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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 11 recites “means of a software application of the telecommunication device”; structure found in e.g. instant Fig. 4; Fig. 7.
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 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim 1 recites “device comprises…evaluation software”. MPEP 2106.03 I:
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
There is no structure associated with the recited “evaluation software” other than the device comprises it. Contrast this to claim 19 which recites a method and the step of “installing evaluation software…on the wearable device”.
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(s) 5-6, 10-11, 14-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “at least one blood parameter” in line 5, and the claim also recites “in particular…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Further, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “the one or more sensors comprises a sensor for detecting at least one blood parameter” in lines 3-4, and the claim also recites “wherein the sensor for detecting the blood parameter may be configured in particular as the PPG sensor according to claim 4” in lines 8-11 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Note also that claim 5 preamble is “The device according to claim 1” which is inconsistent with the later recitation of “PPG sensor according to claim 4”; this would be antecedent basis issue. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is also unclear whether “in particular” is exemplary language.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “video data for the child, in particular video data of an infrared camera” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrases “in particular the increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome” and “in particular of physiological states that do not require immediate intervention” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the electronic appliance" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that line 4 recites “an electronic food preparation appliance” but it is unclear and thus indefinite whether “electronic appliance” refers to this limitation. A suggested edit is to use consistent word choice to avoid confusion.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the user device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 1, line 17 recites “a mobile telecommunication device of a user” but it is unclear and thus indefinite whether “the user device” refers to this limitation. A suggested edit is to use consistent word choice to avoid confusion.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “in particular an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome and/or a feeling of hunger” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “in particular via a radio signal, in particular a Bluetooth interface or ZigBee interface” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “in particular an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome and/or a feeling of hunger” in line 19 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the radiation-normal operating mode" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 15, line 9 recites “a normal-radiation operating mode” where “radiation” and “normal” are reversed in order but it is unclear and thus indefinite whether “the radiation-normal operating mode” refers to this limitation. A suggested edit is to use consistent word choice to avoid confusion.
Claim 16 recites “the wearable device comprises one or more environmental parameter sensors selected from a group including… gases, especially CO2” in line 10; there is no structure recited for “gases” and it is unclear and thus indefinite how environmental parameter sensors are selected from gases. For examination purposes below, it will be assumed that it is a gas sensor.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase " especially CO2" in line 10 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase especially are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "in particular a daily cumulative UV radiation dose" in line 12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase in particular are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "in particular a thermal imaging camera" in line 23 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase in particular are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the predictive software" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 1 line 10 recites “evaluation software configured to predict”; however, it is unclear and thus indefinite whether “predictive software” refers to this limitation. A suggested edit is to use consistent word choice to avoid confusion.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "in particular a video camera, in particular a thermal imaging video camera” in lines 16-17 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase in particular are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(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) 1-3, 6, 9-10, 12, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peer (US 20220287631 A1; Filed 3/9/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Peer teaches a wearable device (Abstract; Fig. 4),
wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn on the body of a child, wherein the child is a baby or small child (Abstract; Fig. 4; [0005]);
wherein the device comprises:
one or more sensors for sensing a plurality of vital parameters of the child (Fig. 1; Fig. 3), wherein the vital parameters comprise at least heart rate ([0007]; [0012]; [0062]), oxygen saturation ([0056]; [0062]), and respiratory rate ([0062]); and
evaluation software configured to predict at least a current or future physiological state of the child as a function of the heart rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate measured by the sensors ([0005]; [0062]; [0072]; [0077]); and
an interface for transmitting the prediction result relating to the at least one physiological state to a mobile telecommunication device of a user and/or to a server-computer system (Fig. 1-3; [0087]; [0116]-[0119]).
Regarding claim 2, Peer teaches wherein the at least one physiological state is a state of increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome ([0005]),
wherein the evaluation software is configured to use at least the heart rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate as input to predict the presence of an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome ([0005]; [0062]; [0072]; [0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Peer teaches wherein the evaluation software is configured to predict the presence of an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome as a function of one or more further parameters ([0072]), wherein the one or more further parameters comprise:
the child’s skin temperature ([0072]; [0152]; since the reference is teaching wearable device, it would be understood that the body temperature sensor is measuring from skin);
the ambient temperature; and/or
the ambient air moisture.
Regarding claim 6, Peer teaches wherein the device comprises at least one sensor for determining at least one further vital parameter and/or environmental parameter ([0062]; [0072]), or an interface of receiving the further vital parameter and/or environmental parameter form an external sensor, wherein the at least one further environmental parameter is selected from a group comprising:
the CO2 concentration of the ambient air,
video data for the child, in particular video data of an infrared camera;
acoustic data detected by a microphone; and
movement data characterising the child’s movement activity ([0062]; [0072]);
wherein the evaluation software is configured to use the at least one further vital parameter and/or environmental parameter as an additional input parameter in order to predict the presence of an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome ([0062]; [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Peer teaches wherein the evaluation software is configured to recognize the current or future presence of a physiologically problematic state of the child ([0005]; [0070]; [0072]),
when a value of at least one vita parameter is outside a predetermined normal range (Fig. 2); and/or
when a pattern of values of multiple vital parameters is detected that indicates a current or future problematic physiological state of the child, wherein the pattern may be detected even if all vital parameters are individually within their normal range (Fig. 2; [0005]; [0075]; [0077]); and
wherein the evaluation software is configured to send a message regarding the predicted problematic physiological state to the mobile telecommunication device and/or the server-computer system in response to the detection of the current or future physiologically problematic state (Fig. 1-2; [0089]; [0116]-[0119]).
Regarding claim 10, Peer teaches wherein the evaluation software is configured to selectively recognize the current or future presence of a physiologically problematic state of the child requiring immediate intervention (Fig. 2; [0005]; [0070]; [0072]), wherein this physiologically problematic state comprises in particular the increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome ([0005]); and
forwarding at least some of the vital parameters or intermediate prediction results measured or derived by the wearable device to the server-computer system via a network to enable the server-computer system to predict physiological states and/or calculate a refined final prediction, in particular of physiological states that do not require immediate intervention (Fig. 2; [0010]; [0074]; [0077]).
Regarding claim 12, Peer teaches wherein the device is a bracelet or ankle or leg strap (Fig. 4; [0072] “wrist and a leg”; [0092]).
Regarding claim 16, Peer teaches wherein the wearable device comprises one or more environmental parameter sensors selected from a group including:
a thermometer that measures the ambient temperature;
a measuring device for measuring the ambient air moisture;
gases, especially CO2;
UV sensor for detecting a cumulative UV radiation dose, in particular a daily cumulative UV radiation dose;
and/or wherein the sensors of the wearable device for detecting the vital parameters comprises further sensors selected from a group comprising:
acceleration sensor for detecting the position (supine, prone) of the child ([0142]-[0143]);
temperature sensor for detecting the skin temperature ([0152]);
a microphone for detecting ambient noises and/or noises made by the child ([0151]);
video camera, in particular a thermal imaging camera.
Regarding claim 17, Peer teaches wherein the predictive software comprises at least one predictive model for predicting the at least one physiological state, wherein the at least one predictive model is a model generated by a machine learning method on the basis of a training dataset (Fig. 1-2; [0005]-[0006]; [0041]; [0070]; [0072]; [0077]).
Regarding claim 18, Peer teaches a system comprising the wearable device according to claim 1 (see regarding claim 1 above) and one or more of the following further components:
the portable telecommunication device, wherein a user software is set up on the portable telecommunication device, wherein the user software is interoperable with the evaluation software and is configured to display the prediction results received from the wearable device via the interface to the user and/or to enable the user to configure the evaluation software ([0118]; [0142]); and /or
the server-computer system (Fig. 1-2); and/or
a base station to which one or more external sensors are coupled for measuring vital parameters of the child or environmental parameters of the child’s surroundings (Fig. 1-2; [0062]; [0072]; [0124]-[0125]); and/or
one or more of the external sensors (Fig. 1-2; [0062]; [0072]; [0124]-[0125]), in particular a video camera, in particular a thermal imaging video camera.
Regarding claim 19, Peer teaches a method for providing a wearable device for monitoring the physiological state of a child (Abstract), comprising:
providing a training dataset comprising a plurality of datasets, wherein in each dataset at least one physiological state of the child is stored linked to vital parameters of the child ([0005]-[0006]; [0041]; [0070]; [0072]; [0077]), wherein the vital parameters comprise at least heart rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate ([0005]; [0062]; [0072]; [0077]);
performing a machine learning process on the training data to generate at least one predictive model, wherein the model is configured to predict the physiological state of the child on the basis of at least heart rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate ([0005]-[0006]; [0041]; [0062]; [0070]; [0072]; [0077]);
installing evaluation software including the at least one predictive model on the wearable device (Fig. 1-2), wherein the device is configured to be worn on the body of a child, wherein the child is a baby or small child (Abstract; Fig. 4; [0005]), wherein the device comprises:
one or more sensors for detecting a plurality of vital parameters of the child Fig. 1; Fig. 3), wherein the vital parameters comprise at least heart rate ([0007]; [0012]; [0062]), oxygen saturation ([0056]; [0062]), and respiratory rate ([0062]), wherein the evaluation software is configured to use the at least one predictive model to predict the physiological state on the basis of the heart rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate detected by the sensors ([0005]; [0062]; [0072]; [0077]); and
an interface for transmitting a prediction result relating to the at least one physiological state to a mobile telecommunication device of a user and/or to a server-computer system (Fig. 1-3; [0087]; [0116]-[0119]).
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peer as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Pareddy (US 20200163602 A1; 5/28/2020; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Peer teaches wherein the sensors comprise a photoplethysmographic sensor, referred to here as a PPG sensor ([0056]; [0067]),
wherein the evaluation software is configured to derive the heart rate ([0056]; [0068]), oxygen saturation ([0056]) from the signals detected by the PPG sensor.
Peer does not teach derive respiratory rate of the child from the signals detected by the PPG sensor. Note that Peer teaches HRV algorithm that takes signal from PPG and can also monitor respiration rate ([0056]; [0061]-[0062]). However, Pareddy teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 6) derive respiratory rate of the child from the signals detected by the PPG sensor ([0010]; [0096]; claim 25). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer to include this feature as taught by Pareddy because this enables obtaining respiratory rate from PPG without needing another sensor ([0010]; [0096]; claim 25).
In the combination of Peer and Pareddy, Peer teaches and to make them available as input to the evaluation software (Peer Fig. 1-2; [0062]; [0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Peer does not teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises a sensor for detecting at least one blood parameter of the child, wherein the at least one blood parameter is in particular a methaemoglobin concentration and/or a carboxyhaemoglobin concentration and/or a CO2 concentration in the blood of the child, wherein the sensor for detecting the blood parameter may be configured in particular as the PPG sensor according to claim 4;
wherein the evaluation software is configured to use the at least one blood parameter as an additional input parameter in order to reduce the false positive rate of the prediction of the increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome by the evaluation software.
However, Pareddy teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 6) wherein the one or more sensors comprises a sensor for detecting at least one blood parameter of the child, wherein the at least one blood parameter is in particular a methaemoglobin concentration and/or a carboxyhaemoglobin concentration and/or a CO2 concentration in the blood of the child, wherein the sensor for detecting the blood parameter may be configured in particular as the PPG sensor according to claim 4 (Fig. 2B; [0007]; [0014]; [0049]; see claim 4 above);
wherein the evaluation software is configured to use the at least one blood parameter as an additional input parameter in order to reduce the false positive rate of the prediction of the increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome by the evaluation software (Fig. 6-7; [0049]).
Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer to include these features as taught by Pareddy because this enables more accurate monitoring (Fig. 6-7; [0005]; [0049]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peer as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mault (US 20030208113 A1; 11/6/2003).
Regarding claim 7, Peer does not teach wherein at least one of the sensors for the vital parameters is configured to measure the child’s blood sugar concentration in a non-invasive manner;
wherein the evaluation software is configured to predict a further physiological state in the form of a current or future feeling of hunger in the child as a function of at least the measured blood sugar concentration, and/or to predict a future time of occurrence of the feeling of hunger.
However, Mault teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 2; Fig. 10) wherein at least one of the sensors for the vital parameters is configured to measure the child’s blood sugar concentration in a non-invasive manner ([0094] “non-invasive analysis of blood glucose”; [0108] “child”; [0154] saliva is non-invasive);
wherein the evaluation software is configured to predict a further physiological state in the form of a current or future feeling of hunger in the child as a function of at least the measured blood sugar concentration, and/or to predict a future time of occurrence of the feeling of hunger ([0041]; [0166]; [0170]; [0173]).
Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer to include these features as taught by Mault because this enables additional health monitoring (Fig. 2; Fig. 10; [0001]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peer and Mault as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pareddy (US 20200163602 A1; 5/28/2020; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Peer and Mault teaches wherein the sensors comprise a photoplethysmographic sensor, referred to here as a PPG sensor (Peer [0056]; Mault [0094]),
wherein the evaluation software is configured to derive the child’s blood sugar concentration from the signals detected by the PPG sensor (Mault [0094]; [0108]) in addition to the heart rate (Peer [0056]; [0068]), the oxygen saturation (Peer [0056]).
The combination of Peer and Mault does not teach derive from signals detected by the PPG sensor the breathing rate of the child. Note that Peer teaches HRV algorithm that takes signal from PPG and can also monitor respiration rate ([0056]; [0061]-[0062]). However, Pareddy teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 6) derive from signals detected by the PPG sensor the breathing rate of the child ([0010]; [0096]; claim 25). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer and Mault to include this feature as taught by Pareddy because this enables obtaining respiratory rate from PPG without needing another sensor ([0010]; [0096]; claim 25).
In the combination of Peer, Mault, and Pareddy, Mault teaches to provide at least the blood sugar concentration as input at least for predicting the feeling of hunger ([0041]; [0166]; [0170]; [0173]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peer and Mault as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hadjigeorgiou (US 20200066181 A1; 2/27/2020).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Peer and Mault does not teach wherein the evaluation software is communicatively coupled to an electronic food preparation appliance directly or by means of a software application of the telecommunication device. Note that Mault teaches suggesting food in response to predicted hunger and that food may be ordered based on food index, which is based on hunger, such as from restaurant or grocery store including prepackaged foods ([0170]; [0176]-[0177]). However, Hadjigeorgiou teaches in the same field of endeavor ([0013]; [0016]-[0017]; [0075]-[0077]) wherein the evaluation software is communicatively coupled to an electronic food preparation appliance directly or by means of a software application of the telecommunication device ([0028] “automatically generate food optimized for the user…prepared food”; it is inherent that such prepared food would involve use of electronic food preparation appliance). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer and Mault to include this feature as taught by Hadjigeorgiou because this enables obtaining appropriate food for individual ([0028]). Note that even if one were to interpret Mault and Hadjigeorgiou to only require hand preparation of food by restaurant/grocery, automating food preparation such as with electronic food preparation appliance would be an obvious modification; MPEP 2144.04 III.
The combination of Peer, Mault, and Hadjigeorgiou teaches wherein the evaluation software and/or the software application of the telecommunication device is configured to cause the electronic appliance to prepare food for the child in response to the prediction that the child is feeling hungry now or will do so in the future (Mault [0166]; [0170]; [0173]; [0176]-[0177]; Hadjigeorgiou [0028]; [0013]; [0016]-[0017]; [0075]-[0077]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peer as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Coakley (US 11850071 B1; Filed 6/28/2019).
Regarding claim 13, Peer does not teach wherein the sensors comprise one or more pressure sensors which are configured to detect the contact pressure of the device on the child’s body,
wherein the evaluation software is configured to recognize, on the basis of the measured contact pressure, whether the contact pressure is within a predefined permissible contact pressure range within which the one or more sensors for detecting the vital parameters are able to operate correctly,
wherein the evaluation software is configured to issue a warning via signalling element of the device to the user and/or via the interface to the telecommunication device if the measured contact pressure is outside the permissible contact pressure range; and/or
wherein the evaluation software is configured to prevent the measurement of vital parameters by the one or more sensors until the contact pressure is again within the permissible contact pressure range.
However, Coakley teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 1A) wherein the sensors comprise one or more pressure sensors which are configured to detect the contact pressure of the device on the child’s body (Col. 7 lines 39-55 “fit sensor…pressure…pressure sensors”; Col. 11 line 37 to Col. 12 line 2; Col. 14 lines 34-35 “children of a particular age”),
wherein the evaluation software is configured to recognize, on the basis of the measured contact pressure, whether the contact pressure is within a predefined permissible contact pressure range within which the one or more sensors for detecting the vital parameters are able to operate correctly (Fig. 5; Col. 11 line 37 to Col. 12 line 2),
wherein the evaluation software is configured to issue a warning via signalling element of the device to the user and/or via the interface to the telecommunication device if the measured contact pressure is outside the permissible contact pressure range (Fig. 5; Fig. 7A-7D; Col. 11 line 37 to Col. 12 line 2); and/or
wherein the evaluation software is configured to prevent the measurement of vital parameters by the one or more sensors until the contact pressure is again within the permissible contact pressure range (Fig. 5; Fig. 7A-7D; Col. 11 line 37 to Col. 12 line 2).
Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer to include these features as taught by Coakley because this ensures proper measurement (Fig. 5; Fig. 7A-7D; Col. 11 line 37 to Col. 12 line 2).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peer as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mazar (US 20080211665 A1; 9/4/2008).
Regarding claim 14, Peer teaches sending message if the evaluation software has detected the current or future presence of a physiologically problematic state, in particular an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome and/or a feeling of hunger, or the presence of a vital or environmental parameter in a health-critical value range (Fig. 1-2; [0005]; [0089]; [0116]-[0119]) and
otherwise to automatically save the detected vital parameters and optionally detected environmental parameters without sending a message (Fig. 2; [0089] “temporary storage of the sensor reading”).
Peer does not explicitly teach “to only send…if…” though as explained above it would seem that Peer does meet the limitation. However, to avoid doubt, Mazar teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0027]; [0040]) to only send a message to the user device if the evaluation software has detected the current or future presence of a physiologically problematic state, in particular an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome and/or a feeling of hunger, or the presence of a vital or environmental parameter in a health-critical value range; and
otherwise to automatically save the detected vital parameters and optionally detected environmental parameters without sending a message (Fig. 6-8; [0012] “medically significant events”; [0057] “device 202 conserves energy and only communicates with the communications system 210 when an “interesting” event, such as a heart arrhythmia, has occurred”; [0111] “The processor 514 analyzes the clinical data and determines if the data should be transmitted to the host computer 200. In this regard, the processor 514 may be programmed to determine if the clinical data relates to a potentially medically significant event. If no clinical data is received from the sensor that appears to be related to a medically significant event, the state machine 600 remains at state 602, where clinical data generated by the therapy and sensor 512 module is continually analyzed.”; [0113] “the clinical data is stored in the memory 516 for future delivery to the host computer 200.”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer to include these features as taught by Mazar because this enables energy saving ([0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Peer teaches wherein the interface for transmitting data to the telecommunication device is an interface for data transmission via a near-field signal, in particular via a radio signal, in particular a Bluetooth interface ([0087]) or ZigBee interface.
Peer does not teach wherein the wearable device is operable in a low-radiation operating mode and in a normal-radiation operating mode. However, Mazar teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0027]; [0040]) wherein the wearable device is operable in a low-radiation operating mode and in a normal-radiation operating mode (Fig. 1; Fig. 6-8; [0012] “medically significant events”; [0040]; [0057] “device 202 conserves energy and only communicates with the communications system 210 when an “interesting” event, such as a heart arrhythmia, has occurred”; [0111] “The processor 514 analyzes the clinical data and determines if the data should be transmitted to the host computer 200. In this regard, the processor 514 may be programmed to determine if the clinical data relates to a potentially medically significant event. If no clinical data is received from the sensor that appears to be related to a medically significant event, the state machine 600 remains at state 602, where clinical data generated by the therapy and sensor 512 module is continually analyzed.”; [0113] “the clinical data is stored in the memory 516 for future delivery to the host computer 200.”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Peer to include these features as taught by Mazar because this enables energy saving ([0057]).
The combination of Peer and Mazar teaches wherein the wearable device, in the normal operating mode, is configured to operate in the low-radiation operating state when no physiological state is predicted and no vital or environmental parameter requiring immediate intervention is measured; and wherein the wearable device is configured to automatically switch to the radiation-normal operating mode if the evaluation software has detected the current or future presence of a physiologically problematic state, in particular an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome and/or a feeling of hunger, or the presence of a vital or environmental parameter in a health-critical value range (Peer Fig. 1-2; [0005]; [0089]; [0116]-[0119]; Mazar Fig. 6-8; [0012] “medically significant events”; [0057] “device 202 conserves energy and only communicates with the communications system 210 when an “interesting” event, such as a heart arrhythmia, has occurred”; [0111] “The processor 514 analyzes the clinical data and determines if the data should be transmitted to the host computer 200. In this regard, the processor 514 may be programmed to determine if the clinical data relates to a potentially medically significant event. If no clinical data is received from the sensor that appears to be related to a medically significant event, the state machine 600 remains at state 602, where clinical data generated by the therapy and sensor 512 module is continually analyzed.”; [0113] “the clinical data is stored in the memory 516 for future delivery to the host computer 200.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792