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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
assessment module in claims 1, 24 and dependents, structure found in e.g. instant specification p. 3 line 17-19; p. 29 line 30 to p. 30 line 15;
communication module in claims 1, 24 and dependents; p. 29 line 30 to p. 30 line 15.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the computing device" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites “an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out” in lines 3-4; but then repeats again “an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out” in last line. It is unclear and thus indefinite what is meant by two identical options.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "The computing device of claim 25" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 25 recites “The system of claim 1”. While claim 25 recites ‘the computing device” in lines 5-6, as described above, the recitation of claim 25 has 112 antecedent basis issue.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "wherein the one or more validation response options" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 31 recites “outputting one or more validation response options”; but claim 32 does not depend from claim 31.
Claim 32 recites “an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out” in line 3; but then repeats again “an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out” in last line. It is unclear and thus indefinite what is meant by two identical options.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 18, 22-26, 28, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bates (US 20180365383 A1; 12/20/2018).
Regarding claim 1, Bates teaches a bio-parameter measuring system (Fig. 2) comprising:
a first bio-parameter measurement device for performing a first bio-parameter measurement of a person without physical contact with the person (Fig. 2; [0032]; [0101]);
an assessment module (Fig. 2-3; Fig. 5) configured to:
receive first measurement data from the first bio-parameter measurement device (Fig. 4; [0101] “cameras and other spectrum sensors may be used…determining patient wellness”); and,
determine whether a second bio-parameter measurement is required on the basis of the first measurement data (Fig. 4; [0101]; [0106]-[0107]; [0113]); and
a communication module (Fig. 2-3; Fig. 5) configured to:
upon a positive determination that a second bio-parameter measurement is required, notify a user that a second bio-parameter measurement is required (Fig. 4; [0101]-[0102]; [0106] “additional diagnostic medical measurement data may be requested”; [0107] “suggested level of exam”; [0113]); and,
receive a validation that the user has undertaken the second bio-parameter measurement (Fig. 4; [0101]-[0102]; [0106]-[0107]; [0113]),
wherein the first bio-parameter measurement device comprises a radar ([0032] “spectrum imaging device (e.g. radar)”) or sonar.
Regarding claim 2, Bates teaches a second bio-parameter measurement device for providing the second bio-parameter measurement (Fig. 2-3; Fig. 4; [0102]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Bates teaches wherein the validation comprises one or more from the group comprising:
a confirmation received from the user;
a confirmation received from the second bio-parameter measurement device;
and,
second measurement data relating to the second bio-parameter measurement received from the second bio-parameter measurement device (Fig. 4; [0102]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 5, Bates teaches a user device for receiving a notification that a further bio-parameter measurement is needed ([0102]; [0105]; [0106] “additional diagnostic medical measurement data may be requested”; [0107] “suggested level of exam”).
Regarding claim 7, Bates teaches wherein the user device comprises a user interface having one or more input devices for inputting a validation response for transmission to the communication module as the validation ([0065]; [0102]), wherein the one or more input device comprises either or both of: a push button ([0017] “mobile devices”; [0018] “GUI…input devices (e.g., touch screen, keyboard”) or a microphone for receiving a voice command.
Regarding claim 8, Bates teaches wherein one or more or all of: the first bio-parameter measurement device; the assessment module; and the communication module are within a single unit ([0114] “single system”).
Regarding claim 14, Bates teaches a detector for detecting a presence or motion of a person in the vicinity of the first bio-parameter measurement device, wherein first bio-parameter measurement device is configured to carry out the first bio-parameter measurement following an output signal from the detector (Fig. 2, camera 204; Fig. 4, 404 Monitor Patient Activity; [0032] “proximity sensors”; [0064]-[0065]; [0101]-[0107]; [0113]).
Regarding claim 16, Bates teaches wherein the first bio-parameter measurement device further comprises one or more or all of:
a camera for obtaining one or more images of the person in the visible spectrum (Fig. 2, camera 204; [0032]);
an infrared detector ([0032]; [0051]); and
a thermal imaging device.
Regarding claim 18, Bates teaches wherein the second bio-parameter measurement device comprises a pulse oximeter ([0033]; [0054]).
Regarding claim 22, Bates teaches wherein the second bio-parameter measurement requires an action from the person (Fig. 4; [0065]; [0102]; [0105]-[0106]).
Regarding claim 23, Bates teaches wherein notifying the user that a second bio-parameter measurement is required comprises providing a prompt for the user (Fig. 4; [0065]; [0102]; [0105]-[0106]).
Regarding claim 24, Bates teaches a method of measuring a bio-parameter of a person comprising:
obtaining, using a first bio-parameter measurement device, first bio-parameter measurement data of the person without physical contact with the person (Fig. 2; [0032]; [0101]);
receiving, at an assessment module (Fig. 2-3; Fig. 5), first measurement data from the first bio-parameter measurement device (Fig. 4; [0101] “cameras and other spectrum sensors may be used…determining patient wellness”);
determining whether a second bio-parameter measurement is required on the basis of the first measurement data (Fig. 4; [0101]; [0106]-[0107]; [0113]);
upon a positive determination that a second bio-parameter measurement is required, notifying, using a communication module, a user that a second bio-parameter measurement is required (Fig. 4; [0101]-[0102]; [0106] “additional diagnostic medical measurement data may be requested”; [0107] “suggested level of exam”; [0113]); and,
receiving, at the communication module, a validation that the user has undertaken the second bio-parameter measurement (Fig. 4; [0101]-[0102]; [0106]-[0107]; [0113]),
wherein the first bio-parameter measurement device comprises a radar ([0032] “spectrum imaging device (e.g. radar)”) or sonar.
Regarding claim 25, Bates teaches a user interface and a processor configured to receive a notification that a second bio-parameter measurement is required from a person, output one or more validation response options using the user interface for a user of the computing device to select and, upon receiving a selection of the one or more validation response options from the user, transmit the selected validation response to the bio-parameter measurement system (Fig. 4; [0065]; [0102]; [0105]-[0106]; [0114]).
Regarding claim 26, Bates teaches wherein the one or more validation response options include one or more or all of: an acknowledgement that the notification has been received; an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out ([0026]; [0065]); an option to transmit the bio-parameter measurement; and an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out ([0072]; [0102]-[0106]).
Regarding claim 28, Bates teaches wherein the first bio-parameter measurement device further comprises one or more or all of:
a camera for obtaining one or more images of the person in the visible spectrum (Fig. 2, camera 204; [0032]);
an infrared detector ([0032]; [0051]); and
a thermal imaging device.
Regarding claim 30, Bates teaches obtaining the second bio-parameter measurement from a second bio-parameter measurement device (Fig. 4; [0102]-[0106]) and wherein the second bio-parameter measurement device comprises a pulse oximeter ([0033]; [0054]).
Regarding claim 31, Bates teaches wherein upon receiving, at a computing device, a notification that a second bio-parameter measurement is required from a person, outputting one or more validation response options using a user interface for a user to select and, upon receiving a selection of the one or more validation response options from the user, transmitting the selected validation response to the communication module (Fig. 4; [0065]; [0102]; [0105]-[0106]; [0114]).
Regarding claim 32, Bates teaches wherein the one or more validation response options include one or more or all of: an acknowledgement that the notification has been received; an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out ([0026]; [0065]); an option to transmit the bio-parameter measurement; an option to confirm that the required bio-parameter measurement has been carried out ([0072]; [0102]-[0106]).
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.
Claim(s) 17, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates as applied to claims 1, 24 above, in view of Wang (US 20210059573 A1; Filed 11/11/2019).
Regarding claim 17, Bates does not teach wherein the first bio-parameter comprises respiratory rate. However, Wang teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) wherein the first bio-parameter comprises respiratory rate ([0004]; [0015]-[0016]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates to include this feature as taught by Wang because radar is suitable for measuring respiratory rate ([0004]).
Regarding claim 29, Bates does not teach wherein the first bio-parameter comprises respiratory rate. However, Wang teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) wherein the first bio-parameter comprises respiratory rate ([0004]; [0015]-[0016]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates to include this feature as taught by Wang because radar is suitable for measuring respiratory rate ([0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792