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 10/06/2023. 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 subject” in line 6 should be amended to read –the subject--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a first neural network” in line 2 should be amended to read –the first neural network--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a region” in line 2 should be amended to read –the region--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a first supervised learning algorithm” in line 2 should be amended to read -- the first supervised learning algorithm--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “determined mean” in line 5 should be amended to read –the determined mean--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “ a footstep event” in lines 1-2 should be amended to read –the footstep event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a region” in line 2 should be amended to read –the region--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a subject” in line 8 should be amended to read –the subject--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a mobility factor using a first neural network” in lines 2-3 should be amended to read –the mobility factor using a first neural network--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a region” in line 2 should be amended to read –the region--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a region” in line 2 should be amended to read –the region--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Limitations “footstep detection unit configured to receive” in claims 18, 21 and 22, the claims doesn’t recite enough structure that corresponds to the claimed “footstep detection unit”. However, the specification discloses the footstep detection unit 110 may comprise a buffer configured to store a region of the received audio signal (par.62) that can be interpreted as the structure that corresponds to the claimed “footstep detection unit”
Limitation “footstep analysis unit configured to determine” in claims 18 and 19, the claims doesn’t recite enough structure that corresponds to the claimed “footstep analysis unit”. However, the specification discloses one or more processors executing code that causes the processor(s) to perform the method (par.91-92) that can be interpreted as the structure that corresponds to the claimed “footstep analysis unit”.
Limitation “feedback unit” in claim 23, the claims doesn’t recite enough structure that corresponds to the claimed “feedback unit”. However, the specification discloses feedback unit 118 may comprises one or more lights or displays, one or more speakers, and/or one or more vibration systems (par.80) that can be interpreted as the structure that corresponds to the claimed “feedback unit”.
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.
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 § 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 1-7, 9, 12-13, 15-23 and 25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mobility" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the series" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the mean" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the variance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the time" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the series" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the mobility" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the sound" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7, 9, 12-13, 15-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: claim(s) 1, 18 and 25 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: receiving an audio signal from one or more microphones; for each of a plurality of overlapping regions of the audio signal, classifying the region as containing the sound of a footstep using a first supervised learning algorithm; determining that two or more of the regions classified as containing the sound of a footstep correspond to a series of two or more consecutive footsteps of a subject. This limitation recites a mental process because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: using a first neural network, analyzing the determined two or more regions to determine a mobility factor. Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations are directed to a mathematical concept and fails to recite an additional element 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.
STEP 2B: The claim(s) 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, microphone, but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 2-7, 12, 13, 15-17, 19-23 and 25 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 § 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) 1-7, 9, 12, 13, 15-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okumura et al (Fall detection and walking estimation using floor vibration for solitary elderly people).
As to claims 1, 18 and 25, Okumura teaches a system and method for measuring the mobility of a subject (detecting walking and fall of a subject, abstract, fig.1 and 2), comprising:
a footstep detection unit (PC and/or processor that receives falling and walking data from a microphone, Method of detecting fall and walk section A, fig.1, page 4) configured to receive an audio signal from one or more microphones and,
for each of a plurality of overlapping regions of the audio signal, classify the region as containing the sound of a footstep using a first supervised learning algorithm (determining regions of floor vibration using Support Victor Machine, as best seen in fig. 2, pages 5-6); and
a footstep analysis unit (PC and/or processor that determines and measure footsteps, walking and/or falling by detecting floor vibration, pages 3-4, fig.2-3) configured to determine that two or more of the regions classified as containing the sound of a footstep correspond to a series of two or more consecutive footsteps of a subject (determining footsteps heel to heel and stride to stride, fig.3 and pages 6-7, Method of Estimating walking condition, section B) and to, using a first neural network, analyze the determined two or more regions to determine a mobility factor (using SVM to analyze walking and/or falling, pages 6-9, fig.3-5).
As to claims 2 and 19, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein analysing the determined two or more regions to determine a mobility factor using a first neural network comprises analysing the determined two or more regions to determine one or more of a cadence of the series of footsteps, a hesitancy of the subject, and a balance of the subject, and wherein the mobility factor is determined in dependence on one or more of the cadence, hesitancy, and balance (determining heel to heel contact and stride to stride on multiple regions on the floor using SVM, pages 5-9, as best seen in fig.4-5).
As to claims 3 and 20, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein the first supervised learning algorithm comprises a support vector machine classifier (using SVM to classify fall, heel contact, page 5, fig.2).
As to claims 4 and 21, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein classifying a region as containing the sound of a footstep using the first supervised learning algorithm comprises: analysing the region to locate one or more markers indicative of footstep events; and if the region contains more than a predefined threshold number of footstep events, classifying that region as containing the sound of a footstep (detecting sounds indication multiple footsteps on the floor, Estimating walking condition, section B, pages 6-9, fig.2-4).
As to claims 5 and 22, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein classifying a region as containing the sound of a footstep using the first supervised learning algorithm comprises deriving a spectral energy of the region of the audio signal, wherein analysing the region to locate one or more markers indicative of footstep events comprises analysing the spectral energy of the region of the audio signal to locate one or more markers indicative of footstep events (determining footsteps based on heel contact with the floor by spectral energy analysis, Estimating walking condition, section B, pages 6-10, fig.2-5).
As to claim 6, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein classifying a region as containing the sound of a footstep using a first supervised learning algorithm comprises: determining one or both of the mean and the variance of the spectral energy in the region of the audio signal; and determining whether determined mean and/or variance of the spectral energy falls within a predefined range of an expected mean and/or variance respectively (determining mean of fall over heel contact(walking), equations 3, 4 and 5, Estimating walking condition, section B, pages 7-9, fig.4-5).
As to claim 7, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein a footstep event comprises one or more of: a heel strike, a tiptoe collision, and a toe scrape (determining heel to heel and stride to stride, pages 8-9, fig.4 and 5).
As to claims 9 and 23, Okumura teaches the system and method, further comprising providing feedback indicative of the mobility factor to one or more users (displaying measured data on the PC screen, Method of detecting fall and walk section A, fig.1, pages 3-4).
As to claim 12, Okumura teaches the system and method, further comprising determining that a region classified as containing the sound of a footstep contains the sound of a footstep of the subject by applying an unsupervised learning algorithm trained to identify the sound of the subject's footsteps (determining heel to heel and stride to stride using SVM, Estimating walking condition, section B, pages 7-9, fig.4-5).
As to claim 13, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein the unsupervised learning algorithm comprises a Gaussian mixture model (equations 3-10, pages 5-9).
As to claim 15, Okumura teaches the system and method, wherein the audio signal is received from two or more microphones (plurality of microphone sensors embedded in the floor, pages 4-5, fig.1-2).
As to claim 16, Okumura teaches the system and method, further comprising capturing that part of the audio signal received by a first microphone and validating the captured audio signal by comparing the captured audio signal with that part of the audio signal received by a second microphone (detecting heel to heel contact with the floor using multiple microphone sensors embedded in the floor, pages 4-8, fig.1-2 and 4-5).
As to claim 17, Okumura teaches the system and method, further comprising comparing the time that a feature in the audio signal is received by a first microphone with the time that a feature in the audio signal is received by a second microphone to determine a region of space from which the feature in the audio signal originated (detecting heel to heel contact time and/or stride to stride time using multiple microphone sensors embedded in the floor, pages 4-8, fig.4-5).
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