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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/6/23 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a heart rate input configured to obtain heart rate information indicating or allowing to compute the current heart rate of the person” is incorrect grammar and is encouraged to recite --a heart rate input configured to obtain heart rate information indicating or allowing the heart rate input to compute the current heart rate of the person--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “component as lower envelope” is encouraged to be changed to recite –component as a lower envelope--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a heart rate sensor configured to acquire heart rate information indicating or allowing to compute the current heart rate of the person; and” is incorrect grammar and is encouraged to recite -- a heart rate sensor configured to acquire heart rate information indicating or allowing the heart rate sensor to compute the current heart rate of the person; and--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “obtaining heart rate information indicating or allowing to compute the current heart rate of the person” is incorrect grammar and is encouraged to recite --obtaining heart rate information indicating or allowing the heart rate information to compute the current heart rate of the person--. 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:
a processing unit in claims 1-9 and 11.
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.
For the processing unit in claims 1-9 and 11, the specification discloses “the stress detection device 10 generally comprises an activity input 11, a heart rate input 12, a processing unit 13…” (page 7). Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the processing unit to be a part of the stress detection device.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 15 does not invoke the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by way of the 3-prong test.
Prong 1: “means”
Prong 2: “for causing a computer to carry out the steps of the method”Prong 3: sufficient structure is not claimed.
According to the specification, “the method disclosed herein when said computer program is carried out on a computer as well as a non- transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores therein a computer program product, which, when executed by a processor, causes the method disclosed herein to be performed” (page 2). Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation of “means for causing a computer to carry out the steps of the method” to be performed by a processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 2 and 5-6 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.
The term “in particular” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the limitation “in particular” is preferential language, rending the claim unclear if “by taking a different computation method and/or adapting one or more parameters used in the computation” is actually being claimed or not.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "the current value of the basal heart rate" in lines 3-4 of claim 5 for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 5-6, the limitation of “the current value of the heart rate signal” see line 3 of claim 5 for example seems unclear. It remains unclear whether “a current heart rate of the person” in claim 1 is the same as “the current value of the heart rate signal” in claims 5-6.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention and thus fails as eligible subject matter. Claim 15 characterizes the invention as a computer program.
MPEP 2106.03(I) recites:
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1 and 14 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a device and a method for detecting mental stress of a person.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the recited steps are directed to mathematical concepts and a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitations of “compute a mental stress heart rate component by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate component and the computed basal heart rate component and compute mental stress information related to mental stress of the person from the mental stress heart rate component” are mathematical calculations of subtraction (see page 2 of the specification) in order for detecting mental stress.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitations of “detect a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information, compute a basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information under consideration of the result of the posture change detection, compute an activity heart rate component from the obtained activity information, and compute mental stress information related to mental stress of the person from the mental stress heart rate component” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing print outs of activity and heart rate information to determine a posture change, a basal heart rate component, and an activity heart rate component. Additionally, analyzing a print out of the mental stress heart rate component to determine mental stress information.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1 and 14, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 14 recite “an activity input, a heart rate input, a processing unit, and an output.” The activity input, heart rate input, processing unit, and output are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Additionally, the outputting is nothing more than post-solution activity of data gathering. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
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 activity input, heart rate input, processing unit, and output are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Moreover, the instant specification discloses that stress detection device 10 (that contains activity input and heart rate input) may be implemented as a computer or a processor (page 7, lines 24-26). Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Regarding dependent claims 2-13 and 15, the limitations of claims 1 and 14 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 and 11 further define the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 12 further define the data gathering and abstract idea. The activity sensor and heart rate sensor are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by US 20160353995 (¶4-a conventional system for monitoring exercise using heart rate; ¶16-made it possible to automate the monitoring and recording of fitness activities and to integrate them into more easily worn equipment), US 20060047208 (¶5- an exercise meter to measure the quantity of exercise of a user, which employs a conventional electric sensor; ¶6-the conventional exercise meter comprises a chest band to which an electric sensor is attached, and a heart rate monitoring watch to monitor the heart rate (heartbeats per minute; hereinafter referred to as "HR")), and US 20160128638 (¶55-the data can be acquired, at 110, in any conventional manner. The data, for example, can comprise biometric and contextual data that is received from one or more sensors (not shown), exemplary biometric data can include heart rate value, heart rate variability values, blood pressure values, galvanic skin response level value, and/or respiration value data. Data regarding motion intensity and/or other accelerometer data, coordinates, and/or anthropometric characteristics can also be included).
Claim 13 further defines the data gathering.
Claim 15 is a computer program which is not directed to a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20160338640 filed on 4/11/16 as cited in the IDS) in view of Berckmans (US 20090312998 filed on 7/6/07).
Regarding claim 1, Chan teaches a stress detection device for detecting mental stress of a person, the device comprising: an activity input configured to obtain activity information related to activity of the person (¶30- an accelerometer to record physical activity and posture; ¶55-detect accelerations and activity levels, via step 606); a heart rate input configured to obtain heart rate information indicating or allowing to compute the current heart rate of the person (¶5-the normalized heart rate and the plurality of heart rate variability features are calculated using the detected physiological signal; ¶55-detect electrocardiogram (ECG)/photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals (raw waveforms), via step 604); a processing unit (¶74-processor) configured to - detect a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information (¶39- determining the current posture/activity of a user, via step 302; ¶32), - compute a basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information under consideration of the result of the posture change detection (¶60-the pruned heart rate interval values are used to determine a continuous basal heart rate (HR.sub.b), via step 704, the continuous basal heart rate is a low-pass filtered signal of the pruned heart rate interval values (instantaneous heart rate interval values) with a constraint of inactivity that tracks a very low frequency trend in heart rate during rest conditions), - compute an activity heart rate component from the obtained activity information (¶46- determines a resting heart rate (HRrest) of a user during a period of low or no activity, via step 404), - compute mental stress information related to mental stress of the person from the mental stress heart rate component (¶77-utilizes the vital/physiological measurements of HR and HRV to determine a normalized HR and a stress feature vector and then calculates the stress index (SI) metric to provide feedback about the patient's stress levels); and an output configured to output the computed mental stress information (¶58-output garnered from step 614 to provide a stress calculation, via step 618; ¶31-determining a stress level (SL); ¶32-displaying the determined SL to a user or another device). However, Chan does not teach to - compute a mental stress heart rate component by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate component and the computed basal heart rate component.
Berckmans relates to a method and a system for monitoring and controlling the status of humans or animals, in particular relating to the arousal of an individual human or animal (¶1). Berckmans further teaches the invention using the following step:
- compute a mental stress heart rate component by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate component and the computed basal heart rate component (¶189-difference can be attributed to the ‘arousal’ component of heart rate, which can be quantified (e.g. by subtracting the known heart rate components (due to basal metabolism, heat balance and mechanical activity) from the measured total heart rate)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include – computing a mental stress heart rate component by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate component and the computed basal heart rate component of Berckmans in order to isolate a factor (e.g. an arousal factor) related to a state of a human of animal such as a mental state, e.g. excitement, nervousness, anxiety, drowsyness, that are difficult to measure directly (Berckmans, ¶30).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to detect a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information by detecting a change of a measured acceleration above an acceleration threshold and/or by detecting a change of the orientation of a sensor that is configured to acquire the activity information (Chan, ¶57-the wireless sensor device can utilize a predetermined threshold level for the activity level to determine whether there has been any activity; ¶58; ¶70).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the activity information comprises one or more of activity count information, action type information and accelerometer information (Chan, ¶30-an accelerometer to record physical activity and posture).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a stress detection system for detecting mental stress of a person, the system comprising: - an activity sensor configured to acquire activity information related to activity of the person (Chan, ¶30- an accelerometer to record physical activity and posture; ¶55-detect accelerations and activity levels, via step 606); - a heart rate sensor configured to acquire heart rate information indicating or allowing to compute the current heart rate of the person (Chan, ¶30-the sensor 102 comprises two electrodes to measure physiological and cardiac activity; ¶5-the normalized heart rate and the plurality of heart rate variability features are calculated using the detected physiological signal; ¶55-detect electrocardiogram (ECG)/photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals (raw waveforms), via step 604); and - a stress detection device as defined in claim 1 for detecting mental stress of a person based on the acquired activity information and the acquired heart rate information (Chan, ¶16-wireless sensor devices, and more particularly, to a wireless sensor device utilized to measure psychological acute stress; ¶27-the changes in psychological stress levels in individuals is detected based upon the changes in HR and HRV measurements at the constraint of no activity, and mapped to SI as a stress score (range of 0-100%)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the activity sensor includes one or more of an accelerometer, a body- mounted camera, a remote camera, an electrodermal activity sensor, a gyrometer, and a temperature sensor (Chan, ¶30- an accelerometer to record physical activity and posture; ¶23-a clinically validated disposable medical device worn on the user's chest that remotely monitors…skin temperature), and/or wherein the heart rate sensor includes one or more of a photoplethysmography sensor, a pulse oximetry sensor, a body-mounted camera, a remote camera, an ECG sensor, a wristband pressure sensor, and a wristband tension sensor (Chan, ¶55-a wearable sensor (wireless sensor device) attached to a user in locations including the chest, wrist, or ear, via step 602 , to detect electrocardiogram (ECG)/photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals).
Regarding claim 14, Chan teaches a stress detection method for detecting mental stress of a person, the method comprising: - obtaining activity information related to activity of the person (¶30- an accelerometer to record physical activity and posture; ¶55-detect accelerations and activity levels, via step 606); - obtaining heart rate information indicating or allowing to compute the current heart rate of the person (¶5-the normalized heart rate and the plurality of heart rate variability features are calculated using the detected physiological signal; ¶55-detect electrocardiogram (ECG)/photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals (raw waveforms), via step 604); - detecting a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information (¶39- determining the current posture/activity of a user, via step 302; ¶32); - computing a basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information under consideration of the result of the posture change detection (¶60-the pruned heart rate interval values are used to determine a continuous basal heart rate (HR.sub.b), via step 704, the continuous basal heart rate is a low-pass filtered signal of the pruned heart rate interval values (instantaneous heart rate interval values) with a constraint of inactivity that tracks a very low frequency trend in heart rate during rest conditions); - computing an activity heart rate component from the obtained activity information(¶46- determines a resting heart rate (HRrest) of a user during a period of low or no activity, via step 404); - computing mental stress information related to mental stress of the person from the mental stress heart rate component (¶77-utilizes the vital/physiological measurements of HR and HRV to determine a normalized HR and a stress feature vector and then calculates the stress index (SI) metric to provide feedback about the patient's stress levels); and - outputting the computed mental stress information (¶58-output garnered from step 614 to provide a stress calculation, via step 618; ¶31-determining a stress level (SL); ¶32-displaying the determined SL to a user or another device). However, Chan does not teach - computing a mental stress heart rate contribution by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate contribution and the computed basal heart rate component.
Berckmans teaches - computing a mental stress heart rate contribution by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate contribution and the computed basal heart rate component (¶189-difference can be attributed to the ‘arousal’ component of heart rate, which can be quantified (e.g. by subtracting the known heart rate components (due to basal metabolism, heat balance and mechanical activity) from the measured total heart rate)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include - computing a mental stress heart rate contribution by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate contribution and the computed basal heart rate component of Berckmans in order to isolate a factor (e.g. an arousal factor) related to a state of a human of animal such as a mental state, e.g. excitement, nervousness, anxiety, drowsyness, that are difficult to measure directly (Berckmans, ¶30).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a computer program comprising program code means for causing a computer to carry out the steps of the method as claimed in claim 14 when said computer program is carried out on the computer (Chan, ¶80-embodiments may take the form of a computer program product accessible from a computer-usable or computer-readable storage medium providing program code or program instructions for use by or in connection with a computer or any instruction execution system).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Berckmans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa (JP 2015131049 filed on 1/15/14).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a device as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Chan and Berckmans does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information under consideration of the result of the posture change detection by - computing the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate component and adapting the computed basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected, and/or - adapting the computation of the basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected, in particular by taking a different computation method and/or adapting one or more parameters used in the computation.
Hasegawa teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information under consideration of the result of the posture change detection by - computing the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate component and adapting the computed basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected, and/or - adapting the computation of the basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected, in particular by taking a different computation method and/or adapting one or more parameters used in the computation (¶106-body motion information acquired by the body motion information acquiring unit 140 may be used for updating the basal heart rate or the like. Specifically, the determination unit 120 determines that the period in which the user's body movement is determined to be small is included in the minimum heart rate measurement period, based on the body movement information in a given minimum heart rate measurement period).
Hasegawa relates to a biometric information processing system, an electronic device, a server system, and the like (¶1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information under consideration of the result of the posture change detection by - computing the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate component and adapting the computed basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected, and/or - adapting the computation of the basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected, in particular by taking a different computation method and/or adapting one or more parameters used in the computation of Hasegawa in order to use the base heart rate as a reference of processing using heart rate information to improve processing accuracy (Hasegawa, ¶11).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Berckmans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wasserman (US 20030055324 filed on 10/17/01).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a device as claimed in claim 1, and computing the basal heart rate component (Chan, ¶60-the pruned heart rate interval values are used to determine a continuous basal heart rate (HR.sub.b), via step 704, the continuous basal heart rate is a low-pass filtered signal of the pruned heart rate interval values (instantaneous heart rate interval values) with a constraint of inactivity that tracks a very low frequency trend in heart rate during rest conditions). However, the combination of Chan and Berckmans does not teach a lower envelope of a heart rate signal of the obtained heart rate information.
Wasserman teaches a lower envelope of a heart rate signal of the obtained heart rate information (¶23- lower envelopes of the measured signal are determined and analyzed to extract said signal component of the measured signal; ¶98-heart rate, envelope values).
Wasserman relates generally in the field of signal-to-noise improvement techniques, and relates to a method and device for processing a periodic signal (¶1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include a lower envelope of a heart rate signal of the obtained heart rate information of Wasserman in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the measured signal (Wasserman, ¶21).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Berckmans and further in view of Wasserman as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chan, Berckmans, and Wasserman teaches the device as claimed in claim 3. However, the combination of Chan, Berckmans, and Wasserman does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to adapt the computation of the basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected by increasing, during a time window after detection of a posture change, the speed by which the basal heart rate follows the heart rate signal.
Hasegawa teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to adapt the computation of the basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected by increasing, during a time window after detection of a posture change, the speed by which the basal heart rate follows the heart rate signal (¶141-α is a correction of a resting heart rate during arousal during body movement; ¶112-body motion information may be used in the update unit 130, and the update unit 130 may determine an update condition for the basal heart rate based on the body motion information; ¶116- by using the body motion information in the predetermined number of counts, the process for determining a significant update condition of the basal heart rate is performed a specified number of times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include wherein the processing unit is configured to adapt the computation of the basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected by increasing, during a time window after detection of a posture change, the speed by which the basal heart rate follows the heart rate signal of Hasegawa in order to use the base heart rate as a reference of processing using heart rate information to improve processing accuracy (Hasegawa, ¶11).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Berckmans and further in view of Wasserman as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Furuta (US 20150150516 filed on 2/10/15 as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chan, Berckmans, and Wasserman teaches the device as claimed in claim 3. However, the combination of Chan, Berckmans, and Wasserman does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component by taking the difference between the current value of the heart rate signal and the current value of the basal heart rate, multiplying the difference with a multiplication constant and obtaining a new value for basal heart rate by integration of the result.
Furuta teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component by taking the difference between the current value of the heart rate signal and the current value of the basal heart rate, multiplying the difference with a multiplication constant and obtaining a new value for basal heart rate by integration of the result (¶198-calculating the difference between the heart rate information HR and the basal heart rate information HR0, multiplying the difference or the ratio by a given coefficient, or information obtained by multiplying at least one of the heart rate information HR and the basal heart rate information HR0 by a given coefficient; ¶185-when the basal heart rate HR0 has not been set based on the measured value, or when the user has instructed to reset the basal heart rate HR0 , for example, the basal heart rate HR0 is set).
Furuta relates to a biological information processing system, a wearable device, a server system, a method for controlling a biological information processing system, an information storage medium, and the like (¶2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component by taking the difference between the current value of the heart rate signal and the current value of the basal heart rate, multiplying the difference with a multiplication constant and obtaining a new value for basal heart rate by integration of the result of Furuta in order to make it possible to accurately calculate the health condition information by utilizing basal heart rate information (Furuta, ¶45).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Berckmans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pauws (US 20140358017 filed on 12/7/12).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a device as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Chan and Berckmans does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate component and adapt the computed basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected by increasing the computed basal heart rate component if the posture changes from a sitting or lying posture to a standing posture and by decreasing the computed basal heart rate component if the posture changes from a standing posture to a sitting or lying posture.
Pauws teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate component and adapt the computed basal heart rate component (¶59-analysis to adapt the algorithm used in the posture change detection module 32; ¶66-change in the resting heart rate at each of the postures) if a posture change is detected by increasing the computed basal heart rate component if the posture changes from a sitting or lying posture to a standing posture (¶69-the user moves from the sitting position to a standing position, the heart rate then increases from the sitting resting heart rate (HRsitting) to a peak heart rate (indicated by HRsitting-standing at time t2). The change in heart rate from the resting heart rate in the sitting position (HRsitting) to the peak heart rate (HRsitting-standing) is denoted ΔHRi; Fig 4) and by decreasing the computed basal heart rate component if the posture changes from a standing posture to a sitting or lying posture (Fig. 4-the change in HR decreases from the standing to sitting).
Pauws relates a method and apparatus for providing an indication of the baroreceptor reflex of a user, and in particular provides a method and apparatus that can provide an indication of the baroreceptor reflex of the user using non-invasive and contactless measurements (¶1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include wherein the processing unit is configured to compute the basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate component and adapt the computed basal heart rate component if a posture change is detected by increasing the computed basal heart rate component if the posture changes from a sitting or lying posture to a standing posture and by decreasing the computed basal heart rate component if the posture changes from a standing posture to a sitting or lying posture of Pauws in order to provide information that might be of use to the user or a medical professional (Pauws, ¶51).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Berckmans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colley (US 20150182129 filed on 12/30/13).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a device as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Chan and Berckmans does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to detect a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information by detecting changes in an activity type metric indicating the type of activity of the person determined from the obtained activity information.
Colley teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to detect a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information by detecting changes in an activity type metric indicating the type of activity of the person determined from the obtained activity information (¶85-the person stands up (at time T 1 ) from a seated position and begins walking. The accelerometer detects the provocation of standing up and initiates the HR/HRV measurement right away ( FIG. 5). Since the bodily reaction is delayed from the physical provocation (of standing up at T 1 to reaction at T 2 ) the measurement device can detect and measure HR/HRV at the starting point (T 1 to T 2 ), the transients i.e. the 1st (from down to peak, T 2 to T 3 ), 2nd (from peak to down, T 3 to T 4 ), 3rd (from down to peak, T 4 to T 5 ) and nth (T 5 to T 6 , Tn to Tn+1) reaction of the body when it stabilises to a new homeostasis (walking); ¶86; ¶95).
Colley relates to a medical or wellness apparatus, in particular to methods and apparatus for dynamically measuring instantaneous balance between sympathetic and vagal nerve activities i.e. sympatho-vagal balance and modulation via heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) in everyday activities or measurable life events to discover stress reactions and balance, or distress imbalance of a user (¶1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include wherein the processing unit is configured to detect a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information by detecting changes in an activity type metric indicating the type of activity of the person determined from the obtained activity information of Colley in order to apply sniffing logic on the feedback to establish an activity level for the provocation and to interpret the stress level accordingly (Colley, ¶74).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chan and Berckmans teaches a device as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Chan and Berckmans does not teach where the processing unit is configured to compute the activity heart rate component from the obtained activity information by minimizing the correlation between the activity heart rate component and the mental stress heart rate component.
Colley teaches where the processing unit is configured to compute the activity heart rate component from the obtained activity information by minimizing the correlation between the activity heart rate component and the mental stress heart rate component (¶113-the stress level rating is derived from correlating HRV values obtained at various times of the day when the user is having various activity levels with those of the activity levels; ¶121-correlate provocations of similar type).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include where the processing unit is configured to compute the activity heart rate component from the obtained activity information by minimizing the correlation between the activity heart rate component and the mental stress heart rate component of Colley in order to detect stress based on the detecting activity level and measured heart rate (Colley, ¶41).
Examiner’s Note
Claim 6 distinguishes over the prior art but are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The scope of wherein the processing unit is configured to use - a first multiplication constant if the current value of the basal heart rate is larger than the current value of the heart rate signal, - a second multiplication constant if the current value of the basal heart rate is smaller than the current value of the heart rate signal, and - a third multiplication constant if a posture detection is detected, wherein the second multiplication constant is smaller than the first multiplication constant and the first multiplication constant is smaller than the third multiplication constant were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is US 20190090757; however it fails to recite wherein the second multiplication constant is smaller than the first multiplication constant and the first multiplication constant is smaller than the third multiplication constant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792