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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed October 6, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-6 have been amended and are currently pending for examination.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-6 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below.
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus.
Step 2A Prong one: Claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea in the form of an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. In particular, claim 1 recites limitations:
Determining whether a subject person is in a light touch state, on a basis of a contact load
Controlling exercise intervention on the subject person, to maintain a light touch state when the subject person is not in a light touch state
The elements are drawn to an abstract idea because they are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are mere steps that are capable of being mentally performed or are regarded as a method of organizing human activity of following rules or instructions of a human. For example, a skilled artisan is capable of mentally determining or observing whether a subject is in a light touch state from contact load status. Controlling exercise intervention on the subject person to maintain a light touch state when the subject person is not in a light touch state organizing human activity to follow instructions to maintain a light touch state.
Step 2A Prong two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
A processor
A memory
These elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the element is recited at a high level of generality to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitation 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 (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)). A memory and processor are regarded as a well-understood, routine and conventional element, as evidenced by and not limited to Winstrom (US 2020/0324126) directed to conventional processors, and Crawford (US 2020/0139139) directed to conventional memories of devices.
In view of the above, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the element taken individually. There is no indication that the element improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process), recite limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, or further define the type of data gathered. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claim 5 is directed to a method (Step 1) and recites the same abstract ideas as identified above for claim 1 (Step 2A Prong one). Claim 5 recites a computer (Step 2A Prong two), beyond the judicial exception, but this is recited at a high level of generality to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)) and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Evaluating under Step 2B, claim 5 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 (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus (Step 1) and recites the same abstract ideas as identified above for claim 1 (Step 2A Prong one). Claim 6 causing a computer including a memory and a processor (Step 2A Prong two), beyond the judicial exception, to execute the judicial exception in the same manner as identified above for claims 1 and 5. Evaluating under Step 2B, claim 5 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, memory and processor to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hyde et al. (US 2016/0237690).
Regarding claim 1, Hyde et al. discloses a light touch maintaining device comprising: a processor ([0041]; (“receive input or programming instructions from one or more users to program or control various parameters” [0076]; “input system may also be used to allow the users to program the monitoring system 100” [0077]; interpreted as a required processor to implement the instructions); and a memory (“receive input or programming instructions from one or more users to program or control various parameters” [0076]; “input system may also be used to allow the users to program the monitoring system 100 to best serve the needs of the various users, such as in a multiple-user household. The input system may receive user information, such as height, weight, age, or other parameters that may be used by the various sensors of the system 100 to identify the users” [0077]; interpreted as a required memory to maintain the programming instructions); determining whether a subject person is in a light touch state, on a basis of a contact load between the subject person and a support (“generate the safety rail contact signal based on whether contact is detected” [0046]); and controlling exercise intervention on the subject person, to maintain a light touch state when the subject person is not in a light touch state (“If, on the other hand, the user 115 is not contacting the safety rail 105… the LED 605 may be red to warn the user 115 to touch and hold the safety rail 105 before continuing on the footpath 110.” [0057]; “if the user 115 is not consistently holding on to safety rail(s) 105, 155… take additional steps to ensure the user's 115 safety (such as by implementing a barrier 700” [0060]; “sensor observation system 160 may further be configured to prevent the user 115 from traveling on the footpath 110 without making contact with the safety rail 105… a barrier system 750 having a barrier 700 positioned proximal to the entry apron 140 (or exit apron 145) to impede the progress of the user 115 on the footpath 110” [0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Hyde et al. discloses evaluating a risk of fall of the subject (“determine whether the user 115 is falling” [0070]), wherein the controlling includes controlling the exercise intervention on the subject person, on a basis of a result of evaluation performed by the fall risk evaluation unit (“a barrier system 750 having a barrier 700 positioned proximal to the entry apron 140 (or exit apron 145) to impede the progress of the user 115 on the footpath 110” [0066]; “The barrier system 750 may further include an arrestor lock (not shown) that engages with the track 705 to lock the mobile barrier 700 in position, such as when the sensor system 120 (or barrier sensors 740) detects a fall event by the user 115.” [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Hyde et al. discloses a light touch maintaining method implemented by a computer (“receive input or programming instructions from one or more users to program or control various parameters” [0076]; “input system may also be used to allow the users to program the monitoring system 100” [0077]) in a light touch maintaining device (fig. 1), the light touch maintaining method comprising: determining whether a subject person is in a light touch state, on a basis of a contact load between the subject person and a support (“generate the safety rail contact signal based on whether contact is detected” [0046]); and controlling exercise intervention on the subject person, to maintain a light touch state when the subject person is not in a light touch state (“If, on the other hand, the user 115 is not contacting the safety rail 105… the LED 605 may be red to warn the user 115 to touch and hold the safety rail 105 before continuing on the footpath 110.” [0057]; “if the user 115 is not consistently holding on to safety rail(s) 105, 155… take additional steps to ensure the user's 115 safety (such as by implementing a barrier 700” [0060]; “sensor observation system 160 may further be configured to prevent the user 115 from traveling on the footpath 110 without making contact with the safety rail 105… a barrier system 750 having a barrier 700 positioned proximal to the entry apron 140 (or exit apron 145) to impede the progress of the user 115 on the footpath 110” [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Hyde et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed, cause a computer including a memory (“receive input or programming instructions from one or more users to program or control various parameters” [0076]; “input system may also be used to allow the users to program the monitoring system 100 to best serve the needs of the various users, such as in a multiple-user household. The input system may receive user information, such as height, weight, age, or other parameters that may be used by the various sensors of the system 100 to identify the users” [0077]; interpreted as a required memory to maintain the programming instructions) and a processor (“receive input or programming instructions from one or more users to program or control various parameters” [0076]; “input system may also be used to allow the users to program the monitoring system 100” [0077]; interpreted as a required processor to implement the instructions) to execute the determining and the controlling of the light touch maintaining device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796