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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-24 in the reply filed on 02 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 25-32, 35, and 36 have been withdrawn.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including accessing, by a wearable device, exam information. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
accessing, by a wearable user device, exam information identifying: (i) a first timing indicator associated with a first time, (ii) a second timing indicator associated with a second time, and (iii) a virtual motor exam type of a virtual motor exam;
accessing, by the wearable user device, signal data obtained by the wearable user device during a time period bounded by the first time and the second time;
determining, by the wearable user device and based on the virtual motor exam type, a first signal data type for segmenting the signal data, the first signal data of the first signal data type being output by a first sensor of the wearable user device during the time period;
determining, by the wearable user device, a context window within the time period by at least:
selecting a historical signal profile of the first signal data type, the historical signal profile derived from previous occurrences of the virtual motor exam; and
comparing the first signal data to the historical signal profile to identify a third time corresponding to a beginning of the context window and a fourth time corresponding to an end of the context window of the context window;
segmenting, by the wearable user device, a portion of the signal data received during the context window; and
generating, by the wearable user device, a virtual motor exam data package based on the portion of the signal data and the exam information.
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to Organizing Human Activity and a Mental Process, which are Abstract Ideas.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites generating, by the wearable user device, a virtual motor exam data package based on the portion of the signal data and the exam information, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The generating of the virtual motor exam does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the generated virtual motor exam, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional element of the wearable user device. The wearable user device is well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics (see art rejection below). When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited memory performs well-understood, routine, and conventional storing and the pre-solution activity of data gathering and the one or more processors is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 2-22 merely recite steps that add to the Abstract Idea. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan et al. ‘085 (US Pub No. 2015/0190085) in view of Morris et al. ‘533 (US Pub No. 2014/0257533 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches a computer-implemented method, (Fig. 7) comprising:
accessing, by a wearable user device, exam information identifying: (i) a first timing indicator associated with a first time (Fig. 7 step 702 and [0094]; “time interval”), (ii) a second timing indicator associated with a second time (Fig. 7 step 702 and [0094]; “time interval” has a first time and a second time), and (iii) a virtual motor exam type of a virtual motor exam (Fig. 7 and [0093] “detecting seizures by measuring motion” is interpreted as a virtual motor exam);
accessing, by the wearable user device, signal data obtained by the wearable user device during a time period bounded by the first time and the second time (Fig. 7 step 702 and [0094]; “the sensor data is obtained by a time based sampling of the motion”);
the first signal data of the first signal data type being output by a first sensor of the wearable user device during the time period (Fig. 7 step 702 and [0094]);
determining, by the wearable user device, a context window within the time period by at least:
selecting a historical signal profile of the first signal data type, the historical signal profile derived from previous occurrences of the virtual motor exam (Fig. 7 step 706 and [0096], [0105]); and
comparing the first signal data to the historical signal profile to identify a third time corresponding to a beginning of the context window and a fourth time corresponding to an end of the context window of the context window (Fig. 7 step 706 and [0096]);
segmenting, by the wearable user device, a portion of the signal data received during the context window ([0108]); and
generating, by the wearable user device, a virtual motor exam data package based on the portion of the signal data and the exam information (Fig. 7 step 710).
Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for determining, by the wearable user device and based on the virtual motor exam type, a first signal data type for segmenting the signal data.
Morris et al. ‘533 teaches determining time intervals where the user is actively engaged in a physical activity (Fig. 3 step 304 and [0023]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nathan et al. ‘085 to include determining, by the wearable user device and based on the virtual motor exam type, a first signal data type for segmenting the signal data as Morris et al. ‘533 teaches that this will aid in more accurately determining physical activity or exercise of a user ([0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches generating the exam information as part of conducting the virtual motor exam during the time period (Step 710 is part of method 700.).
Regarding claim 13, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches wherein each of the first and second timing indicators comprises a data tag including a corresponding timestamp (Fig. 8 horizontal axis 804 and [0108]).
Regarding claim 14, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches wherein the signal data comprises signal data collected from a plurality of sensors of the wearable user device ([0033]).
Regarding claim 17, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches wherein the portion of the signal data comprises at least a portion of the first signal data (The motion sensor data measured in step 702 is part of the first signal data.).
Regarding claim 19, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches wherein the first sensor comprises at least one of a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a photoplethysmography sensor, or a heart rate sensor ([0030]).
Regarding claim 21, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches generating results of the virtual motor exam that include the portion of the signal data ([0034]); and
outputting a portion of the result, wherein outputting the portion of the results comprises at least one of presenting the portion of the results at a display of the wearable user device or sending the portion of the results to a remote computing device ([0034]).
Regarding claim 22, Nathan et al. ‘085 teaches wherein the virtual motor exam is conducted during the time period (Fig. 8 graph 800 and [0107]), and wherein associating the portion of the signal data with the virtual motor exam comprises tagging the portion of the signal data with the beginning of the context window and the end of the context window within the time period in which the virtual motor exam is conducted (The time indicated by horizontal axis 804 is interpreted as tagging the beginning and the end of the context window.).
Regarding claim 23, Nathan et al. ‘085, as modified by Morris et al. ‘533, teaches a computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wearable user device, cause the wearable user device to perform operations as claimed.
Regarding claim 24, Nathan et al. ‘085, as modified by Morris et al. ‘533, teaches a wearable user device, as claimed.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 further in view of Akay ‘086 (US Pub No. 2005/0240086).
Regarding claim 2, Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for during a later virtual motor exam of the virtual motor exam type, adjusting, by the wearable user device, an operation of the first sensor based on the context window.
Akay ‘086 teaches an intelligent accelerometer unit (IAU) that may be calibrated to adjust channel sensitivity and offset parameters of the accelerometers ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 to include during a later virtual motor exam of the virtual motor exam type, adjusting, by the wearable user device, an operation of the first sensor based on the context window as Akay ‘086 teaches that this will aid in calibrating channel sensitivity.
Regarding claim 3, Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 further in view of Akay ‘086 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the operation comprises a sampling rate, and wherein adjusting the sampling rate based on the context window comprises instructing the first sensor to capture data at a first sampling rate outside the context window, and instructing the first sensor to capture data at a second sampling rate within the context window.
Akay ‘086 teaches processing may be performed by processor 310 to separate acceleration data related to gross postural adjustments (e.g., less than 1 HZ) from actual acceleration of body segments (e.g., greater than 1 HZ) ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 further in view of Akay ‘086 to include a sampling rate, and wherein adjusting the sampling rate based on the context window comprises instructing the first sensor to capture data at a first sampling rate outside the context window, and instructing the first sensor to capture data at a second sampling rate within the context window as Akay ‘086 teaches that this will aid in separating acceleration data.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 further in view of Glenn et al. ‘553 (US Patent No. 10,383,553).
Regarding claim 20, Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the virtual motor exam comprises a series of tasks to evaluate motor function of a wearer of the wearable user device.
Glenn et al. ‘553 teaches a test management module is configured for creating and managing tests that are designed to assess one or more cognitive capabilities (e.g., intelligence, learning ability, reasoning aptitude, cognitive development, memory, attention etc.), motor skills (e.g., coordination of a certain group of muscle movement, synchronization of hands and fingers, speed), and/or correlations between cognitive, emotional, and motor functions of a user, and is one means for performing these functions. Tests can be tasks that require the users' to respond by completing the tasks using physical inputs to the client device, such as touches, taps, drags, using one or more fingers. A user's input response is measured and analyzed to assess the user's cognitive aptitude, motor skills, and/or correlations between cognitive, emotional, and motor functions in completing the task (Column 5 Lines 35-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual motor exam of Nathan et al. ‘085 in view of Morris et al. ‘533 to include a series of tasks to evaluate motor function of a wearer of the wearable user device as Glenn et al. ‘553 teaches that this will aid in assessing one or more cognitive abilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791