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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: input unit and output unit in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Input unit will be interpreted as “a microphone, image or video capture device, keyboard or keypad, joystick, touch-sensitive surface (separate from or integrated into a touchscreen) or the like” per para [0069] of applicant’s specification.
Output unit will be interpreted as a display, loudspeaker, or computer per para [0039] of applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receiving specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications were defined by a physician based on an individual therapy for the patient, wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values”, “outputting a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test, determining and/or receiving one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test,”, “comparing the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values to determine one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values”, “and making available the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to the physician by outputting and/or storing the mobility parameters and/or the deviations, and/or by transmitting the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a separate computer system.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “computer” in claim 1 and “sensor” in claim 9. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0038] of Kaida (US 20200359958 A1). Regarding claim 1 a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-9 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Thus, claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 10 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receiving specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications were defined by a physician based on an individual therapy for the patient, wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values”, “outputting a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test, determining and/or receiving one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test,”, “comparing the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values to determine one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values”, “and making available the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to the physician by outputting and/or storing the mobility parameters and/or the deviations, and/or by transmitting the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a separate computer system.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “computer”, “input unit”, and “output unit” (see claim interpretation above). However, these elements are not “significantly more” because a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 10 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 11 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receive specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications were defined by a physician based on an individual therapy for the patient, wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values”, “receive the specifications from the first computer system, at repeating points in time”, “output a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test, determine and/or receive one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test,”, “compare the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values to determine one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values”, “receive the mobility parameters and/or the deviations from the second computer system, and output the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a physician.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “computer”. However, this elements are not “significantly more” because a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 11 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 12 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receive specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications were defined by a physician based on an individual therapy for the patient, wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values”, “output a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test, determine and/or receive one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test,”, “compare the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values to determine one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values”, “receive the mobility parameters and/or the deviations from the second computer system, and output the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a physician.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “computer”. However, this elements are not “significantly more” because a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 12 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benford (US 20180132758 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Benford discloses a computer-implemented method (abstract) comprising: receiving specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications were defined by a physician based on an individual therapy for the patient ([0054]: “client database 504 may include a diagnostic history data set 505 compiled over time for any gait analysis client. The diagnostic data may include known pre-existing conditions and general health characteristics of the client as compiled over time of treating the client. The client database may also include a treatment history data set 506 for the gait analysis client.”), wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values ([0058]: “a threshold value might be introduced into a gait analysis test, such as a measurement D, representing an outer threshold distance for stance.”); at repeating points in time ([0037]: “A gait test may be performed on a scheduled routine,”): outputting a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test ([0037]: “Gait tests or sessions typically include a time window and at least some instruction to the user, in this case client 104.”), determining and/or receiving one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test ([0046]: “Motion may be captured, such as foot placement and articulation of the foot from heel to toe during walking.”), and comparing the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values to determine one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values ([0058]: “, if sensors record a stance measurement that falls into or exceeds the threshold, an alert might be generated to the client, a doctor, or to a caretaker”); and making available the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to the physician by outputting and/or storing the mobility parameters and/or the deviations, and/or by transmitting the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a separate computer system ([0058]: “Introducing a threshold may be useful for a nurse, for example, that may be monitoring the walking of one or more clients, where the monitoring is remote from a nurse's laptop or desktop system, and the nurse may see any alert or signal relative to the walking client. In such a case, a nurse might be alerted to a situation, such as the patient tiring”).
Regarding claim 2, Benford discloses in case of a defined deviation between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values: providing a message to the physician about the deviation ([0058]: “Introducing a threshold may be useful for a nurse, for example, that may be monitoring the walking of one or more clients, where the monitoring is remote from a nurse's laptop or desktop system, and the nurse may see any alert or signal relative to the walking client. In such a case, a nurse might be alerted to a situation, such as the patient tiring”).
Regarding claim 4, Benford discloses wherein the one or more thresholds include a maximum duration that the patient should not exceed when performing the mobility test ([0058]) and the one or more mobility parameters include a period of time required for the patient to complete the mobility test ([0010]: “determining gait characteristics for the test subject, including at least stride length and timing, “)[0057]: “depicting points of positional measurement by sensors over time and distance. Diagram 600 depicts a distance/time line (D/T) and a series of recorded steps by a client that may be under test. In this chart, important points of measure may include the distance between alternate steps made by the gait analysis client as distance A. The analysis may look for difference in A that may repeat alternatively of time and distance of the gait”).
Regarding claim 5, Benford further discloses wherein a defined deviation from the maximum duration that the patient should not exceed when performing the mobility test is that the period of time is greater than the maximum duration ([0039]: “, timing of foot placement while walking at a constant speed,”, [0057-0058]: “of positional measurement by sensors over time and distance. Diagram 600 depicts a distance/time line (D/T)… The sensors may also record distance between plants of a same foot such as distance C during a normal gait, and may record differences, and may compare with like measurements from the opposite feet. In one implementation, a threshold value might be introduced into a gait analysis test… exceeds the threshold”, wherein the positional data compared is taken with respect to time).
Regarding claim 6, Benford further discloses the specifications further comprise times at which the patient should take a medication ([0036]: “Any medications and dose regimens of a client like client 104 may be accessible to server 106.”).
Regarding claim 7, Benford further discloses at repeating points in time: outputting a message to the patient, where the message reminds the patient to take a medication, receiving confirmation from the patient that the patient has taken the medication, and storing the confirmation and the time of the confirmation; and providing the confirmation and the time of the confirmation to the physician ([0055]: "a gait analysis test might be created for a client who suffers from severe arthritis in the hips, and the purpose for gait testing is to see how well a certain medication is working to improve mobility of the patient in walking. A model of the subject's gait might be created from data recorded before taking a medication... Once on the medication, a series of subsequent tests might be performed by the client and reported for processing and analysis against the predictive model to determine if the patient has improved in mobility, balance, posture, and so on. In a variation, tests may be performed on different medications to determine which medication improves mobility for the client at a more satisfactory level.", wherein the time of medication use is recorded and reported).
Regarding claim 9, Benford further discloses at repeating points in time: at repeating points in time: receiving activity data from one or more sensors ([0033]: " sensors may be wired to device 120 for power and communication. In one implementation, each sensor includes its own power source and wireless communications circuitry and can communicate collected data wirelessly to device 120 using such as a Bluetooth technology, or a near field communication (NFC) wireless protocol."), the activity data comprising data on the patient's daily and/or nocturnal activity ([0033]: “that data may be taken during activity periods normal for client 104 at home or in a work or recreational environment away from home”), assigning the activity data to an activity profile and/or sleep profile, and storing the activity data and/or the activity profile and/or the sleep profile ([0067]: “begin activity. As the client begins, the sensors record data and the intermediary device collects the sensor data at step 805. In one aspect, the sensor microcontrollers may normalize sensor data before transferring the data to the intermediary device. A microcontroller running a firmware or software algorithm may average data, delete some data, prioritize data, and so on.”); and providing the activity data and/or the activity profile and/or the sleep profile to the physician ([0010]: “in a manner to be retrieved and displayed.”).
Regarding claim 10, Benford discloses a computer system comprising a processor ([0028]: “a processor,”), an input unit ([0049]: “computing device having an input mechanism”), an output unit ([0065]), and a memory storing an application program configured to perform ([0028]: “a storage medium such as flash memory”), when executed by the processor, an operation ([0028]: “a memory to support at least one software (SW) application”), the operation comprising: receiving specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications were defined by a physician based on an individual therapy for the patient ([0054]: “client database 504 may include a diagnostic history data set 505 compiled over time for any gait analysis client. The diagnostic data may include known pre-existing conditions and general health characteristics of the client as compiled over time of treating the client. The client database may also include a treatment history data set 506 for the gait analysis client.”), wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values ([0058]: “a threshold value might be introduced into a gait analysis test, such as a measurement D, representing an outer threshold distance for stance.”); at repeating points in time ([0037]: “A gait test may be performed on a scheduled routine,”): outputting a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test ([0037]: “Gait tests or sessions typically include a time window and at least some instruction to the user, in this case client 104.”), determining and/or receiving one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test ([0046]: “Motion may be captured, such as foot placement and articulation of the foot from heel to toe during walking.”), and comparing the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values to determine one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values ([0058]: “, if sensors record a stance measurement that falls into or exceeds the threshold, an alert might be generated to the client, a doctor, or to a caretaker”); and making available the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to the physician by outputting and/or storing the mobility parameters and/or the deviations, and/or by transmitting the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a separate computer system ([0058]: “Introducing a threshold may be useful for a nurse, for example, that may be monitoring the walking of one or more clients, where the monitoring is remote from a nurse's laptop or desktop system, and the nurse may see any alert or signal relative to the walking client. In such a case, a nurse might be alerted to a situation, such as the patient tiring”).
Regarding claim 11, Benford discloses a system comprising a first computer system and a second computer system (Fig 1 elements 117 and 114), wherein: the first computer system is configured to: receive specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values, and transmit the specifications to the second computer system ([0034]: “. Device 120, aided by SW 119 may transfer data to another device, like a smart phone 115 executing SW 117 or to laptop 114 executing SW 118”); the second computer system is configured to: receive the specifications from the first computer system, at repeating points in time ([0054]: “client database 504 may include a diagnostic history data set 505 compiled over time for any gait analysis client. The diagnostic data may include known pre-existing conditions and general health characteristics of the client as compiled over time of treating the client. The client database may also include a treatment history data set 506 for the gait analysis client.”, [0037]: “A gait test may be performed on a scheduled routine,”): output a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test ([0037]: “Gait tests or sessions typically include a time window and at least some instruction to the user, in this case client 104.”); determine and/or receive one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test ([0046]: “Motion may be captured, such as foot placement and articulation of the foot from heel to toe during walking.”); and compare the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values, thereby determining one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values ([0058]: “, if sensors record a stance measurement that falls into or exceeds the threshold, an alert might be generated to the client, a doctor, or to a caretaker”), and transmit the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to the first computer system, and the first computer system is configured to: receive the mobility parameters and/or the deviations from the second computer system ([0074]: “. Whether data from the sensors is processed in real time as it is received, immediately after all the data is received, or later after the data is received and stored, may be a matter of instruction and purpose of gait testing for a client.”), and output the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a physician [0058]: “Introducing a threshold may be useful for a nurse, for example, that may be monitoring the walking of one or more clients, where the monitoring is remote from a nurse's laptop or desktop system, and the nurse may see any alert or signal relative to the walking client. In such a case, a nurse might be alerted to a situation, such as the patient tiring”).
Regarding claim 12, Benford discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing software instructions that ([0028]: “a memory to support at least one software (SW) application”), when executed by a processor of a computer system ([0028]: “a processor,”), cause the computer system to: receive specifications for a Parkinson's patient, wherein the specifications were defined by a physician based on an individual therapy for the patient ([0054]: “client database 504 may include a diagnostic history data set 505 compiled over time for any gait analysis client. The diagnostic data may include known pre-existing conditions and general health characteristics of the client as compiled over time of treating the client. The client database may also include a treatment history data set 506 for the gait analysis client.”), wherein the specifications contain one or more threshold values ([0058]: “a threshold value might be introduced into a gait analysis test, such as a measurement D, representing an outer threshold distance for stance.”); at repeating points in time ([0037]: “A gait test may be performed on a scheduled routine,”): output a message to the patient, the message comprising a request to perform a mobility test ([0037]: “Gait tests or sessions typically include a time window and at least some instruction to the user, in this case client 104.”), determine and/or receiving one or more mobility parameters as a result of the performance of the mobility test ([0046]: “Motion may be captured, such as foot placement and articulation of the foot from heel to toe during walking.”), and compare the one or more mobility parameters with the one or more threshold values, thereby determining one or more deviations between the one or more mobility parameters and the one or more threshold values [0058]: “, if sensors record a stance measurement that falls into or exceeds the threshold, an alert might be generated to the client, a doctor, or to a caretaker”); and making available the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to the physician by outputting and/or storing the mobility parameters and/or the deviations, and/or by transmitting the mobility parameters and/or the deviations to a separate computer system ([0058]: “Introducing a threshold may be useful for a nurse, for example, that may be monitoring the walking of one or more clients, where the monitoring is remote from a nurse's laptop or desktop system, and the nurse may see any alert or signal relative to the walking client. In such a case, a nurse might be alerted to a situation, such as the patient tiring”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benford in view of Saria et al. (US 20180206775 A1), hereinafter Saria.
Regarding claim 3, Benford discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein the mobility test is a timed up and go test which involves the patient standing up from a seated position in a chair with armrests, walking a defined distance in a direction away from the chair, turning around, returning to the chair, and sitting down again.
Saria discloses a method of monitoring patients with Parkinson’s disease ([0013]) wherein a mobility test is a timed up and go test which involves the patient standing up from a seated position in a chair with armrests, walking a defined distance in a direction away from the chair, turning around, returning to the chair, and sitting down again ([0081]: “were asked to regularly complete the smartphone activities alongside traditional in-person clinical assessments, including the MDS-UPDRS Parts III and IV, the Hoehn & Yahr stage, and the Timed Up and Go Test”, Table VII).
As Benford discloses a variety of mobility tests that may be implemented ([0038]: “Any conceivable gait style might be considered”), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the mobility test disclosed by Benford to include the timed up and go test as disclosed by Saria in order to expand the mobility data set collected.
Regarding claim 8, Benford discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose at repeating points in time: outputting questions about the quality of the patient's life to the patient, receiving answers to the questions from the patient, storing the answers, and providing the answers to the physician.
Saria discloses a method of monitoring patients with Parkinson’s disease ([0013]) wherein at repeating points in time: outputting questions about the quality of the patient's life to the patient ([0039]: "3) Self-reported evaluation of their overall health, mood, and well-being: the significant advantage of such mobile-based questionnaires is that they can be completed outside the clinic."), receiving answers to the questions from the patient (Fig 10B), storing the answers, and providing the answers to the physician (Fig 10B).
It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Benford to include the questionnaires disclosed by Saria in order to allow for collection of additional data relevant to the evaluation of Parkinson’s disease (Saria [0039]: “For example, considering that about half to two-thirds of people with PD report that they have memory problems, an on-demand survey system which can probe such problems may be much more accurate and effective than the current approach”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rath (US 20150004575 A1) – discloses a threshold for duration of a mobility test
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791