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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for quantifying injury recovery state for a user, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, claims 1 and 11 recite:
Claim 1 | “A method for quantifying an injury recovery state for a user, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of sensor readings from a corresponding plurality of sensors provided in a wearable device, and while the wearable device is worn by the user while performing one or more specified activities (Observation);
identifying the one or more specified activities (Judgment);
for each specified activity of the one or more specified activities, calculating at least one metric value for the user based on activity-specific sensor data corresponding to that specified activity from the plurality of sensor readings, wherein each metric value corresponds to a particular metric of interest associated with that specified activity (Mathematical Concept); and
comparing each metric value to a corresponding baseline metric value for the user (Judgement); and
calculating a quantified injury recovery state value based on the comparison of each metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Mathematical Concept).”
Claim 11 | “A system for quantifying an injury recovery state for a user comprising:
a plurality of sensors mountable to a user, wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to obtain a plurality of sensor readings from the user while the user is performing one or more specified activities (Observation);
a memory configured to store the plurality of sensor readings (Observation); and
one or more processors configured to:
identify the one or more specified activities (Judgment);
for each specified activity of the one or more specified activities, calculate at least one metric value for the user based on activity-specific sensor data corresponding to that specified activity from the plurality of sensor readings, wherein each metric value corresponds to a particular metric of interest associated with that specified activity (Mathematical Concept); and
compare each metric value to a corresponding baseline metric value for the user (Judgement); and
calculate a quantified injury recovery state value based on the comparison of each metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Mathematical Concept).”
Regarding the dependent claims, the following dependent claims are directed to steps that are also abstract or organizing human activity:
Claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, and 14 include steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, and 18 include steps that are also abstract as a mathematical concept through comparing metric value and baseline metric value to determine the quantified injury recovery state value.
Claims 7, and 17 include steps that are also abstract as a mathematical concept through comparing current and previous injury recovery state value to determine the injury improvement rate.
Claims 9, 10 include steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering to determine whether the activity-specific sensor data was performed correctly.
Claims 19-20 contain additional elements (force-sensing element, inertial measurement unit).
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrowing idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20) meets Step 2A, Prong 2 because the above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims are not integrated into a practical application. The above-identified abstract ideas do not improve the following: function of a particular machine, manufacture or other technology; treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; or transforming or reducing of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B
Lastly, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any elements, or in combination, to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
However, these claims do not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are plurality of sensors, wearable device, memory, one or more processors, force-sensing element, inertial measurement unit, and insole.
The recited additional elements, more specifically plurality of sensors, wearable device, force-sensing element, inertial measurement unit, and insole, are not significantly more in view of paragraph 0002 of US 20200003643 A1.
The above-identified additional elements, more specifically the memory and processor, are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. When viewed individually or in combination, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, and simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al (US 20200054931 A1; [Examiner’s note, reference found within the IDS]) in view of Clay et al. (US 20230090138 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Martin discloses a method for quantifying an injury recovery state for a user (Martin | Abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of sensor readings from a corresponding plurality of sensors provided in a wearable device, and while the wearable device is worn by the user while performing one or more specified activities (Martin | Paragraph 0017);
identifying the one or more specified activities (Martin | Application 1101; Paragraphs 0093-0095, 0106);
for each specified activity of the one or more specified activities,
calculating at least one metric value for the user based on activity-specific sensor data corresponding to that specified activity from the plurality of sensor readings (Martin | Paragraph 0049, 0104), wherein each metric value corresponds to a particular metric of interest associated with that specified activity (Martin | Paragraph 0106).
Martin does not explicitly disclose comparing each metric value to a corresponding baseline metric value for the user; and calculating a quantified injury recovery state value based on the comparison of each metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value;
Clay teaches comparing each metric value to a corresponding baseline metric value for the user (Clay | Figure 4; Paragraphs 0117, 130, 0319; [Examiner’s note, the pre-operative data represents the baseline metric value, and the post-operative data represents the metric value.]); and calculating a quantified injury recovery state value based on the comparison of each metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Clay | Figures 4, 14; Paragraphs 0075, 0117, 130, 0319). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method of Martin to incorporate the teachings of quantified injury recovery state. Doing so would allow for a personalized injury prevention and recovery plan for the patient because the data collected prior to an injury or diagnosis can enable early detection and proper treatment (Clay | Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 2, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensor readings are obtained after the user has incurred an injury (Martin | Paragraph 0140).
Regarding Claim 3, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 2, wherein each baseline metric value is calculated using baseline sensor readings obtained prior to the user incurring the injury (Martin | Paragraph 0120).
Regarding Claim 4, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 2, wherein: the injury is to a first lower limb of the user;
each metric value is calculated using first limb sensor readings in the plurality of sensor readings, the first limb sensor readings received from sensors positioned to monitor the first lower limb (Martin | Figures 36-37, Paragraph 0109); and
each baseline metric value is calculated using second limb sensor readings in the plurality of sensor readings, the second limb sensor readings received from sensors positioned to monitor a second lower limb of the user, wherein the second lower limb is uninjured (Martin | Paragraph 0104, 0120, 0140; [Examiner’s note, the system 1000 contains a wearable device 100, an insole, which captures both baseline data and activity-specific data from both limbs.]).
Regarding Claim 5, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantified injury recovery state value is a current injury recovery state value determined using at least one baseline deviation value, each baseline deviation value calculated from the comparison of a given metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Martin | Paragraph 0049; [Examiner’s note, Martin teaches the baseline deviation value through the standard deviation of the user’s performance history. The performance history incorporates the metric and baseline metric values.]).
Regarding Claim 6, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising:
for each specified activity, determining at least one previous metric value for the user, each previous metric value calculated using previous sensor readings previously obtained from the user while performing the one or more specified activities (Martin | Paragraph 0049);
comparing each previous metric value to the corresponding baseline metric value for the user (Martin | Paragraph 0049); and
determining a previous injury recovery state value using at least one previous baseline deviation value, each previous baseline deviation value calculated from the comparison of a given previous metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Martin | Paragraph 0048).
Regarding Claim 7, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising determining an injury improvement value or an injury improvement rate using the current injury recovery state value and the previous injury recovery state value (Martin | Paragraphs 0028, 0140).
Regarding Claim 8, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 6 further comprising: identifying a potential recovery state value for the user using the at least one baseline metric value (Martin | Paragraph 0140); and
calculating a predicted recovery time using the current injury recovery state value and the previous injury recovery state value (Martin | Paragraph 0141).
Regarding Claim 9, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying the activity-specific sensor data corresponding to each specific activity in the sensor readings (Martin | Paragraph 0025);
for each specific activity, determining whether the specified activity was performed correctly or incorrectly based on the activity-specific sensor data; and only calculating the at least one metric value in response to determining that the specified activity was performed correctly (Martin | Paragraph 0416).
Regarding Claim 10, Martin in view of Clay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each specified activity is identified from a predefined list of potential activities and the method further comprises, for each specified activity: evaluating the sensor readings to identify activity-specific sensor data corresponding to one of the potential activities (Martin | Paragraph 0048, 0096);
identifying the one of the potential activities as that specified activity (Martin | Paragraph 0096); and
determining that the specified activity was performed correctly in response to determining that the activity-specific sensor data corresponds to the one of the potential activities (Martin | Paragraph 0416; [Examiner’s note, the system utilizes the user’s contact time and reaction time when performing a specified activity to correct any asymmetry and incorrect form.]).
Regarding Claim 11, Martin discloses a system (Martin | system 1000) for quantifying an injury recovery state for a user comprising:
a plurality of sensors mountable to a user, wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to obtain a plurality of sensor readings from the user while the user is performing one or more specified activities (Martin | Paragraph 0017; Figures 36-37);
a memory configured to store the plurality of sensor readings (Martin | component housing – element 140; Figures 36-37; Paragraph 0112, The component housing 140 encloses and protects a collection of wearable operative components that are configured to collect user data and transmit the data to the system during use of the exercise programs); and
one or more processors (Martin | component housing – element 140; Paragraph 0112) configured to:
identify the one or more specified activities (Martin | Paragraph 0112);
for each specified activity of the one or more specified activities, calculate at least one metric value for the user based on activity-specific sensor data corresponding to that specified activity from the plurality of sensor readings (Martin | Paragraph 0049, 0104), wherein each metric value corresponds to a particular metric of interest associated with that specified activity (Martin | Paragraph 0106); and
Martin does not explicitly disclose compare each metric value to a corresponding baseline metric value for the user; and calculate a quantified injury recovery state value based on the comparison of each metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value;
Clay teaches compare each metric value to a corresponding baseline metric value for the user (Clay | Figure 4; Paragraphs 0117, 130, 0319; [Examiner’s note, the pre-operative data represents the baseline metric value, and the post-operative data represents the metric value.]); and calculate a quantified injury recovery state value based on the comparison of each metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Clay | Figures 4, 14; Paragraphs 0075, 0117, 130, 0319). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method of Martin to incorporate the teachings of quantified injury recovery state. Doing so would allow for a personalized injury prevention and recovery plan for the patient because the data collected prior to an injury or diagnosis can enable early detection and proper treatment (Clay | Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 12, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of sensor readings are obtained after the user has incurred an injury (Martin | Paragraph 0140).
Regarding Claim 13, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors is configured to calculate each baseline metric value using baseline sensor readings obtained prior to the user incurring the injury (Martin | Paragraph 0120).
Regarding Claim 14, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the injury is to a first lower limb of the user and the one or more processors is configured to:
calculate each metric value using first limb sensor readings in the plurality of sensor readings, the first limb sensor readings received from sensors positioned to monitor the first lower limb (Martin | Figures 36-37, Paragraph 0109); and
calculate each baseline metric value using second limb sensor readings in the plurality of sensor readings, the second limb sensor readings received from sensors positioned to monitor a second lower limb of the user, wherein the second lower limb is uninjured (Martin | Paragraph 0104, 0120, 0140; [Examiner’s note, the system 1000 contains a wearable device 100, an insole, which captures both baseline data and activity-specific data from both limbs.]).
Regarding Claim 15, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine the quantified injury recovery state value as a current injury recovery state value using at least one baseline deviation value, wherein each baseline deviation value is calculated from the comparison of a given metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Martin | Paragraph 0049; [Examiner’s note, Martin teaches the baseline deviation value through the standard deviation of the user’s performance history. The performance history incorporates the metric and baseline metric values.]).
Regarding Claim 16, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors is configured to:
for each specified activity, determine at least one previous metric value for the user, each previous metric value calculated using previous sensor readings previously obtained from the user while performing the one or more specified activities (Martin | Paragraph 0049);
compare each previous metric value to the corresponding baseline metric value for the user (Martin | Paragraph 0049); and
determine a previous injury recovery state value using at least one previous baseline deviation value, each previous baseline deviation value calculated from the comparison of a given previous metric value and the corresponding baseline metric value (Martin | Paragraph 0048).
Regarding Claim 17, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine an injury improvement value or an injury improvement rate using the current injury recovery state value and the previous injury recovery state value (Martin | Paragraphs 0028, 0140).
Regarding Claim 18, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 16 wherein the one or more processors is configured to:
identify a potential recovery state value for the user using the at least one baseline metric value (Martin | Paragraph 0140); and
calculate a predicted recovery time using the current injury recovery state value and the previous injury recovery state value (Martin | Paragraph 0141).
Regarding Claim 19, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a force-sensing element (Martin | Paragraph 0017, “the plurality of sensors includes one, two, three, four or five sensors. The individual sensors are configured to sense pressure. The sensors can be pressure sensors”) and/or an inertial measurement unit [Examiner’s note, the claim comprises multiple limitations; however, only one of the alternatives needs to be supported by the prior art.].
Regarding Claim 20, Martin in view of Clay teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of sensors is disposed on a wearable device, and wherein the wearable device is an insole (Martin | Paragraph 0104).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRISTI DIVINA GOMES whose telephone number is (571)272-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30-4:30 & Friday 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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
/SRISTI DIVINA GOMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights