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.
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.
Examiner notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities; appropriate correction is required:
In claim(s) 7, the term ‘the mobile terminal’ should be amended to recite ‘a mobile terminal’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6 ends with the word ‘and’ and does not include a period. The entire scope of claim(s) 6 is not clear in view of this deficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected due to its/their dependence on claim(s) 6.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim(s) 1 recites
A calculation device comprising:
a memory storing instructions,
and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a gait waveform using sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor installed in one foot portion of a user,
detect a gait event from the gait waveform,
and calculate step lengths of left and right feet based on a timing of the gait event;
calculate asymmetry of the step lengths of the left and right feet;
estimate a physical condition of the user based on the asymmetry of the step lengths of the left and right feet;
and transmit information corresponding to the estimated physical condition of the user to a health management system installed in a medical institution.
(abstract portions shown in emphasis)
Step 2A Prong One
The recitation of generating a waveform, detecting an event, calculating parameters, and estimating a condition therefrom encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of mere extrasolutionary activity (i.e., mere data gathering and/or nominal outputting) and/or otherwise nominal and generic computer elements (2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance – hereafter ‘2019 PEG’ - p. 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a), (d) and (g)) (e.g., processing ‘units’).
For example, but for the recitation of obtaining/acquiring data and/or generic processing ‘units’ / functional steps to perform abstract limitations, the steps of ‘generating’, ‘detecting’, ‘calculating’ and ‘estimating’ encompasses a clinician (mentally) reviewing sensor data to then (mentally) estimate a condition of the user from the data after (mental) calculations are performed.
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extrasolutionary activity (and/or otherwise generic computing elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong one of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 only recites additional elements of generic computing structures / elements without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 - the instant claim, for example, does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection — via the claimed data obtaining, and/or a sufficiently particular form of display and/or computing/processing architecture / structure).
Independent claim(s) 9-10 encounter the same issues as claim(s) 1 mutatis mutandis.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application / integration (the dependent claim(s) reciting generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea).
Dependent claim(s) 7-8 encounter substantially the same issues as the independent claim(s) from which they depend in that they encompass further generic extrasolutionary activity (generic data gathering and nominal display) and/or generic computing elements (storage, memory per se).
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under step 2A prong two.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extrasolutionary activity (data gathering and display outputting) and generic computing elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extrasolutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).
Examiners should carefully consider each claim on its own merits, as well as evaluate all other relevant considerations, before making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, evaluation of the particular machine and particular transformation considerations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c), respectively), the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) may assist examiners in making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is insignificant extra-solution activity. Note, however, that examiners should not evaluate the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, because that consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B.
This consideration is similar to factors used in past Office guidance (for example, the now superseded Bilski and Mayo analyses) that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); Flook, 437 U.S. at 593-95, 198 USPQ at 197 (a formula would not be patentable by only indicating that is could be usefully applied to existing surveying techniques); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity). Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis.
(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
Mere Data Gathering:
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
Some cases have identified insignificant computer implementation as an example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323-24, 101 USPQ2d 1785, 1789-90 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1280-81, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Other cases have considered these types of limitations as mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about insignificant computer implementation.
For claim limitations that add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea), examiners should explain in an eligibility rejection why they do not meaningfully limit the claim. For example, an examiner could explain that adding a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space (a mathematical relationship) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area. For more information on formulating a subject matter eligibility rejection, see MPEP § 2106.07(a).
The extrasolutionary activity/step(s) of displaying information on a mobile screen and measuring spatial / angular signals, as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and activity (memory/storage, processing units), MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well‐understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the computer elements, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s). The claim(s) are not patent eligible under step 2B.
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.
Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims may be addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US 20180235516 A1) in view of Asada (US 20190254569 A1).
For claim(s) 1, 9, and 10, Morris teaches A calculation device, medium, and method [entire disclosure – see at least abstract] comprising:
a memory storing instructions, and
a processor [100] connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
generate gait sensor data based on a physical quantity related to movement of a foot measured by a sensor installed in one foot portion of a user, [Fig(s). 2]
detect a gait event from the gait data, [identification steps in Fig(s). 6]
and calculate step lengths of left and right feet based on a timing of the gait event; [step length calculation is/are central inventive feature(s) detailed throughout the majority (if not the entirety) of the disclosure of Morris – see esp. ¶¶43-51 and Fig(s). 5]
calculate asymmetry of the step lengths of the left and right feet; [¶¶62-63]
estimate a physical condition of the user based on the asymmetry of the step lengths of the left and right feet; [¶¶66-67]
and transmit information corresponding to the estimated physical condition of the user to a health management system installed in a medical institution. [¶¶36-37 and ¶67 in view of server/cloud/network structure of ¶¶29-33 where such a network / outlay would constitute(s), under BRI, at least a form of a health management system where then such a network / cloud / outlay is then at least some form of ‘medical institution’ under BRI — e.g., as part of the corrective measures in ¶38 and ¶67]
While Morris generally teaches generating gait data, Morris does not specifically teach generating a gait waveform.
Asada teaches a gait evaluation device [abstract] comprising a functional step of generating a gait waveform [Fig(s). 5] to then detect events from the gait waveform. [Fig(s). 7]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the gait data generation and subsequent detection of Morris to incorporate the use of a waveform as taught by Asada in order to improve the precision and usefulness of the movement evaluation of the subject. As motivated by Asada ¶63, ¶76.
For claim(s) 2, the motivated combination of Morris and Asada teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 1)
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
detect a first peak including a maximum value and a second peak including a minimum value in a gait waveform of an acceleration in a traveling direction for one gait cycle, detect a maximum peak between the first peak and the second peak, detect a timing of the maximum peak as a timing of a foot-adjacent, [waveform of Asada Fig(s). 5 showing a distinct four or more peaks configuration including maxima and minima to determine left-right steps through the time axis]
and calculate step lengths of the left and right feet with reference to the timing of the foot-adjacent using a gait waveform of a trajectory in the traveling direction. [Morris Fig(s). 5 in view of Asada Fig(s). 5 where then the waveform of Asada would be used in the foot timing of Morris as detailed in Morris ¶¶57-63 esp. where Morris details at the end of ¶60 that “Notably, while a GPS device is discussed as being utilized to determine both a left and a right foot speed, any device that is capable of determining a foot speed that is known in the art may be used to practice the principles described herein.” — and so the waveform of Asada Fig(s). 5 can be used instead of the GPS of Morris]. As motivated in claim(s) 1.
For claim(s) 4, the motivated combination of Morris and Asada teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 1)
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
detect a timing of toe-off and a timing of a heel-strike in a gait waveform of an acceleration in a traveling direction for one gait cycle, detect a timing of a tibia-vertical between the timing of the toe-off and the timing of the heel-strike in a gait waveform of an acceleration in a gravity direction, detect a timing of a foot-adjacent between the timing of the toe-off and the timing of the tibia-vertical in the gait waveform of the acceleration in the traveling direction, [waveform of Asada Fig(s). 5 showing timings of heel and ball contact with ground as well as mid-stance and leg swing events which would then necessarily include tibia vertical timing and toe-off as well]
and calculate step lengths of the left and right feet with reference to the timing of the foot-adjacent using a gait waveform of a trajectory in the traveling direction. [Morris Fig(s). 5 in view of Asada Fig(s). 5 where then the waveform of Asada would be used in the foot timing of Morris as detailed in Morris ¶¶57-63 esp. where Morris details at the end of ¶60 that “Notably, while a GPS device is discussed as being utilized to determine both a left and a right foot speed, any device that is capable of determining a foot speed that is known in the art may be used to practice the principles described herein.” — and so the waveform of Asada Fig(s). 5 can be used instead of the GPS of Morris]. As motivated in claim(s) 1.
For claim(s) 8, Morris teaches
the calculation device according to claim 1;
and a data acquisition device that measures spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, generates the sensor data based on the spatial acceleration and spatial angular velocity, and transmits the sensor data to the calculation device. [one or more of shoes in Fig(s). 2 which show gyroscopes (would measure spatial angular velocity) and accelerometers to computer in Fig(s). 1]
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Asada and Barth (US 20190150793 A1).
For claim(s) 6, Morris and Asada are silent regarding the use of a machine learning model.
Barth teaches a gait evaluation system [abstract] where an estimation of a physical condition of a user from gait data (including a gait waveform) occurs by inputting feature amounts into a machine learning model. [¶¶91-101]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Morris and Asada to incorporate the machine learning model of Barth (e.g., as part of the waveform feature extraction of Morris and Asada) in order to increase the accuracy and usefulness of the gait analyses. As motivated by Barth ¶¶14-31.
For claim(s) 7, Asada teaches (in the motivated combination of claim(s) 1)
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to
display information related to the estimated physical condition of the user on the screen of the mobile terminal used by the user in a display condition optimized for healthcare use. [Fig(s). 13-14]. As motivated in claim(s) 1.
In consideration of Examiner’s interpretation and citation for the final limitations detailing the ‘medical institution’ in the independent claim(s), and in earnest and good faith advancement of prosecution, claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is/are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Woods (US 20080161731 A1) and Asada.
If (arguendo) Morris fails to teach transmitting information to a system “installed in a medical institution”, then:
Woods teaches a health management system monitoring a gait parameter of a user [abstract] which includes a function / step of transmitting information corresponding to an estimated physical condition to a health management system installed in a medical institution. [network / outlay shown in Fig(s). 7 and detailed throughout ¶¶40-60 esp. ¶40-43 ¶49 ¶50 ¶¶57-58 ¶61]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmission function / step of Morris to incorporate the networking / communication with a medical institution as taught by Woods in order to ensure the patient / subject receives adequate monitoring and assistance in an efficient manner. As motivated by Woods ¶¶2-3 ¶¶67-69.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S MELHUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Robert Chen can be reached on 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.
/BENJAMIN S MELHUS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791