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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is drawn to a computer storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, where the computer readable medium can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit a claimed computer readable medium to being statutory would be acceptable.
A claim directed to a computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program is non-statutory, where the computer readable medium can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, which are non-statutory as noted, infra.
A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A safe riding detection method, comprising: utilizing a first wearable device configured to detect a first height and a first posture of a first body part used for wearing the first wearable device; utilizing a second wearable device configured to detect a second height and a second posture of a second body part used for wearing the second wearable device; and determining whether a riding anomaly or fall has occurred based on the first height, the first posture, the second height, and the second posture.” The steps of utilizing, utilizing and determining can all be performed via mental process using routine comparison and mathematical calculations based on known variables.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites “utilizing”. However, utilizing as claimed are not active steps and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic processing/comparison utilizing known variables). Additionally, there is no practical application of the determining step.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the claim does not include additional elements that amount to more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites elements and body parts where measurements are taken but not does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites anomalies that are detected based on the routine comparison and mathematical calculations based on knowns variables but not does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the steps of utilizing and utilizing that can be performed by mental process based on known variables taken but not does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites the steps of utilizing and utilizing that can be performed by mental process based on known variables taken but not does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites the steps of calculating, utilizing and determining that can be performed by mental process based on known variables taken but not does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the steps of determining that can be performed by mental process based on known variables taken but not does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites the steps of calculating and determining that can be performed by mental process based on known variables taken but not does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are:
In claim 9, “a receiving unit”. However, the specification does not recite any corresponding structure to the claimed “receiving unit”. As such, this limitation is indefinite and will be addressed below.
In claim 9, “a detection unit” mapped to an air pressure sensor and a posture measurement device.
In claim 9, “a determination unit”. However, the specification does not recite any corresponding structure to the claimed “determination unit”. As such, this limitation is indefinite and will be addressed below.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9-14 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.
As noted above with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 9 recites a receiving unit and a determination unit with no corresponding disclosed structure in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the structure/hardware for performing the functions of the claimed receiving unit and determination unit is unclear and the overall structure of the claimed wearable device is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the first height", “the first posture”, “the first body”, “said other wearable device”, “the second height”, “the second posture” and “the second body part” in lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Given the volume of limitations without proper antecedent basis, the claim, overall, is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests amending the claim to include proper antecedent basis by adding limitations as needed.
Dependent claims 10-14, inclusive of all of the limitations of claim 9, are rejected with their base claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686