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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment dated 10/13/2025, the following occurred: Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 were amended. Claims 14 and 15 are new.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a device for analyzing useful data of an orthopedic device.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) detecting sensor data and/or transmitting sensor data, defining characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations, recognizing an event or a time-limited activity on the basis of the sensor data and/or a sensor data combination determined at a point in time or in a period of time, determining parameters and associating the respective characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations with an event or time-limited activities, storing the occurrence of the event or the time-limited activity with at least one characteristic parameter or parameter combination as Crafted, is are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting (in claim 1) an orthopedic device, a maim memory, a control device, at least one data processing device, at least one buffer memory and one processor, and (in claims 14 and 15) a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, an orthopedic device, a control device, a main memory, at least one data processing device, at least one buffer memory and one processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, but for the non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, orthopedic device, control device, main memory, data provision device, at least one data processing device, at least one buffer memory and one processor, the claims encompass detecting and/or transmitting sensor data, defining characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations, recognizing an event or a time-limited activity, determining parameters and associating the respective characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations with an event or time-limited activities and storing the occurrence of the event or the time-limited activity in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of an orthopedic device, a maim memory, a control device, at least one data processing device, at least one buffer memory and one processor. Claims 14 and 15 recite the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, an orthopedic device, a control device, a main memory, at least one data processing device, at least one buffer memory and one processor. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recites the additional element of at least one sensor and data provision device. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, orthopedic device, control device, main memory, at least one data processing device, at least one buffer memory and one processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of at least one sensor and data provision device were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). The prior art of record indicates that the user of sensor to gather data is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see Glier (DE 102018133078 A1) and Szufnarowski (US 2020/0146848))). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 2-13 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 further merely describe(s) how data is stored. Claim(s) 3 further merely describe(s) determining loads. Claim(s) 4 further merely describe(s) that the at least one sensor comprises multiple different sensors. The multiple different sensors in claim(s) 4 are analyzed as an additional element and analyzed in the same way as the at least one senor and do not provide practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim(s) 5 further merely describe(s) that the at least one sensor is selected from a group of sensors which comprises force sensors, torque sensors, angle sensors, position sensors, velocity sensors, acceleration sensors, spatial location sensors, inertial measuring units, temperature sensors, pressure sensors, voltmeters, lead electrodes, all of which are additional elements analyzes the same as the at least one senor and do not provide practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim(s) 6 further merely describe(s) the condition for the occurrence. Claim(s) 7 further merely describe(s) that discrete values, continuous values, and time variables are used as parameters. Claim(s) 8 further merely describe(s) that a prosthetic joint or an orthotic joint is used as the orthopedic device (10, 13). The prosthetic joint or the orthotic joint in claim(s) 8 are analyzed as an additional element and analyzed in the same way as the orthopedic device and do not provide practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim(s) 9 further merely describe(s) that the determining occurs on the basis of the number and/or the chronological distribution of the respective stored events or time-limited activity. Claim(s) 10 further merely describe(s) storing and analyzing. Claim(s) 10 also include the additional element of “a control device” and “an external analysis device” which are analyzed the same as the at least one data processing device and/or the data provision device and do not provide practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim(s) 11 further merely describe(s) the buffer memory is deactivatable and/or takes place in dependence on the operating mode and/or a state of charge of an energy store. Claim(s) 12 further merely describe(s) that defining and associating the respective characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations with an event or time-limited activities is parameterizable. Claim(s) 13 further merely describe(s) that the processing or analysis takes place at predetermined times or in predetermined situations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glier (DE 102018133078 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Glier discloses a method for analyzing usage data of an orthopedic device, having the following steps:- providing an orthopedic device (Glier at [abstract] teaches a method for evaluating usage data of at least one orthopedic device), which includes a control device comprising a main memory used for data processing to maintain a function of the orthopedic device, at least one sensor for detecting sensor data (Glier at [abstract] teaches orthopedic device (100), which is equipped with sensors (9) (interpreted by examiner as at least one sensor) for detecting properties, states or changes in properties or states (interpreted by examiner as detecting sensor data), the sensors (9) having a transmitter (11) (interpreted by examiner as the control device) are connected directly or via a storage device (12) (interpreted by examiner as the main memory) and the transmitter (11) transmits the sensor data provided by the sensors (9) to an evaluation unit (20) in a computer network (200) in which the sensor data are processed (interpreted by examiner as used for data processing to maintain a function of the orthopedic device)) and/or is connected to a data provision device for transmitting sensor data (Glier at [abstract] teaches the sensors (9) having a transmitter (11)), having at least one data processing device (Glier at [abstract] teaches an evaluation unit (20)), which is coupled to the at least one sensor and/or the data provision device and in which at least one buffer memory for storing and one processor for processing the sensor data are provided, the buffer memory having an energy consumption that is less than the main memory (Glier at [abstract] teaches a storage device (12) (interpreted by examiner as the buffer memory) and the transmitter (11) transmits the sensor data provided by the sensors (9) to an evaluation unit (20) in a computer network (200) in which the sensor data are processed.), - defining characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations (Glier at [page 3, para. 7] teaches movement data, operating data and / or loads on the orthopedic technical devices or sensor data about the user of the orthopedic technical device are advantageously recorded by the sensors and transmitted to the evaluation unit. The movement data and operating data are, for example, speeds, duration of the movement, frequency of movements, movement patterns, recurring movement patterns, forces, moments, accelerations, orientations in space and relative to one another when several components of an orthopedic device are coupled to one sensor or several sensors. Data about the user is also relevant, such as weight, height, body temperature, pulse, respiratory rate or the like (interpreted by examiner as the characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations)), - recognizing an event or a time-limited activity on the basis of the sensor data and/or a sensor data combination determined at a point in time or in a period of time (Glier at [page 4, para. 2] teaches evaluating the use data over the entire period of use. Alternatively, the sensor data of one or more orthopedic technical devices are recorded and evaluated for a limited time. It can be used to document who used the orthopedic equipment and when. In the case of an orthopedic device that can be applied to the body of a patient, a type of logbook can be created in digital form in which all data and settings of the orthopedic device and their use are stored. [page 5, para. 3] teaches risk analysis includes statements about a possible failure probability, a statement about possible wear conditions, about a malfunction due to the occurrence of unforeseen events (interpreted by examiner as recognizing an event or a time-limited activity on the basis of the sensor data and/or a sensor data combination determined at a point in time or in a period of time)), - determining parameters of the orthopedic device via the at least one sensor and/or the data provision device and associating the respective characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations with an event or time-limited activities (Glier at [page 6, para. 4] teaches transmitting summaries of selected parameters at predetermined times, which are recorded by the sensors or can be derived from the sensor data. In particular parameter profiles, i.e. the development of parameters over the time can be of particular interest, since conclusions can be drawn about usage patterns, technical changes to the orthopedic device, and the need to adjust or change parameters or the orthopedic device. [page 7, para. 5] teaches an application or app can be installed on a mobile device with which a connection is established between the orthopedic device and the mobile device. Direct communication between the evaluation unit and the computer network with the orthopedic device can be established by activating the app. Furthermore, communication can take place between different orthopedic components, different components or assemblies of an orthosis, prosthesis or exoskeleton, or between the orthopedic component and a smart device that detects body data such as pulse, body temperature and the like. The smart device can also record location data via a GPS system and / or record environmental information via a camera and link it to the sensor data, so that environmental influences and environmental conditions can be included in the assessment of the use and [page 8, para. 2] teaches data transmission can only take place when the prosthesis is actually being used, for example as part of activity monitoring. The activity data can be recorded as individual events or events with qualitative properties. The individual events are defined, for example when two sensor sizes reach a certain limit value at the same time, so that a certain state can be inferred from this (interpreted by examiner as determining parameters via the at least one sensor (30) and/or the data provision device (70) and associating the respective characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations with an event or time-limited activities)), - and storing the occurrence of the event or the time-limited activity with at least one characteristic parameter or parameter combination in the buffer memory (Glier at [page 8, para. 3] teaches the respective event or event can be stored together with a time stamp and a date stamp and transmitted via the transmitter and [page 8, para. 5] teaches the large number of recorded, analyzed and stored data results in a typical setting range for a corresponding component or a corresponding parameter (interpreted by examiner as storing the occurrence of the event or the time-limited activity with at least one characteristic parameter or parameter combination)).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the occurrence of the respective event or the time-limited activity is stored with associated time information (Glier at [page 8, para. 3] teaches the respective event or event can be stored together with a time stamp and a date stamp).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 2, characterized in that the events or time- limited activities stored over a period of time are analyzed to determine loads over a usage period of time (Glier at [page 4, para. 1] teaches the data transmission after request can take place after a certain limit value has been reached, for example a time limit value, a load limit value, after reaching a certain number of repetitions or after the occurrence of a certain event, for example a peak load beyond a predetermined limit load or a detected accident. An important check in the case of non-continuous data transmission is also how the load came about. It is possible to reach limit values with a single maximum load or with a variety of subliminal loads and [page 10, para. 5] teaches t can therefore be advantageous if several or all available sensor data are used to record a desired parameter or to record, for example, a movement pattern, in order to evaluate whether this movement situation or load situation actually occurs or not (interpreted by examiner as events or time- limited activities stored over a period of time are analyzed to determine loads over a usage period of time)).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises multiple different sensors (Glier at [page 3, para. 7] teaches sensor data about the user of the orthopedic technical device are advantageously recorded by the sensors and transmitted to the evaluation unit. The movement data and operating data are, for example, speeds, duration of the movement, frequency of movements, movement patterns, recurring movement patterns, forces, moments, accelerations, orientations in space and relative to one another when several components of an orthopedic device are coupled to one sensor or several sensors (interpreted by examiner as multiple different sensors)).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the at least one sensor is selected from a group of sensors which comprises force sensors, torque sensors, angle sensors, position sensors, velocity sensors, acceleration sensors, spatial location sensors, inertial measuring units, temperature sensors, pressure sensors, voltmeters, lead electrodes (Glier at [page 10, para. 5] teaches force sensor. [page 12, para. 5] teaches angle sensors and acceleration sensors. [page 12, para. 3] teaches temperature sensors).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that, as a parameter which can trigger an event or can define a time-limited activity, at least one parameter range and/or one parameter limiting value is defined, the reaching and/or exceeding or falling below of which is defined as a condition for the occurrence of an event (Glier at [page 8, para. 2] teaches the individual events are defined, for example when two sensor sizes reach a certain limit value at the same time, so that a certain state can be inferred from this (interpreted by examiner as at least one parameter range and/or one parameter limiting value is defined, the reaching and/or exceeding or falling below of which is defined as a condition for the occurrence of an event)).
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that discrete values, continuous values, and time variables are used as parameters (Glier at [page 4, para. 1] teaches time limit values).
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that a prosthetic joint or an orthotic joint is used as the orthopedic device (Glier at [page 8, para. 1] teaches for example in a prosthetic joint or orthotic joint).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the type of the usage, the duration of the usage under certain conditions, and/or the reaching of a limiting value, in particular a load limit, is determined on the basis of the number and/or the chronological distribution of the respective stored events or time-limited activity (Glier at [page 4, para. 1] teaches Alternatively and in addition, the data is permanently transmitted in real time during use. The data transmission after request can take place after a certain limit value has been reached, for example a time limit value, a load limit value, after reaching a certain number of repetitions or after the occurrence of a certain event, for example a peak load beyond a predetermined limit load or a detected accident. An important check in the case of non-continuous data transmission is also how the load came about. It is possible to reach limit values with a single maximum load or with a variety of subliminal loads. The respective values can be achieved on a few days with intensive use or by regular use over a long period of time. Relevant parameters for this are, for example, the frequency of wearing the orthopedic device, e.g. the leg prostheses, how many steps have been carried out, which movements and / or exercises have been carried out (interpreted by examiner as characterized in that the type of the usage, the duration of the usage under certain conditions, and/or the reaching of a limiting value, in particular a load limit, is determined on the basis of the number and/or the chronological distribution of the respective stored events or time-limited activity)).
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the events or time-limited activities are stored and analyzed in a control device or transmitted to an external analysis device for the analysis (Glier at [page 9, para. 4] teaches analysis can be carried out automatically and [page 9, para. 6] teaches further monitoring function can be carried out when the orthopedic technology device is registered and connected to the computer network by providing the data for analysis via the app and the mobile terminal device. The analysis in the evaluation unit links a data pool of data from other orthopedic technical devices with the data of the specific orthopedic technical device and transmits the information to the orthopedic technician, the supplier and / or the manufacturer, so that they each have a status report of the orthopedic technical device. On the basis of the analysis and data evaluation of all comparable orthopedic devices as well as the experience of the manufacturer, it is possible to take steps to avoid errors, to make them available to the user via the device and the app, and to transfer them to the orthopedic device. It is also possible to define variable maintenance intervals for the entire orthopedic device or its components (interpreted by examiner as the events or time-limited activities are stored and analyzed in a control device (40) or transmitted to an external analysis device (80) for the analysis)).
REGARDING CLAIM 11
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the buffer memory is deactivatable and/or takes place in dependence on the operating mode and/or a state of charge of an energy store (Glier at [page 12, para. 5] teaches the adjustment device 7 is with a control device 8th coupled to an activation or deactivation of the adjustment device 7 to be able to influence the flexion and / or extension and block the joint if necessary. Via a corresponding activation signal or deactivation signal to the adjustment device 7 is via the control device 8th the desired behavior of the orthopedic device 100 set. The adjustment device 7 is via the control device 8th based on sensor data enabled or disabled by the sensors 9 to the control device 8th be transmitted. Also teaches evaluating the data electrically or electronically and, on the basis of this evaluation, activating or deactivating the adjustment device accordingly (interpreted by examiner as the buffer memory is deactivatable and/or takes place in dependence on the operating mode and/or a state of charge of an energy store)).
REGARDING CLAIM 12
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that defining characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations and associating the respective characteristic parameters and/or parameter combinations with an event or time-limited activities is parameterizable (Glier at [page 6, para. 4] teaches the need to adjust or change parameters (interpreted by examiner as being parameterizable)).
REGARDING CLAIM 13
Glier disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Glier further discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the processing of parameters or an analysis takes place at predetermined times or in predetermined situations (Glier at [page 6, para. 4] teaches selected parameters at predetermined times are recorded by the sensors or can be derived from the sensor data and [page 9, para. 4] teaches analysis can be carried out automatically (interpreted by examiner as in that the processing of parameters or an analysis takes place at predetermined times or in predetermined situations)).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 14 and 15
Claims 14 and 15 are analogous to Claim 1, thus Claims 14 and 15 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Regarding the indefinite rejection of claims 4, 5 and 10, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the bases of rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-15, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
The present application provides a solution to these problems, and claim 1 is amended herein to more specifically recite how events/activities are stored by the device. As recited in amended claim 1, the orthopedic device includes a controller with a main memory that is used to maintain the operation of the device. A second buffer memory, which exhibits energy consumption savings over the main memory, is used to store the occurrence of an event and associated parameters of the orthopedic device that are associated with the event. In this way, less data needs to be stored on the device than in the scenario where a data logger logs all of the device parameters at all times. Data storage is limited in two ways: first, data only needs to be logged upon the occurrence of an event; and second, only relevant device parameters associated with the occurrence of the event are stored. Because less data needs to be stored, it can be stored in a relatively small and energy-efficient buffer memory instead of the main device memory. Nonetheless, more information is available to an analyst than in the scenario where only the number of events are counted, which allows for a much more thorough analysis of the state of the device when the event occurred… Because the occurrence of the event and related parameter(s) are stored in the more energy efficient buffer memory, the orthopedic device can consume less energy than in a conventional data logger scenario while also providing more information than in the simply step-counter scenario. This allows the size of the battery on the device to be reduced, which results in weight savings and a longer working life between charges.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer nor an improvement to a technical field. It is unclear how the use of a buffer memory is improving the functioning of an orthopedic device, it is not replacing the main memory.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-15, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
…Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Glier does not disclose or suggest each and every feature of amended independent claim 1, nor of claims 2-13 that depend therefrom, nor of new independent claims 14 and 15 that substantially correspond to independent claim 1. Applicant accordingly requests that the § 102 rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The buffer memory is a design choice. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited reference teaches the claimed feature.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Szufnarowski (US 2020/0146848) teaches method for capturing sensor data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/LIZA TONY KANAAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683