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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show sensors or any setup of the device as described in the specification. Specifically, Figure 4 is too dark of an image that the elements labeled are not distinguishable from each other. There are labels present, but these labels do not point to anything within the image that has features distinguishable from each other and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to identify an appropriate structure or position for these elements. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical issues. The phrase “analyze to the sensor data” in line 4 of claim 1 should read “analyze the sensor data”. Claim 3 recites "centre" in lines 1 and 3 of the claim, but the more accepted spelling of this word is "center". Claim 17 recites the limitation "to a historical data file", but this is improper grammar and should instead read "in a historical data file".
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: “module” in Claims 1, 9 and 10.
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. The specification identifies this as a “computer module” as recited in Paragraph [0019].
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation "the sensors" recited in lines 3 and 4 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear if "the sensors" are referring to "sensor to measure motion capture measurements" recited in line 1 of the claim or if there are other sensors. These limitations are being interpreted to mean "receive sensor data from the sensor" and "received from the sensor".
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear if the limitation "generate a score of fit with the cohort data set" recited in line 2 of the claim is generating "a score of fit" of just the cohort data or if the "score of fit" is generated based on the comparison made between the sensor data and the cohort data. It is being interpreted to mean that "a score of fit" is used to compare the sensor data and a cohort data set. Additionally, the limitation "the score" recited in line 3 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This is interpreted to mean "the score of fit".
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the sensor” recited in the first line of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. There is more than one sensor referenced in the independent claim, Claim 1, so it is unclear what sensor this claim is referencing. Therefore, this limitation “the sensor” is being interpreted to mean the sensor to measure motion capture measurements. Additionally, the limitation "the environment" recited in line 2 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. It is being interpreted to mean "an environment". Furthermore, the limitation "for an indicator of balance" recited in line 3 of the claim is unclear. It is not clear what this "indicator" is or what is encompassed within this "indicator". Being an "indicator" does not provide positive recitation to a claim as it is too broad and vague since there are a lot of elements that can be an "indicator".
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation "the results" lacks proper antecedent basis. It is being interpreted to mean "display results". Additionally, it is unclear if the limitation "the results" is the same thing or different than "a report". It is being interpreted to mean that "results" is not the same thing as "report" due to these being two different entities.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “the sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear which “sensor” Claim 6 is referencing since there is more than one sensor referenced in Claim 1. This limitation is being interpreted to mean “a sensor”.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “the sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear which “sensor” Claim 7 is referencing since there is more than one sensor referenced in Claim 1. This limitation is being interpreted to mean “a sensor”. Additionally, the limitation “pressure plate” is unclear. It is unclear what structure or function a “pressure plate” provides to the system. Based on the provided claim description, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what constitutes as a “pressure plate”.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation "controls the sensor" is unclear. Given that there is a sensor in line 2 of Claim 1 and then there are other sensors being referenced in line 3 of Claim 1, it is unclear what sensors are controlled by the processor. This limitation is being interpreted to mean that "the processor controls a sensor".
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the comparator data” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 11 is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 10 as claim 10 recites “comparator data”.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation "comprising a backdrop" is unclear. It is not clear what constitutes as a backdrop or what function a "backdrop" would perform in order to add any structural element to this system. Does the system contain a backing of some sort is the system able to process various backgrounds within an environment?
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation "the sensor includes a stationary sensor" is unclear. It is not clear what "sensor" this limitation is referring to within Claim 1 since there are more than one sensor presented within Claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear what this limitation means. Does the limitation "the sensor" mean that the sensor is "configured to be a stationary sensor" or does this mean that "the sensor" contains a "stationary sensor" inside of "the sensor" itself?
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation "the sensor includes a mobile sensor" is unclear. It is not clear what "sensor" this limitation is referring to within Claim 1 since there are more than one sensor presented within Claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear what this limitation means. Does the limitation "the sensor" mean that the sensor is "configured to be a mobile sensor" or does this mean that "the sensor" contains a "stationary sensor" inside of "the sensor" itself? Furthermore, the limitation "mobile sensor" is unclear. Does "mobile" refer to a device such as a telephone or does "mobile" refer to the ability for a sensor to be moved around and not stay in the same spot?
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation “and the background data” recited in line 5 of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. This limitation is being interpreted to mean “and background data”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
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 1-18 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 15 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including performing motion capture measurements on a subject; receiving motion capture data from the motion capture measurements; processing the motion capture data and background data on a computer using an algorithm; comparing the motion capture data and the background data to one or more comparator waveforms; generating a report; and communicating the results of the report. 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 processing the motion capture data and the background data on a computer using an algorithm, comparing the motion capture data and background data to one or more comparator waveforms, and generating a report based on the analysis set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed using mathematical algorithms. Thus, the claim is drawn to Mathematical Concepts, which is an Abstract Idea.
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 15 recites communicating the results of the generated report, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The communication of the results of the report 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 communicated results of the report, 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, Claim 15 recites additional steps of performing motion capture measurements on a subject and receiving motion capture measurements on a subject. The performing and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. 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 gathering 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 performing, receiving, 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 claim 1, the system recited in the claim is a generic system comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited sensor and module are generic components configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, processor is a computer 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.
Dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-18 fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite steps pertaining to data gathering and processing. Claims 2-4 and 11 are drawn to comparing two sets of data and sorting data, which are themselves drawn to a Mental Concept. Claims 5-10 and 12-14 are drawn to generic system components configured to perform insignificant pre-solutional data gathering or extra-solution activity. Regarding Claims 16-17, the steps of receiving background data about the subject and storing the motion capture data and background data to a historical data file is mere pre-solution data gathering. Regarding Claim 18, the step of comparing the motion capture data and background data to a historical file merely uses a generic computer device that performs mere pre-solution data gathering.
The measuring, receiving, analyzing, and creating functions recited in Claim 1 maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims. The performing, receiving, processing, comparing, generating, and communicating steps in Claim 15 maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bao Tran’904 (U.S. Patent Application 20080004904).
Regarding Claim 1, Bao Tran’904 discloses a system for analyzing data from motion capture measurements (Paragraph [0057] - The sensor 40 can also include an indoor positioning system or alternatively a global position system (GPS) receiver that relays the position and ambulatory patterns of the patient to the server 20 for mobility tracking), comprising:
a sensor to measure motion capture measurements (Paragraph [0062] - One such sensor is a motion detector);
a module configured to receive sensor data from sensors (Paragraph [0057] - Each of sensors 40 can individually transmit data to the server 20 using wired or wireless transmission. Alternatively, all sensors 40 can be fed through a common bus into a single transceiver for wired or wireless transmission); and
a processor configured to analyze sensor data received from sensors and create a report of such analysis (Paragraph [0017] - The processor can execute code to store and analyze information relating to the person's ambulation; Paragraph [0428] - A Summary Report can be done. Example of a report displayed in simple format, selecting particular elements and dates).
Regarding Claim 2, Bao Tran’904 discloses the processor is further configured to compare the sensor data with a cohort data set and generate a score of fit with the cohort data set, and the report further includes the score of fit (Paragraph [0225] - For example, patient movements can be clusterized into a group of known motion vectors, and patient movements can be described using a set of vectors; Paragraph [0241] - One method of reducing the amount of computation required for dynamic programming is to use pruning. Pruning terminates the dynamic programming of a given portion of user habit information against a given treatment model if the partial probability score for that comparison drops below a given threshold. This greatly reduces computation).
Regarding Claim 3, Bao Tran’904 discloses a sensor configured to measure center of mass data of a subject in motion relative to a fixed point of an environment, and the processor is further configured to analyze the center of mass data for an indicator of balance of the subject, and the report further includes the indicator (Paragraph [0026] - The system monitors physical activity patterns, detects the occurrence of falls, and recognizes body motion patterns leading to falls; Paragraph [0160-0163] - To detect fall, the pseudo-code for the embodiment is as follows:…The fall has to be detected in almost real time by tracking movements of key features very quickly. E.g. if patient has black hair/face, track the center of the black blob will know roughly where his head move to…Then the center of mass will be tracked, center of mass is usually around belly button area, so the belt or borderline between upper and lower body closed will be good indications…Patient's fall always coupled with rapid deceleration of center of mass. Software can adjust this threshold based on patient age, height and physical conditions; Paragraph [0199] - the system determines a patient fall-down as when the patient's knee, butt or hand is on the floor).
Regarding Claim 4, Bao Tran’904 discloses the processor is further configured to sort the sensor data into at least one cohort (Paragraph [0428] - As many of these reports as required can be created, going across all data in the system based on some criteria, with a particular selection of fields and sorting, grouping and totaling criteria. Reports can be created that can format and analyze any data stored on the server).
Regarding Claim 5, Bao Tran’904 discloses comprising a user interface configured to display results (Paragraph [0101] - To allow the remote person such as a physician or a family member to monitor a patient, a plurality of user interface modules enable the remote person to control each appliance and to display the data generated by the appliance).
Regarding Claim 6, Bao Tran’904 discloses a sensor includes a camera (Paragraph [0062] - In one embodiment where the motion detector operates with the cameras 10, the motion detector can be used to trigger camera recording).
Regarding Claim 8, Bao Tran’904 discloses the processor controls a sensor (Paragraph [0017] - The processor can execute code to store and analyze information relating to the person's ambulation; Paragraph [0057] - The sensor 40 can also include an indoor positioning system or alternatively a global position system (GPS) receiver that relays the position and ambulatory patterns of the patient to the server 20 for mobility tracking).
Regarding Claim 9, Bao Tran’904 discloses the module is further configured to receive background data about a subject (Paragraph [0358] - data may include personal data, such as date of birth, ethnic group, sex, physical activity level, and address. The data may further include clinical data such as a visit identification, height, weight, date of visit, age, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and so forth).
Regarding Claim 10, Bao Tran’904 discloses the module has comparator data (Paragraph [0228] - The system can store historical gait information, and by overlaying current structure to the historical (normal) gait information, gait changes can be detected).
Regarding Claim 11, Bao Tran’904 discloses the processor is configured to compare the sensor data to the comparator data (Paragraph [0023] - Data measured several times each day provide a relatively comprehensive data set compared to that measured during medical appointments separated by several weeks or even months. This allows both the patient and medical professional to observe trends in the data).
Regarding Claim 12, Bao Tran’904 discloses comprising a backdrop (Paragraph [0217] - During installation or while no live person in the scene, each camera will capture its own environment objects and store it as background images).
Regarding Claim 13, Bao Tran’904 discloses a sensor includes a stationary sensor (Paragraph [0062] - the sensors can be mounted on fixed surfaces such as walls or tables, for example).
Regarding Claim 14, Bao Tran’904 discloses a sensor includes a mobile sensor (Paragraph [0057] - One wearable appliance such as a wrist-watch includes sensors 40).
Regarding Claim 15, Bao Tran’904 discloses a computer-implemented method of analyzing data from motion capture measurements (Paragraph [0224] - The server 200 then retrieves the document from its local disk or cache memory storage and transmits the content over the network), comprising:
performing motion capture measurements on a subject (Paragraph [0062] - One such sensor is a motion detector);
receiving motion capture data from the motion capture measurements (Paragraph [0057] - Each of sensors 40 can individually transmit data to the server 20 using wired or wireless transmission. Alternatively, all sensors 40 can be fed through a common bus into a single transceiver for wired or wireless transmission);
processing the motion capture data and background data on a computer using an algorithm, including comparing the motion capture data and background data to one or more comparator waveforms (Paragraph [0391] - Waveform averaging can be used to reduce noise. It reinforces the waveform of interest by minimizing the effect of any random noise. These pulses were obtained when the arm was motionless. If the arm was moved while capturing the data the waveform did not look nearly as clean. That's because motion of the arm causes the sonic vibrations to enter the piezo film through the arm or by way of the cable. An accelerometer is used to detect arm movement and used to remove inappropriate data capture);
generating a report based on the processing analysis (Paragraph [0017] - The processor can execute code to store and analyze information relating to the person's ambulation; Paragraph [0428] - A Summary Report can be done. Example of a report displayed in simple format, selecting particular elements and dates); and
communicating the results of the report (Paragraph [0056] – entire paragraph - The base station/server 20 may communicate with the remote server 200 by DSL, T-1 connection over a private communication network or a public information network).
Regarding Claim 16, Bao Tran’904 discloses receiving background data about the subject (Paragraph [0358] - data may include personal data, such as date of birth, ethnic group, sex, physical activity level, and address. The data may further include clinical data such as a visit identification, height, weight, date of visit, age, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and so forth).
Regarding Claim 17, Bao Tran’904 discloses storing the motion capture data and background data to a historical data file for the subject (Paragraph [0228] - The system can store historical gait information, and by overlaying current structure to the historical (normal) gait information, gait changes can be detected; Paragraph [0358] - The data may further include the health history data of the patient, including alcohol intake, autoimmune diseases, caffeine intake, carbohydrate intake, carotid artery disease, coronary disease, diabetes, drug abuse, fainting, glaucoma, head injury, hypertension, lupus, medications, smoking, stroke, family history of stroke, surgery history, for example).
Regarding Claim 18, Bao Tran’904 discloses comparing the motion capture data and background data to a historical data file of the subject (Paragraph [0228] - The system can store historical gait information, and by overlaying current structure to the historical (normal) gait information, gait changes can be detected; Paragraph [0260] - Vital patient data displayed on these web pages, for example, can be sorted and analyzed depending on the patient's medical history, age, sex, medical condition, and geographic location).
It is noted by the examiner that Bao Tran’904 discloses that even though the above references may call on different embodiments, the system outlined in the primary reference is designed to work interoperable amongst the medical devices (Paragraph [0002] - This invention relates generally to methods and systems for monitoring a person. The present invention relates to interoperability of medical devices; Paragraph [0017] - implementations of the above aspect may include one or more of the following...The wristwatch determines position based on triangulation…The remote person can be a doctor, a nurse, a medical assistant, or a caregiver. The system includes code to store and analyze patient information. The patient information includes medicine taking habits, eating and drinking habits, sleeping habits, or excise habits. A patient interface is provided on a user computer for accessing information and the patient interface includes in one implementation a touch screen; voice-activated text reading; and one touch telephone dialing. The processor can execute code to store and analyze information relating to the person's ambulation. A global positioning system (GPS) receiver can be used to detect movement and where the person falls. The system can include code to map the person's location onto an area for viewing. The system can include one or more cameras positioned to capture three dimensional (3D) video of the patient; and a server coupled to the one or more cameras, the server executing code to detect a dangerous condition for the patient based on the 3D video and allow a remote third party to view images of the patient when the dangerous condition is detected).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao Tran’904 (U.S. Patent Application 20080004904) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierre Barralon’642 (U.S. Patent Application 20160128642).
Regarding Claim 7, Bao Tran’904 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above as well as a pressure sensor (Paragraph [0378] - a pressure sensor such as a MEMS sensor can be used to sense pressure on the patient), but fails to disclose the sensor includes a pressure plate. Pierre Barralon’642 teaches a pressure plate (Paragraph [0051] - In an alternative embodiment, not shown in the figures, instead of using a plantar pressure distribution system, which permits to calculate a base of support 12, a force plate (or stabilometric platform) is used and allows estimating the Center of Pressure (CoP) and/or ground reaction force (GRF). By combining CoP (and/or GRF) and Center of Mass (CoM), a stability index can be obtained. In other words, the force plate or stabilometric system provides an alternative way of estimating the postural stability of a user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Bao Tran’904 to include a pressure plate in order to account for postural stability of a user during monitoring as seen in Pierre Barralon’642.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marvin Slepian’065 (U.S. Patent 11179065), Bunn et. al.’109 (U.S. Patent Application 20200129109), and Trantzas et. al.’658 (WO Patent Publication 2010090658) discloses motion capturing devices with cameras, sensors, and pressure boards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ANN WESTFALL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4:30pm EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/SARAH ANN WESTFALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791