultaneously with sensing the swallowing signal (microphone 208 may capture audio data of the task, while camera 206 may capture video of the subject's head, neck and/or face as they perform the task [0032 of Lever]),
and characterising swallowing by the processor of the swallowing analysis system from the motion signal and swallowing signal received (Processor 210 functions to process the video data from camera 206, the audio data from microphone 208 and/or data from any other sensors of system 204 [0028 of Lever]; the sensor data is analyzed, to identify key events... in a swallowing test, the key event may be the individual swallows [0033 of Lever]; fig 3 of Lever).
Regarding Claim 13, Lever in view of el Kaliouby, in view of Moon, and further in view of Ashby the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Lever discloses characterising swallowing comprises classifying the motion signal and swallowing signal received (a functional quantification is calculated in some embodiments... frequency base