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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a user’s” in lines 6-7 should be amended to read –the user’s--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a severity” in line 9 should be amended to read –the severity--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase "can be" in lines 9 and 10 should be amended to read --is--, to avoid 112 (b) rejection as one with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know if the claimed “target” can be positioned at various length and/or actually positioned at various length. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, 8-13, 16, 17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claims 1 recite a system for classifying a severity of user’s impairment, and claim 17 recites a series of steps to classify a severity of user’s impairment. Thus, the claims are directed to a product and a process. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claims 1 and 17 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: classify/classifying a severity of the user's impairment based on the data collected from the inertial measurement units. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a caregiver can collect motion data and/or observe user’s motion and determine/classify severity of user’s impairments by his/her own judgment. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: Claims 1 and 17 does not recite additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 recites the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: A) a target apparatus comprising a base, a target structure coupled to the base, and a plurality of targets coupled to the target structure, B) plurality of inertial measurement units, and C) processor. While claim 17 does not recite any additional structure/elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application
Accordingly, the combination of the additional element/step A and B does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of target structure and inertial sensors is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Element C does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a controller/processor amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, each of the additional elements or a combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Claim 1 does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, A) a target apparatus comprising a base, a target structure coupled to the base, and a plurality of targets coupled to the target structure, B) plurality of inertial measurement units, and C) processor.
The combination of elements A and B of target structure and inertial sensors does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of **** is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the elements A and B are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by Howard et al (US 20200060566) and King et al (US 2017/0259120), which all show target structure and inertial sensors as claimed in claim 1 evidencing that these elements are well-understood, route, and conventional in the applanation arts.
Element C does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because adding a controller/processor is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)II).
Accordingly, the additional elements individual or in co do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 16, 17, 19-24 and 26 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recite the limitation “a sensor configured to detect whether the user task associated with the target has been performed” this limitation is not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what type of a sensor that detects detect whether the user task associated with the target has been performed, is it a typical inertial sensor, or a specific/special type of a sensor. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “a sensor configured to detect whether the user task associated with the target has been performed”. Examiner, respectfully notes for the purpose of examination the claimed “sensor” will be interpreted as an inertial sensor that can detect motion of the user.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-13, 16, 17, 19, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard et al (US 2020/0060566).
As to claims 1 and 17, Howard teaches a system and method for classifying a severity of a user's impairment (compared severity and specificity of cognitive impairments in various neurodegenerative diseases; Unified PD Rating Scale is a commonly used scale to measure symptom severity in PD/Parkinson's Disease, hereinafter PD (impairment) patients, Figs. 1-19, 22, 23, 32-52 & para [0192], [0289]), the system comprising:
a target apparatus (clinical tools to assess cognitive function; diagnostic tool for PD; a diagnostic tool for PD; tracker; Figs. 22, 23 & para [0108], [0143], [0286]), comprising a base, a target structure coupled to the base (tracker with a hinge joint at the base; Fig. 23 & para [0286]), and a plurality of targets coupled to the target structure (Fig. 23 shows a tool connected to targets; Figs. 22, 23 & para [0466]), wherein each of the targets are associated with one or more user tasks (performing different upper arm/shoulder task; movement task; tracking device used for measuring scapula/shoulder blade movement; Fig. 22, 23 & para [0181], [0243], [0466]);
a plurality of inertial measurement units configured to collect data associated with a user's movement as the user performs one or more of the user tasks (IMU to measure arm movements (tasks) of one human subject; data collection measurements acquired by an optical tracking device, during a series of predefined arm movements; Figs. 15, 16, 23 & para [0403], [0404]); and
a processor including computer-readable instructions 9a processor, memory accessible by the processor, computer program instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to perform; para [0007]), wherein by executing the instructions the processor is configured to classify a severity of the user's impairment based on the data collected from the inertial measurement units (classification of cognitive impairment subtypes; Fig. 15 shows movement of upper coupled to classify segment; Inertial Measurement Units/IMUs to measure arm movements (tasks) of one human subject; data collection measurements acquired by an optical tracking device, during a series of predefined arm movements; Fig. 15, 16 & para [0192], [0403], [0404]).
As to claim 8, Howard teaches the system, wherein the targets are arranged in a radial configuration (tracking markers are arranged in radial configuration, as best seen in fig.23, par.465).
As to claim 9, Howard teaches the system, wherein one or more of the targets comprises an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or a combination thereof
(IMUs consisting of a triaxial gyroscopes, magnetometer, and accelerometers, par.178, par.280-282).
As to claim 10, Howard teaches the system, wherein one or more targets comprise a sensor configured to detect whether the user task associated with the target has been performed (IMUs are more than capable of determining if motion has been performed or not, par.280-282).
As to claim 11, Howard teaches the system, wherein the base is slidably adjustable relative to the user such that the base is configured to move toward and away from the user (the base of the tracking markers are slidable in a platform base, relative to the shoulder blade of the user, par.465, as best seen in fig.23).
As to claim 12, Howard teaches the system, wherein the target structure comprises one or more optical devices (optical tracking markers in fig.23, par.465), audio devices, or a combination thereof to direct the user to perform a user task of the one or more user tasks.
As to claim 13, Howard teaches the system, further comprising one or more optical tracking systems to collect data associated with user's movement, and wherein by executing the instructions the processor is configured to classify the severity of the user's impairment based on the data collected from the inertial measurement units and the optical tracking systems (using optical markers to track limbs movement and limb impairment, par.229, par.263, par.284, par.392, and par.465).
As to claim 16, Howard teaches the system, wherein one or more of the targets comprise a platform having one or more sensors configured to detect whether an object positioned on the platform has been moved (platform base having a slot the receives the base of slidable tracking markers, as best seen in fig.23).
As to claim 19, Howard teaches the method, wherein classifying the severity of the person's impairment comprises classifying the severity of the person's impairment for two or more tasks the person performs at the target apparatus (comparison was made based on the summed results for each condition (subject, object); because the subjects repeated each condition (tasks) several times, the mean wavelet coherence was calculated for all possible pairwise comparisons across the repetitions performed; based on the outcomes between and within subjects, C was computed by taking the average either for all subjects or objects; this provided a measure of consistency in motor behavior; para [0443], [0444]), and wherein the method further comprises determining a final classification of the severity as one or both of an average and a weighted average of the classifications for the two or more tasks (comparison was made based on the summed results for each condition (subject, object); because the subjects repeated each condition (tasks) several times, the mean wavelet coherence was calculated for all possible pairwise comparisons across the repetitions performed; based on the outcomes between and within subjects, C was computed by taking the average either for all subjects or objects; this provided a measure of consistency in motor behavior; para [0443], [0444]).
As to claim 23, Howard teaches the method, wherein the target apparatus comprises a target structure and a plurality of targets coupled to the target structure, each target being associated with one or more of the tasks (as best seen in fig.17, each marker/sensor is assigned to different body part , such as, arm, forearm and wrist, hat can perform different task, par.405-409).
As to claim 24, Howard teaches the method, wherein the method uses one or more machine-learning methods selected from the group consisting of a perceptron, Bayesian, logistic regression, K-nearest neighbor, neural network, deep learning, and a support vector machine algorithm (using machine learning, par.351-362).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 6, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Howard et al (US 2020/0060566) in view of King et al (2017/0259120).
As to claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 20 and 22, Howard discloses the system substantially as claimed above, but failed to disclose wherein by executing the instructions the processor is configured to assign a difficulty ranking to one or more user tasks performed by the user based on the data collected from the inertial measurement units, and wherein by executing the instructions the processor is configured to recommend one or more user tasks based on the difficulty rankings assigned.
However, King teaches a system for monitoring physical activity of a user in the same filed of endeavor of monitoring physical activity to determine impairment, wherein the system discloses wherein by executing the instructions the processor is configured to (instructions that, when executed by a data processing apparatus, cause the data processing apparatus to perform operations; processors may be configured by machine-readable instructions to execute one or more computer program components; para [0014], [0042]) assign a difficulty ranking to one or more user tasks performed by the user based on the data collected from the inertial measurement units sensors may include motion sensors (IMU); selection of the first video block may be based on information obtained from sensors (IMU), the groupings of the workout video blocks e.g., workout intensity level (difficulty ranking), information obtained from other components of computing environment; attributes provided by a system administrator may include injury; obtain a stream of readings from an inertial measurement unit associated with a mobile computing device or a wearable computing device, e.g., one attached to the user; para [0061], [0064], [0089], [0097]), and wherein the processor is configured to recommend one or more user tasks based on the difficulty rankings assigned (health care professional recommendations regarding specific physical activities (e.g., based on the user's health), or other constraints that the user may have, para [0035], [0059]),
transmit the recommended tasks to a remote device, the remote device being configured to modify one or more of the recommend tasks based on an input from an operator of the remote device (personalized workout video creation servers may be implemented by a plurality of virtualized computing instances executing in a remote data center operating together as personalized workout video creation servers; health care professional recommendations regarding specific physical activities, e.g., based on the user's fitness level; para [0039], [0059]) to form one or more modified recommended tasks and communicate the modified recommended tasks to the processor (computing instances executing in a remote data center operating together as personalized workout video creation servers; para [0039]) modify one or more of the recommend tasks based on an input from an operator of the remote device to form one or more modified recommended tasks and communicate the modified recommended tasks to the processor (adjust segments responsive to multi-dimensional signal sets, like attributes and/or current, e.g., real- time, like during an exercise, feedback; attributes provided by a system administrator may include injury or workout; para [0008], [0089]),
the remote device being configured to modify the classification based on an input from an operator of the remote device to form a modified classification and communicate the modified classification to the processor (selecting a second workout video block from the collection based on the feedback and the intensity of the second workout video block; selected video block to be sent to a remote computing device; values may be referenced when composing automatically workouts, e.g., may match (classify) an injured body area (impairment) to a body area of workout videos and in response select corresponding, e.g., lower, level of intensity (difficulty ranking) of video block; user profile may include injuries, exercise constraints, health care professional recommendations regarding specific physical activities, e.g., based on the user's health; Abstract & para [0013], [0058], [0059]),
the processor is configured to classify the severity of the user's impairment for each task the user performs at the target apparatus and to recommend one or more user tasks based on the classification of severity (para [0013], [0058], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to assign a difficulty ranking to one or more user tasks performed by the user based on the data collected from the inertial measurement units in Howard’s invention as taught by King’s invention for the purpose of identifying an injured/impairment body part to a body area of workout videos and in response select/recommend the best workout that fits and improves the impaired body part.
As to claim 21, Howard teaches the system, wherein assigning the difficulty ranking to the one or more tasks comprises determining a deviation between the motion features of the person and one or more motion features of a healthy population for the respective task (in order to be developed for PD detection and progression tracking, the BSN system must be able to measure with a high enough level of sensitivity to differentiate between healthy and PD movement, par.334-335, 386 and par.392).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Howard et al (US 2020/0060566) in view of Wood et al (US 2015/0342688).
As to claim 26, Howard teaches discloses a target apparatus used in assessing physical impairment of a user (clinical tools to assess cognitive function; a diagnostic tool for PD patients; a diagnostic tool for PD; tracker; Figs. 22, 23 & para [0108], [0143], [0286]), the target apparatus (clinical tools to assess cognitive function; diagnostic tool for PD;
a diagnostic tool for PD; tracker; Figs. 22, 23 & para [0108], [0143], [0286]), comprising: a track system (clinical tools to assess cognitive function; diagnostic tool for PD; a diagnostic tool for PD; tracker; Figs. 22, 23 & para [0108], [0143], [0286]);
a target structure coupled to the track system and comprising a central portion and a plurality of outwardly extending arms circumferentially spaced along a circumference of the central portion (Fig. 23 shows a tracker a central portion and outwardly extending arms circumferentially spaced along a circumference of the central portion; Fig 23 & para [0466]).
Howard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to disclose a plurality of targets coupled to the central portion and arms of the target structure, each target being associated with a physical task and configured to couple and decouple to the target structure such that each target can be positioned at various lengths relative to the central portion; wherein the track system is configured to slidably adjust such that the target structure can be adjusted toward and away from a user.
However, Wood teaches a tracking system in the same field of endeavor, wherein the system discloses a plurality of targets coupled to the central portion and arms of the target structure (flexure arms 14 and 15 spread as the arms; Figs. 2, 3, 4A-4C & para [0064]), each target being associated with a physical task and configured to couple and decouple to the target structure such that each target can be positioned at various lengths relative to the central portion (flexure arms 14 and 15 spread as the arms slide; Figs. 2, 3, 4A-4C & para [0064]); wherein the track system is configured to slidably adjust such that the target structure can be adjusted toward and away from a user (in the context of the device, "distal" refers to a direction away from a user of the device, such as a surgeon, while "proximal" is the opposite of distal, and refers to a direction towards a user of the device; flexure arms 14 and 15 spread as the arms slide; para [0042], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to include a plurality of targets coupled to the central portion and arms of the target structure, each target being associated with a physical task and configured to couple and decouple to the target structure such that each target can be positioned at various lengths relative to the central portion; wherein the track system is configured to slidably adjust such that the target structure can be adjusted toward and away from a user as taught by Wood’s invention into the system of Howard’s invention for the purpose of providing manipulator device that provides a stable platform for stabilizing the device on a smooth surface and a separate mechanism to quickly and accurately position a working head of the device in order to efficiently perform repeated interventions/tasks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights