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 1-18 in the reply filed on 21 November 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn.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 1-18 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 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including receiving, from the first sensor, first sensor data. 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:
determining whether the first sensor data indicates movement of the wearable device; and
operating the component of the second sensor in an active state in which the component associated with the second sensor is used to actively sense or process sensor data
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe 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. The “operating” step also describes a concept that is organizing human activity, which is also 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 1 recites in accordance with a determination that the second sensor data indicates that the wearable deice has been placed on a user’s body, continuing to operate the component associated with the second sensor in the active state, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The continuation of operating the component 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 continuation of operating the component, 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 steps of:
receiving, from the sensor, first sensor data; and
after activating the component associated with the second sensor, receiving, from the second sensor, second sensor data
The receiving steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, receiving steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution 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 obtaining 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.
The device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited first sensor and second sensor are generic sensors configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity and the wearable device 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 2-4 and 12 recite steps that recite the pre-solution activity of data gathering. Claims 5, 6, and 15-18 recite what the consumption rates, the wearable device, and authentication input are, which does not add anything significantly more. Claim 7 recites a pre-solution data gathering step and steps that add to the Abstract Idea. Claims 8-11, 13, and 14 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. ‘706 (US Pub No. 2017/0048706 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches a method of optimizing power consumption in a wearable device (Title, Abstract, [0007]), the method comprising:
at a wearable device (Fig. 1 electronic device 101 and [0004]) that includes a first sensor (Fig. 4 first sensor 420 and [0110]) configured to operate with a first power consumption rate ([0128]; “…the first sensor 420 having a small amount of current consumption…”) and a second sensor (Fig. 4 second sensor 430 and [0111]) configured to operate with a second power consumption rate that is greater than the first power consumption rate ([0128]; “…the second sensor 430 having a great amount of current consumption…”):
while a component associated with the second sensor is in an inactive state (Fig. 5 carry state 503 and [0139]; “In the carry state 503, the first sensor 420 is in an active state and the second sensor 430 is in an inactive state.”):
receiving, from the first sensor, first sensor data (Fig. 8 operation 813 and [0138]);
determining whether the first sensor data indicates movement of the wearable device ([0138]; “In operation 813, the electronic device may analyze a value for a motion based on the output data of the first sensor 420.”);
in accordance with a determination that the first sensor data indicates movement of the wearable device (Fig. 8 operation 815 and [0138]; “…if the value for the motion of the electronic device satisfies the first designated condition, in operation 815, the electronic device may determine the state of the electronic device as the carry state 503.”):
operating the component of the second sensor in an active state in which the component associated with the second sensor is used to actively sense or process sensor data ([0140]; “…may analyze the output data of the second sensor 430 to determine whether it is worn in operation 819.”);
after activating the component associated with the second sensor, receiving, from the second sensor, second sensor data (In order to analyze the output data of second sensor 430 as mentioned in [0140], one of ordinary skill would understand that the data would need to be received.); and
in accordance with a determination that the second sensor data indicates that the wearable device has been placed on a user's body, continuing to operate the component associated with the second sensor in the active state (Figs. 5, 8 wear state 505, operation 821 and [0124], [0140]).
Regarding claim 7, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the component associated with the second sensor is operated in the active state for a period of time, and, after the period of time, the method further comprises:
while the component associated with the second sensor is in the inactive state:
receiving, from the first sensor, new first sensor data (Fig. 10 operation 1017 and [0147]);
determining whether the new first sensor data indicates movement of the wearable device ([0147]; “…in operation 1017, may examine whether the output of the first sensor 420 satisfies the first designated condition.”);
in accordance with a determination that the first sensor data indicates that the wearable device has not moved, continuing to operate the component of the second sensor in the inactive state ([0147]; “If the output of the first sensor 420 satisfies the first designated condition, the electronic device may determine the state as the carry state 503 in operation 1015.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the continuing to operate the component associated with the second sensor in the active state includes continuing to operate the component associated with the second sensor in the active state (Fig. 11 operation 1121 and [0149]-[0150]) until a deactivation trigger is detected (Fig. 11 operation 1119 and [0149]).
Regarding claim 9, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the deactivation trigger is detected when data from the first sensor that indicates that the wearable device has been removed from the user's body (Fig. 11 operation 1125 and [0150]).
Regarding claim 10, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the deactivation trigger is detected when data from the second sensor indicates that the wearable device has been remove from the user's body (Fig. 11 operation 1117 and [0149]; “…if the output of the second sensor 430 does not satisfy the second designated condition, the electronic device may recognize this in operation 1117, and may transition to the carry state 503 in operation 1121.”).
Regarding claim 11, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the determination that the second sensor data indicates that the wearable device has been placed on the user's body includes determining that the second sensor data, as compared to subsequent sensor data from the second sensor, reflects a change in data sensed by the second sensor ([0146]; “When in the wear state 505, in operation 1013, the electronic device may analyze output data of the second sensor 430 to determine whether the second designated condition is changed. In this case, the second designated condition (e.g., a state where the user is in proximity to the electronic device or touches the electronic device or a state where biometric information of the user can be recognized), returning to operation 1011, may maintain the wear state 505. However, if the output data of the second sensor 430 does not satisfy the second designated condition, the electronic device may recognize this in operation 1013, and may transition to the carry state 503 in operation 1015.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein operating the component of the second sensor in the active state includes causing an interrupt signal to be sent to the component associated with the second sensor to cause it to transition from the inactive to the active state (Fig. 9 operation 915 and [0142]).
Regarding claim 14, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein determining whether the first sensor data indicates movement of the wearable device includes determining whether the movement is consistent with one or more known movements associated with the user placing the wearable device on the user's body ([0109]; “pre-set motion” and Fig. 8 operation 813 and [0138]).
Regarding claim 15, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the wearable device is a wrist-wearable device or a head-worn wearable device ([0111]; “watch-type wearable device…which may be in contact with a wrist of the user”).
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.
Claims 2 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Vasavada et al. ‘759 (US Pub No. 2021/0333759, provisional application date 24 April 2020).
Regarding claim 2, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches the second sensor is an electromyography (EMG) sensor that is configured to detect neuromuscular signals indicating muscular movements of a user ([0070]).
Kang et al. ‘706 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein: the first sensor is an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor that is configured to detect data indicating movements of the wearable device; and
the second sensor is an electromyography (EMG) sensor that is configured to detect neuromuscular signals indicating muscular movements of a user.
Vasavada et al. ‘759 teaches a sensor 214 that includes a sensor that provides data about a user’s environment including a user’s motion (e.g., an IMU) (Fig. 2A and [0053]) and a neuromuscular sensor 215 (e.g., an electromyography (EMG) sensor) (Fig. 2A and [0055]).
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 first and second sensors of Kang et al. ‘706 to include being an IMU and EMG sensors, respectively, as Vasavada et al. ‘759 teaches that this will aid in processing the neuromuscular sensor signals to provide a user with an enhanced interaction with a physical object and/or a virtual object in an AR environment ([0033]).
Regarding claim 16, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches while the wearable device has been placed on the user's body ([0111]; “watch-type wearable device…which may be in contact with a wrist of the user”), and locking the wearable device until an authentication input is received ([0118]; “…if the user is an authenticated user, a lock screen may be released”).
Kang et al. ‘706 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for in accordance with a determination that a display portion of the wearable device has been detached from a cradle, locking the wearable device until an authentication input is received.
Vasavada et al. ‘759 teaches a wristband system 200 may include a watch body coupling mechanism(s) 206 and/or watch band coupling mechanism(s) 210 (e.g., a cradle, a tracker band, a support base, a clasp). Any method or coupling mechanism may be used for detachably coupling watch body 204 to watch band 212 (Fig. 2A and [0060]). When watch body 104 is detached from watch band 112, the user may use rear-facing image sensor 115B to capture an image (e.g., a still image or a video) of a scene or object away from the user, for a so-called “world view” ([0049]).
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 wearable device of Kang et al. ‘706 to include being detached from a cradle and locking the wearable device until an authentication input is received as Vasavada et al. ‘759 teaches that this will aid in reducing the encumbrance of the wristband ([0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the authentication input is a biometric input.
Regarding claim 18, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches wherein the biometric input is a predefined movement pattern of a finger of the user in front of a camera of the wearable device or an image of the finger of the user that is captured by the camera of the wearable device ([0158]; “a camera sensor”) to detect at least one unique biometric characteristic of the finger ([0157]; “…fingerprint recognition, a password input, a pattern input, and the like.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Connor ‘504 (US Pub No. 2015/0366504) further in view of Kamen et al. ‘970 (US Pub No. 2015/0011970).
Regarding claim 3, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein: the first sensor is a hall effect sensor (HES) that is configured to be used to check if a display portion of the wearable device is attached or detached to a cradle portion of the wearable device; and
the second sensor is photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor that is configured to be used to detect changes in blood flow in a user.
Connor ‘504 teaches a device for measuring body motion and/or muscle activity with a variety of sensors including a hall-effect sensor and PPG sensor ([0231]).
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 first and second sensors of Kang et al. ‘706 to be a HES sensor PPG sensor, respectively, as Connor ‘504 teaches that this will be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of measuring body motion and muscle activity.
Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Connor ‘504 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the HES sensor is configured to be used to check if a display portion of the wearable device is attached or detached to a cradle portion of the wearable device.
Kamen et al. ‘970 teaches that a hall effect sensor may provide a determination of whether a reusable portion is properly attached to an intended component or device ([0103]).
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 HES sensor of Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Connor ‘504 to include being configured to be used to check if a display portion of the wearable device is attached or detached to a cradle portion of the wearable device as Kamen et al. ‘970 teaches that this will aid in determining that the portion of a device is properly attached to an intended component.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Chamberlain ‘052 (US Pub No. 2018/0333052) further in view of Kamen et al. ‘970.
Regarding claim 4, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein: the first sensor is a hall effect sensor (HES) that is configured to be used to check if a display portion of the wearable device is attached or detached to a cradle; and
the second sensor is an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor that is configured to detect data indicating movements of the wearable device.
Chamberlain ‘052 teaches a position and/or orientation of a monitoring device may be detected and tracked based on data provided by sensors included in an IMU. The IMU includes three orthogonally disposed accelerometers. A motion sensor of the monitoring device includes a hall effect sensor (Fig. 2 and [0044]).
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 first and second sensors of Kang et al. ‘706 to include being a HES sensor and IMU sensor, respectively, as Chamberlain ‘052 teaches that this will be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of monitoring motion.
Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Chamberlain ‘052 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the HES sensor is configured to be used to check if a display portion of the wearable device is attached or detached to a cradle.
Kamen et al. ‘970 teaches that a hall effect sensor may provide a determination of whether a reusable portion is properly attached to an intended component or device ([0103]).
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 HES sensor of Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Chamberlain ‘052 to include being configured to be used to check if a display portion of the wearable device is attached or detached to a cradle portion of the wearable device as Kamen et al. ‘970 teaches that this will aid in determining that the portion of a device is properly attached to an intended component.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Gu et al. ‘310 (US Pub No. 2020/0397310).
Regarding claim 5, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the first sensor has a first power consumption rate between 2 to 5 mW/s (milliwatts per second).
Gu et al. ‘310 teaches power consumption of a smart-device system may be on the order of a few milliwatts to several milliwatts (e.g, between approximately two milliwatts and twenty milliwatts). The requirement of such a limited footprint and power consumption for the smart-device system, enables the smart device to include other desirable features in such a space-limited package (e.g., a camera sensor, a fingerprint sensor, a display, and so forth) ([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 first sensor of Kang et al. ‘706 to include a first power consumption rate between 2 to 5 mW/s as Gu et al. ‘310 teaches that this will aid in including other desirable features in such a space-limited package.
Regarding claim 6, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the second sensor has a second power consumption rate between 7 to 17 mW/s (milliwatts per second).
Gu et al. ‘310 teaches power consumption of a smart-device system may be on the order of a few milliwatts to several milliwatts (e.g, between approximately two milliwatts and twenty milliwatts). The requirement of such a limited footprint and power consumption for the smart-device system, enables the smart device to include other desirable features in such a space-limited package (e.g., a camera sensor, a fingerprint sensor, a display, and so forth) ([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 second sensor of Kang et al. ‘706 to include a second power consumption rate between 7 to 17 mW/s as Gu et al. ‘310 teaches that this will aid in including other desirable features in such a space-limited package.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. ‘706 in view of Montgomery et al. ‘208 (US Pub No. 2022/0031208).
Regarding claim 12, Kang et al. ‘706 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein: the second sensor data indicates that one or more sensing channels of the second sensor are receiving data at or above a noise threshold, and
the subsequent sensor data indicates that the one or more sensing channels of the second sensor are receiving data below the noise threshold.
Montgomery et al. ‘208 teaches quality metrics may be stored with the sensor data 206 indicative of whether any issues were detected during data collection and used in subsequent analysis. For example, if there was signal noise above a noise threshold or other conditions that may reduce the quality of the data, the quality metrics can reflect such conditions ([0044]).
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 second sensor data and the subsequent sensor data of Kang et al. ‘706 to include indicating that one or more sensing channels of the second sensor are receiving data at or above a noise threshold, and indicating that the one or more sensing channels of the second sensor are receiving data below the noise threshold, respectively, as Montgomery et al. ‘208 teaches that this will aid in improving the quality of data.
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