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
Applicants’ election with traverse of the restriction and species in the reply filed on 3/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) discussed below. This is not found persuasive for the reasons enumerated below.
As recited in the restriction claims 1 and 20 are directed to method and apparatus respectively which are likely to raise different non-prior art issues such as 101 and 112 – for example 112b issues regarding 101 for the use of a human body are likely to raise different issues. The device, wearable, recited can be used to perform another materially different use such as applying a threshold and making a fever determination. Applicants argue there is no discussion of mutual exclusivity between the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 20. However, mutual exclusivity and overlapping in scope is not the proper analysis for the comparison between a product and process for its use (that analysis is from MPEP 806.05(j) Related Products; Related Processes) as such this argument is not persuasive. Regardless, upon further consideration the restriction between Invention I and II is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
With regards arguments to the species restriction Applicants argue that the species do not recite mutually exclusive characteristics. Examiner disagrees. As shown through the respective CPC classifications, there are different searches required, and this creates a search burden. Claim 3 does not require all the specific limitations of the species, amending in claim 3 does not remove distinctness of the different species. Applicants next mention the elements “may be employed additionally or alternatively”, this was accounted for in the species restriction with the discussion of the species 1-6 (or combinations of them). Each of the combinations of one or more of these is an alternative species, as it requires only the specifics of that species. As such this argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 4-9, 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Applicants elected the combination of all Sleep, HRV, HR, RR, Sp02), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/7/26.
In conclusion claims 1-3, 12-20 are the elected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per MPEP 2161.01 "It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)" and "Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. ".
In reviewing Applicants specification (using PG Pub for paragraph numbers) [0162]-[0163]. Which recite functionally, for example from [0162] “in some cases, the predicted and/or identified one or more conditions of mental or emotional distress may be used to update (e.g., modify) one or more scores associated with the user (e.g., Sleep Score, Readiness Score, etc.).” but don’t disclose how this is performed. Similarly, in [0163] it provides the result of the function “the Readiness Score may indicate to the user to “pay attention”” but doesn’t seem to disclose how the indication of the condition is implemented with the score to adjust it. The specification recites a functional intent, to determine/set parameters, without disclosing how the intent is achieved.
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 1-3, 12-20 are rejected under 101 see the analysis below.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-3, 12-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process (method) or machine (system and wearable). The claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process and/or mathematical concept.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Claim 1/20, recite the limitations of “identifying” whether the plurality of temperature values deviates from a baseline, “detecting” an indication of a condition of mental or emotional distress based on the temperature deviation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or a mathematical concept. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, upon reviewing the new data in view of the old data a person can mentally (or with pen and paper) compare it to previously gathered data, calculate a deviation in the new data respective to the old data and detect an indication of a condition of mental or emotional distress. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; while the use of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations are Mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Claim 1/20, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim includes the additional elements “receiving . . .”, “inputting . . .”, “determining a time series of a plurality of temperature values . . .” and “generating . . .” the output message. The steps of “receiving . . .”, “inputting . . .”, and “determining a time series of a plurality of temperature values . . .” amount to insignificant, extra- solution activity in that it is data gathering. While the step of “generating . . .” the output message amounts to insignificant, extra- solution activity in that it is outputting the result of the abstract idea. The processor (i.e., “processor”, “computer processor”, “cloud-computing device”, “mobile device”, “processing system” etc.) in computing steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of estimating using a model) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Claim 1, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As with step 2A, Prong 2 above, the claim includes the additional elements “receiving . . .”, “inputting . . .”, “determining a time series of a plurality of temperature values . . .” and “generating . . .” the output message. The steps of “receiving . . .”, “inputting . . .”, and “determining a time series of a plurality of temperature values . . .” amount to insignificant, extra- solution activity in that it is data gathering. While the step of “generating . . .” the output message amounts to insignificant, extra- solution activity in that it is outputting the result of the abstract idea. The processor (i.e., “processor”, “computer processor”, “cloud-computing device”, “mobile device”, “processing system” etc.) in computing steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of estimating using a model) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, per the Berkheimer requirement, wearable with sensors for temperature and processing are shown by: (1) Calleja see citations below; (2) Kinnunen (cited below) see [0072], Figs. 1-2, 7; (3) US 20180120892 see [0130]-[0132], Fig. 2; (4) US 20190122125 see [0030], [0036], Fig. 2; (5) US 20140276119 see [0120], [0123]-[0124]; (6) US 20170095670 see [0030], [0033], [0050]-[0051]. As such the elements are shown to be WRC. The claim limitations when viewed individually and in combination therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are therefore ineligible.
Claims 2-3, 12-19 only further define the data gathering/outputting a result (insignificant, extra-solution activity) or further define the abstract idea (i.e., only further define the mental process/mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims do not include any additional elements that show integration into a practical application and do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
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 1-3, 12-20 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.
Claim 1/20 recites “inputting, using one or more processors, the physiological data into a machine learning model based at least in part on receiving the physiological data; determining, using the one or more processors, a time series of a plurality of temperature values taken over a plurality of days based at least in part on the received temperature data; identifying, using the one or more processors, that the plurality of temperature values deviate from a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal baseline of temperature values for the user based at least in part on determining the time series; detecting, using the machine learning model, an indication of a condition of mental or emotional distress based at least in part on identifying that the plurality of temperature values deviate from the prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal baseline of temperature values for the user;” the clarity issue is what is actually input into the machine learning module. The “inputting” element recites inputting the initial temperature data into the machine learning (ML) model. Then it’s unclear if the “determining” and “identifying” steps are in the ML or these are outside of it? Then the final “detecting” element recites detecting an indication of a condition based at least on the “deviation”. The question is, is the ML model taking the input of the initially gathered data and performing all the functions? Are the deviations determined and then entered into the ML model? Or is it some other process? Turning to the spec does not seem to provide further clarity on this figs. 8-10 the deviation/delta steps refer to reference numbers 630 and 635 which are discussed in [0179]-[0180] and for 635 recites “The deviation component 635 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for identifying that the plurality of temperature values deviate from a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal baseline of temperature values for the user based at least in part on determining the time series” but doesn’t mention anything about ML models. Whereas Figs. 8-10 discussion of the “indication of a condition” elements refer to reference number 640, which is discussed see the condition/indication element [0190]-[0191] and [0196] the last of which recites using machine learning. For the above reasons the claims do not clearly define the mete and bounds of the claim and the claim is indefinite. The claims depending from these claims share this issue and are likewise indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, 14, 16-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230104450 to Calleja et al. (hereinafter Calleja) in view of WO 2020194350 to Kapil (hereinafter Kapil).
Regarding Claim 1, an interpretation of Calleja discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a wearable device, physiological data associated with a user ([0030], [0036] see also [0023], [0170]), the physiological data comprising at least temperature data ([0025], [0047] including “A physiological parameter measured . . . temperature” see also [0023], [0170]);
inputting, using one or more processors ([0017]-[0018], [0036] see also [0170]), the physiological data into a machine learning model based at least in part on receiving the physiological data ([0028]-[0029], [0031]-[0032]);
determining, using the one or more processors, a time series of a plurality of temperature values taken over a plurality of days based at least in part on the received temperature data ([0047], [0070]-[0071] including “Average across days”, [0090] see also [0072]-[0081], [0122], [0170]; Examiner notes [0071]-[0081] are a list of computed variables (or derived parameters) calculated based on plurality of data of each physiological parameter over a period of time);
identifying, using the one or more processors, that the plurality of temperature values deviate from a baseline of temperature values for the user based at least in part on determining the time series ([0023], [0029], [0047], [0069], [0082], [0090]-[0091] see also [0170]);
detecting, using the machine learning model, an indication of a condition of mental or emotional distress based at least in part on identifying that the plurality of temperature values deviate from the baseline of temperature values for the user ([0020], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0049] including “The method for providing stepped mental health care can also be used to diagnose many mental health disorders and illnesses, such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorders, phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD), . . . postpartum depression . . .”, [0091] see also [0026]-[0028], [0031]-[0032], [0170]); and
generating a message for display on a graphical user interface of a user device that indicates the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress ([0020] including “The output unit 22 is configured to output content to the user based on the detected mental health state of the user or based on a change in the mental health state of the user.”, [0026], [0036] including “For example, the output unit 22 can control a graphical user interface,”, [0049], [0093] see also [0023], [0034], [0170]).
While Calleja discloses determining the mental health of a user, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose the user is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Kapil teaches determining the mental health of a user who is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy ([014], [032]-[034] see also [019], [039], [087]; Kapil also discloses using a wearable to monitor various physiological parameters of a pregnant person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Calleja to determine mental condition of a user and output information to include the user experiencing a period of pregnancy as recited by Kapil by monitoring the expectant mother during pregnancy steps can be taken to address the mothers mental distress thereby protecting the wellbeing of the fetus ([014, [016]-[017]).
Regarding Claim 2, an interpretation of Calleja further discloses further comprising: computing a delta in the time series of the plurality of temperature values based at least in part on determining the time series ([0023], [0029], [0047], [0069], [0082], [0090]-[0091] see also [0086], [0170]), wherein identifying that the plurality of temperature values deviate from the baseline of temperature values is based at least in part on computing the delta ([0023], [0029], [0047], [0069], [0082], [0090]-[0091] see also [0086], [0170]).
While Calleja discloses determining the mental health of a user, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose the user is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Kapil teaches determining the mental health of a user who is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy ([014], [032]-[034] see also [019], [039], [087]; Kapil also discloses using a wearable to monitor various physiological parameters of a pregnant person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Calleja to determine mental condition of a user and output information to include the user experiencing a period of pregnancy as recited by Kapil by monitoring the expectant mother during pregnancy steps can be taken to address the mothers mental distress thereby protecting the wellbeing of the fetus ([014, [016]-[017]).
Regarding Claim 12, an interpretation of Calleja further discloses estimating a likelihood of a future condition of mental or emotional distress based at least in part on identifying that the plurality of temperature values deviates from than baseline of temperature values ([0027]-[0028] including “The prediction unit 20 is configured to predict a change in the user's mental health state, and thus also a change in the classification result of the classification unit 18, in the future based on the changes detected by the analysis unit 17.”, [0032], [0047] see also [0049], [0170]).
While Calleja discloses determining the mental health of a user, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose the user is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Kapil teaches determining the mental health of a user who is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy ([014], [032]-[034] see also [019], [039], [087]; Kapil also discloses using a wearable to monitor various physiological parameters of a pregnant person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Calleja to determine mental condition of a user and output information to include the user experiencing a period of pregnancy as recited by Kapil by monitoring the expectant mother during pregnancy steps can be taken to address the mothers mental distress thereby protecting the wellbeing of the fetus ([014], [016]-[017]).
Regarding Claim 14, an interpretation of Calleja further discloses transmitting the message that indicates the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress to the user device, wherein the user device is associated with a clinician ([0037] including “For example, if “severe depression” has been determined to be the user's mental state, an alert can be displayed on a physician's device, such as via a wireless connection” see also [0020], [0023], [0170]).
Regarding Claim 16, an interpretation of Calleja further discloses causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display the message associated with the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress ([0020] including “The output unit 22 is configured to output content to the user based on the detected mental health state of the user or based on a change in the mental health state of the user.”, [0026], [0036] including “For example, the output unit 22 can control a graphical user interface,”, [0049], [0093] see also [0023], [0034], [0170]).
Regarding Claim 17, an interpretation of Calleja further discloses wherein the message further comprises recommendations to improve symptoms associated with the condition of mental or emotional distress ([0022]-[0023], [0026], [0093] see also [0020], [0026], [0034], [0049], [0170]).
Regarding Claim 20, an interpretation of Calleja discloses a system for identifying mental or emotional distress (abstract), comprising:
a wearable device configured to measure physiological data from a user ([0030], [0036] see also [0023], [0170]), the physiological data comprising at least temperature data ([0025], [0047] including “A physiological parameter measured . . . temperature” see also [0023], [0170]); and
one or more processors configured, individually or in combination, ([0017]-[0018], [0036] see also [0170]) to:
input, into a machine learning model, the physiological data based at least in part on receiving the physiological data ([0028]-[0029], [0031]-[0032]);
determine a time series of a plurality of temperature values taken over a plurality of days based at least in part on the received temperature data ([0047], [0070]-[0071] including “Average across days”, [0090] see also [0072]-[0081], [0122], [0170]; Examiner notes [0071]-[0081] are a list of computed variables (or derived parameters) calculated based on plurality of data of each physiological parameter over a period of time);
identify that the plurality of temperature values deviate from a baseline of temperature values for the user based at least in part on determining the time series ([0023], [0029], [0047], [0069], [0082], [0090]-[0091] see also [0170]);
detect, using the machine learning model, an indication of a condition of mental or emotional distress based at least in part on identifying that the plurality of temperature values deviate from the baseline of temperature values for the user ([0020], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0049] including “The method for providing stepped mental health care can also be used to diagnose many mental health disorders and illnesses, such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorders, phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD), . . . postpartum depression . . .”, [0091] see also [0026]-[0028], [0031]-[0032], [0170]); and
generate a message for display on a graphical user interface of a user device that indicates the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress ([0020] including “The output unit 22 is configured to output content to the user based on the detected mental health state of the user or based on a change in the mental health state of the user.”, [0026], [0036] including “For example, the output unit 22 can control a graphical user interface,”, [0049], [0093] see also [0023], [0034], [0170]).
While Calleja discloses determining the mental health of a user, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose the user is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Kapil teaches determining the mental health of a user who is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy ([014], [032]-[034] see also [019], [039], [087]; Kapil also discloses using a wearable to monitor various physiological parameters of a pregnant person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Calleja to determine mental condition of a user and output information to include the user experiencing a period of pregnancy as recited by Kapil by monitoring the expectant mother during pregnancy steps can be taken to address the mothers mental distress thereby protecting the wellbeing of the fetus ([014, [016]-[017]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calleja in view of Kapil in further view of US 20180042540 to Kinnunen et al. (hereinafter Kinnunen).
Regarding Claim 3, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose wherein the physiological data further comprises additional data based on a photoplethysmogram (PPG) signal from the wearable device.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic methods), Kinnunen teaches wherein the physiological data further comprises additional data based on a photoplethysmogram (PPG) signal from the wearable device ([0072], [0077]-[0078], Figs. 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable sensing system as recited by Calleja to include the wearable sensing device sensing using PPG as recited by Kinnunen because it is merely the use of known technique (PPG sensing on a wearable from Kinnunen) to improve similar method (wearable sensing device from Calleja) in the same way.
Regarding Claim 13, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose updating a Readiness Score associated with the user, an Activity Score associated with the user, a Sleep Score associated with the user, or a combination thereof, based at least in part on detecting the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic methods), Kinnunen teaches updating a Readiness Score associated with the user based at least in part on detecting the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress ([0065], [0092]-[0093] including “based on long data, trends, cross-correlation analysis of the deep data analysis (i.e. heart rate variability, hypnogram, stress level and the like) the readiness score is calculated.”; readiness score is updated repetitively, it is determined “based at least in part on” stress level (i.e. a form of mental or emotional distress)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Calleja to include a readiness score which is updated as recited by Kinnunen because it provides appropriate suggestions or recommendations that may help the individual to efficiently recover from such mental and/or physical load ([0003], [0095]).
Regarding Claim 19, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose wherein the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic methods), Kinnunen teaches disclose wherein the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device ([0072], [0077]-[0078], Figs. 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable sensing system as recited by Calleja to include the wearable sensing ring device as recited by Kinnunen because it is merely the use of known technique (wearable ring sensing device from Kinnunen) to improve similar method (wearable sensing device from Calleja) in the same way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calleja in view of Kapil in further view of US 20120289790 to Jain et al. (hereinafter Jain).
Regarding Claim 15, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display pregnancy symptom tags, postpartum symptom tags, stress symptom tags, or any combination thereof, based at least in part on detecting the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic methods), Jain teaches causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display stress symptom tags based at least in part on detecting the indication of the condition of mental or emotional distress ([0029], [0066], Figs. 3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable sensing system as recited by Calleja to include the step of causing of the GUI to display tags based on the determination of a indication as recited by Jain because it is merely Combining prior art elements (system and analysis of Calleja with the additional step of Jain ) according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calleja in view of Kapil in further view of US 20220373398 to Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 18, an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose the user is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Kapil teaches determining the mental health of a user who is experiencing a prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal period of pregnancy ([014], [032]-[034] see also [019], [039], [087]; Kapil also discloses using a wearable to monitor various physiological parameters of a pregnant person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Calleja to determine mental condition of a user and output information to include the user experiencing a period of pregnancy as recited by Kapil by monitoring the expectant mother during pregnancy steps can be taken to address the mothers mental distress thereby protecting the wellbeing of the fetus ([014], [016]-[017]).
an interpretation of Calleja may not explicitly disclose determining that a timing of a maximum temperature value, a minimum temperature value, or both, from the plurality of temperature values deviates from a baseline timing of a baseline maximum temperature value, a baseline minimum temperature value, or both, from baseline of temperature values.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic methods), Lee teaches determining that a timing of a maximum temperature value from the plurality of temperature values deviates from a baseline timing of a baseline maximum temperature value from the baseline of temperature values ([0192]-[0195]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable sensing system as recited by Calleja to include the determining the timing in deviation in max temperature as recited by Lee because it is merely applying a known technique (detecting timing deviation of max temp) to a known system/method (system and analysis of Calleja) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230293023 see [0022], [0050]-[0058]
US 20210204815 see [0044], Fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 pm).
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights