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 03/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “from displacement data” in line 8 should be amended to read –the displacement data--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “plurality of sensor” in line 2 should be amended to read –plurality of sensors--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a core quintet” in line 10 should be amended to read –the core of quintet--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “identify normal and abnormal movement” in line 2 should be amended to read –identify the normal and the abnormal movement--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 and 20 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 20 recite the limitation “spectrum” this limitation is not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what the claimed “spectrum” must or must not include, and/or the spectrum of which parameter. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “spectrum”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the extracted data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claims 1 and 20, recite an apparatus/system to assess movement, and claim 17 recites a method to assess movement. Thus, the claims are directed to a product and process, which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim(s) recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: movement assessment device comprising a plurality of sensors; a movement assessment presentation device having a screen to display images; and a processing device in communication with the movement assessment device and the movement assessment presentation device, the processing device receiving displacement data from the movement assessment device; identifies potential disease based upon percentage of the abnormal movement over a likelihood threshold being identified; and presents the potential disease to user on the movement assessment presentation device in claims 1 and 20, and calculating a distance between the center of mass of a core quintet and the centers of mass of peripheral quintets; and classifying the extracted data to identify a disease probability in claim 17. These limitations recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: identifies features from displacement data, the features comprising at least one of motion, amplitude, and speed variation of sensed motion from the plurality of sensors; extracts a spectrum from the features to identify feature variability over time; identifies from the spectrum percentages of normal movement and abnormal movement as in claim 1, plotting recorded movement based upon the movement data taken over a first duration to generate displacement data; normalizing the displacement data as first, second, third, fourth, and fifth quintets comprising first, second, third, fourth, and fifth areas comprising one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors, the normalizing the displacement data generating normalized quintet data; generating two clusters per quintet as clustered data from the normalized quintet data; generating extracted data, the generating the extracted data comprising: identifying a first percentage of time the first of the two clusters per quintet is active relative to a second percentage of time the second of the two clusters per quintet is active; calculating a center of mass of each cluster of each quintet based upon the first and second percentages as in claim 17, and identifies quintets comprising one or more sensors of the plurality of sensor of the movement assessment device; extracts features from each of the quintets to generate a set of five features; generates a set of five spectrums from the set of five features, each of the set of five spectrums reflecting sensed displacement data in one of the quintets, respectively; identifies from the set of five spectrums percentages of normal movement and abnormal movement as in claim 20. Accordingly, these additional elements/steps does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail 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. These limitations are directed to merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, sensors, movement assessment presentation device and a processor, but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2-16, 18 and 19 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does 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)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-20 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791