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 Amendment
Applicant’s response to the last office action, filed November 20, 2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application, in which claims 6, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-- Applicant asserted, (see page 7, last paragraph, though page 8, second
Paragraph), that the system and method of Orito requires the use of markers that must be attached to one or more limbs of the infant, to detect changes in the markers, but not direct detection of the infant’s movements; and that Orito does not disclose even a single example of correlating even a single disease state to an infant’s limb movements; as well as any motivation or suggestion for monitoring movements of any portion of an infant other than the markers attached to the four limbs of the infant.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Orito clearly suggests in Par. 0017, and 0059, another possible method of attaching reference point marker to another infant’s body parts, such as a head, breast, abdomen, and lumbar part, in addition to the markers which are the targets of the movement acquisition, and calculate the movement of the infant based on relative position of the marker image of each of the limbs to a position of the marker image of the reference point marker in the image; and from Par. 0018, whit this, it is possible to extract the general movement of the body of the infant … , [i.e., implicitly detecting the infant’s body movements based on the markers]. Further, in response to Applicant’s arguments that Orito does not disclose even a single example of correlating even a single disease state to an infant’s limb movements, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Orito discloses in Par. 0060-0067, setting the judgment condition as a range, and comparing a value of index obtained from the new born infant to range value, to determine the existence of disease or the symptoms, based on using the obtained movements of the markers, (Par. 0060). That is the infant’s disease or symptoms is determined based the values of index relative to the movement of the infant’s lambs, using markers, [i.e., the infant disease is detected based on the index values relative to the infant’s limb movements]. Furthermore, the claim language does not define which body part movement is related to the infant’s cow milk allergy; and the language does not preclude the extracting general movement of the infant’s body of the infant based on the movement of the infant legs. Thus, the Orito’s system and method of extracting the infant’s body movement based on using markers, stated above, can be used to detect the disease state of infant.
-- Applicant further asserted, (see page 8, second paragraph, through page 9, last paragraph), that the combination Orito and Nalbantoglu provide no motivation, …based on teaching of Nalbantoglu that SS is characterized by abnormal and dystonic movement of the head, neck, eyes, and trunk.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Orito discloses all the limitations of claim 1, (see non-final office action for more details). Orito further discloses in Par. 0018, the extracting general movement of the body of the infant and the movement of each of the limbs separately; but does not expressly disclose recognizing an infant suffering from cow's milk Allergy, based on the infant body movement.
However, Nalbantoglu discloses recognizing an infant suffering from cow's milk
Allergy based on infant’s body movement, (see at least: Page 2, left-hand-column, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, where the infant’s cow milk Allergy is linked to abnormal dystonic movements).
Orito and Nalbantoglu are combinable because they are both concerned with a
body movement-based infant’s disease recognition. One of ordinary skill in the art, starting with Orito process of monitoring the infant’s limbs movement to detect a relevant disease would have looked to Nalbantoglu, to incorporate the Nalbantoglu’s process of monitoring the dystonic movements for detecting the infant’s cow milk allergy, to achieve the predictable and desirable benefit of determining whether the infant is allergic to cow milk protein, (Nalbantoglu, see Page 2, 2nd paragraph). Further, [KSR type finding; e.g., "one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results”.
-- Applicant further asserted, (Page 11, last paragraph to page 12) that the prior art combination certainly does not render obvious “a system for use in distinguishing between an infant suffering from cow's milk allergy and an infant suffering colic,” as recited by claim 19.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 19. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a system for use in distinguishing between an infant suffering from cow's milk allergy and an infant suffering colic”, is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Furthermore, the claim language does not specify how distinguish between an infant suffering from cow's milk allergy and an infant suffering colic, but uses substantially similar limitation(s) as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 19 is rejected for at least similar rational, as stated above, with respect to claim 1.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 and their dependent claims was proper, and it is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orito et al, (US-PGPUB 20070016109), (from IDS) in view of Nalbantoglu et al, ("Sandifer's Syndrome: a Misdiagnosed and Mysterious Disorder,” Iranian Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 23, no. 6, 25 January 2013 pp 715-716), (from IDS)
In regards to claim 1, Orito discloses system for use in
detection an infant’s various diseases, comprising measuring body movement of the infant, (see at least: Abstract, and Fig. 1, Par. 0041), wherein the system comprises computer processing means configured to:
receive a video including a sequence of images of an infant moving, (see at least: Par. 0042, imaging device 2 is a device that photographs an infant to output a motion picture of the infant as digital data. Further, as shown in Fig. 1, the analyzing device 1 implicitly receives the digital data acquired by the imaging device 2. Further, Par. 0045, plural of frames implicit the acquiring of plurality of images by the imaging device 2);
detect the infant in the video images, (see at least: Par. 0042, 0045, implicit by receiving the digital data acquired by the imaging device 2, and the extracting, from the image of the infant, marker images of markers attached to the four limbs of the infant);
locate at least one reference point on the infant, (see at least: Par. 0045, a feature image extracting means 12 extracts, from the image of the infant, marker images of markers attached to the four limbs of the infant or feature images of the four limbs of the infant (for example, shapes, moles, birthmarks, and so on of the limbs) once every one frame or every plural frames, [i.e., implicitly locating at least one reference point on the infant based on one or more markers attached to the four limbs of the infant]);
measure at least one vector of movement for the at least one reference point over a sequence of said images, (see at least: Par. 0096, the movements of the four limbs are determined based on the marker images and various kinds of judgments are made based on the movements of the four limbs using for one marker using at least one of indexes (1), (3)-(4), (7)-(8), [i.e., implicitly measuring at least one vector of movement for the at least one reference point over a sequence of said images, using at least index (3), “movement vector and vector change of the marker”]);
compare the at least one vector of movement for the at least one reference point against at least one directory of corresponding vectors of movement and determine at least one proximity value, (see at least: Par. 0067, determining if the value of the index currently obtained from the newborn falls within the range of the value of the index of the judgment condition based on the distribution of past movement data of infants judged as normal with respect to the relevant disease and/or the distribution of past movement data of infants judged as having the disease, [i.e., compare the at least one vector of movement for the at least one reference point against at least one directory of corresponding vectors of movement, “implicit by comparing the value of the index currently obtained from the newborn to the range of the value of the index based on the distribution of past movement data of infants”, and determine at least one proximity value, “implicit by determining the value of the index that satisfy the judgment condition”]); and
generate a communication in which the at least one proximity value is used to provide an indication of disease, (see at least: Par. 0067, a display may be provided in the analyzing device 1 to display the judgment result, [i.e., at least one value of the index is implicitly used to provide the judgment result, comprising an indication of the infants judged as normal or having a disease]).
However, while disclosing recognizing an infant’s disease based on the body
movement of the infant; Orito does not expressly disclose recognizing an infant suffering from cow's milk Allergy, based on the infant body movement.
Nalbantoglu discloses recognizing an infant suffering from cow's milk Allergy
based on infant’s body movement, (see at least: Page 2, left-hand-column, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, where the infant’s cow milk Allergy is linked to abnormal dystonic movements).
Orito and Nalbantoglu are combinable because they are both concerned with a
body movement-based infant’s disease recognition. Orito and Nalbantoglu are combinable because they are both concerned with a body movement-based infant’s disease recognition. One of ordinary skill in the art, starting with Orito process of monitoring the infant’s limbs movement to detect a relevant disease would have looked to Nalbantoglu, to incorporate the Nalbantoglu’s process of monitoring the dystonic movements for detecting the infant’s cow milk allergy, to achieve the predictable and desirable benefit of determining whether the infant is allergic to cow milk protein, (Nalbantoglu, see Page 2, 2nd paragraph). Further, [KSR type finding; e.g., "one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results”.
In regards to claim 2, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Orito further discloses wherein the reference point is one or more of the infant's: head; torso; arms; elbows; hands; legs; knees; feet; and back, (see at least: Par. 0059, attaching a reference point marker, “i.e., reference point”, to at least one of head, “infant’s head”, breast, abdomen, and lumbar part).
In regards to claim 3, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Orito further discloses wherein two or more reference points are linked by a straight line to create at least one reference line, (see at least: Par. 0062, index (3), “at least one of a trajectory of a midpoint of a straight line connecting two markers attached to two right and left limbs out of the four limbs, “implicitly creating reference line”)
In regards to claim 4, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Orito further discloses wherein the video of the infant is at least 10 seconds in duration, (Par. 0071, the imaging device 2 photographs an infant to output a motion picture of the infant as digital data, “i.e., acquiring video of the infant”).
The combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole does not expressly disclose wherein the video of the infant is at least 10 seconds in duration.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the video of the infant being at least 10 seconds in duration. Applicant has not disclosed that having the video of the infant being at least 10 seconds in duration, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the motion picture of the infant though by Orito, or the claimed video of the infant being at least 10 seconds in duration, because both of the infant’s videos perform the same function of determining the body movement of infant, (Orito, Par. 0071)
In regards to claim 5, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Orito further discloses wherein more than one video of the infant is used by the system, (see at least: Par. 0013, 0027, the movements being determined from motion pictures of the plural infants photographed by an imaging device that photographs an infant, “i.e., the system is implicitly using more than one video of the infant”).
In regards to claim 6, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Orito further discloses wherein the vector of movement is calculated from recognizing the speed and distance of movement of the at least one reference point, (see at least: Par. 0063-0064, the positions, speeds, and accelerations of these midpoints and/or gravity center may be vectors; and from Par. 0096, indexes (1), (3), (4), and (7), where the vector of movement is calculated from movement speed of marker, and implicitly from the movement range of the marker)
In regards to claim 7, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Orito further discloses wherein the vector of movement for the at least one reference point is calculated from recognizing the speed and distance of movement of the at least one reference line, (see at least: Par. 0062, indexes (3)-(7), “determining straight line connecting at least two points”; and Par. 0064, obtaining motion vector implicitly from the speed and distance of the straight line).
In regards to claim 8, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Orito further discloses wherein the at least one proximity value is calculated from the amount of deviation of the at least one vector of movement for the at least one reference point from the at least one directory of corresponding vectors of movement, (see at least: Par. 0067, determining if the value of the index currently obtained from the newborn falls within the range of the value of the index of the judgment condition based on the distribution of past movement data of infants judged as normal with respect to the relevant disease and/or the distribution of past movement data of infants judged as having the disease, “i.e., determining the proximity value”. Further, Par. 0096-0097, the existence/nonexistence and/or possibility or the like of a disease are/is judged based on whether or not the value(s) of one index or the plural indexes satisfies (satisfy) the judgment condition that is extracted from past similar data on normal infants or infants having the disease, “i.e., at least one proximity value, “at one index”, is calculated from the amount of deviation of the at least one vector of movement for the at least one reference point from the at least one directory of corresponding vectors of movement, “i.e., when the value of at least one index among the indexes (1) to (10) shown in Par. 0096, does not satisfy the judgment condition, implicit that at least one proximity value is calculated from the amount of deviation of the at least one vector of movement for the at least one reference point from the at least one directory of corresponding vectors of movement”).
In regards to claim 9, the combine teaching Orito and Nalbantoglu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Orito further discloses wherein the at least one proximity value is calculated from more than one vector of movement for more than one reference point and their deviation from more than one corresponding directories of respective vectors of movement, (see at least: Par. 0067, 0096-0097, where the value(s) of one index or the plural indexes are implicitly determine for more than one vector of movement ….. of respective vectors of movement, “see the rejection of claim 8 for more details”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 10 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “method for recognizing cow's milk allergy…”. However, Orito further discloses the “method for recognizing cow's milk allergy…”, (see at least: Par. 0008, an infant movement analysis method, “… )
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 2. As such, claim 11 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 3. As such, claim 12 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 4. As such, claim 13 is rejected for at least similar rational
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 5. As such, claim 14 is rejected for at least similar rational
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 6. As such, claim 15 is rejected for at least similar rational
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 7. As such, claim 16 is rejected for at least similar rational
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 8. As such, claim 17 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 18, claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 9. As such, claim 19 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 19 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “system for use in distinguishing between an infant suffering from cow's milk allergy and an infant suffering colic”. However, this limitation has not been given any weight in the claim, as it occurs in preamble.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 12/16/2025