DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19, 20 and 22-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/19/2026. No reasons for traversal were provided, therefore, the requirement is deemed FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/14/2023 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 15 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “execute a processing identifying” should read “execute a process identifying”. 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 13-15 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.
Each of Claims 13-15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Each of Claims 13-15 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving wearable sensor information and location information, determining the risk based on the sensor information and location information, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 13-15 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 13-15 recites abstract ideas which have been underlined below (and additional elements in bold, which will be addressed in Prong 2):
(Claim 13) An information processing apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to acquire sensor information received from a wearable device and location information identifying a location of a communication device which receives the sensor information; and a controller configured to execute, based on the location information and the sensor information, an evaluation processing to evaluate a risk of a user who wears the wearable device, wherein the evaluation processing being configured to be changed based on the location information (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) – it is noted as claimed a receiver, especially as broadly claimed, could be the human mind, the claim merely sets forth acquiring sensor and location information and performing an evaluation, nothing more,
(Claim 14) The information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the location of the communication device includes a location of a bed, a location of a wheelchair, and a location of a toilet, andthe controller is configured to execute the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down, and wherein the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down from the bed, the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down from the wheelchair, the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down in the toilet, and the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down during walking are different respectively (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
(Claim 15) The information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to: execute a processing identifying a peripheral device located around the user based on at least one of the location information and information identifying the user who wears the wearable device, and control the peripheral device based on the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of Claims 13-15 are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because there are no additional elements
Accordingly, Claims 13-15 are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 13-15 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of Claims 13-15 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 13-15 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in Claims 13-15 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 13-15 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 13-15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 13-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA 3039828 A1 / WO 2018/069262 A1 to Annegarn et al. (hereinafter, Annegarn).
Regarding Claim 13, Annegarn discloses an information processing apparatus (pg. 1, ll. 2-3 “The disclosure relates to a method and apparatus for determining the risk of a subject falling.”) comprising inter alia:
a receiver (processing unit 6) configured to acquire sensor information received from a wearable device (pg. 3, ll. 27-29 “… the movement sensor 4 is an accelerometer that measures accelerations in three dimensions, in which case the movement sensor 4 can be worn or carried by the subject.”) (pg. 4, ll. 20-21 “The measurements of movements (first data set) are provided to a processing unit 6 in the apparatus 2.”) and location information identifying a location of a communication device (pg. 5, ll. 29-31 “…multiple context sensors 10… are located throughout the home environment of the subject so that many different activities and contexts of the subject can be measured.”) (pg. 6, ll. 6-8 “The measurements by the context sensor(s) 10 are provided to the processing unit 6...”) which receives the sensor information (pg. 6, ll. 11-13 “… all of the components of the apparatus 2 are part of the same device, e.g. the movement sensor 4, context sensor(s) 10 and processing unit 6 are in a single housing…”); and
a controller configured to execute (pg. 4, ll. 25-30 “The processing unit 6 can be implemented in numerous ways, with software and/or hardware, to perform the various functions required. The processing unit 6 may comprise one or more microprocessors that may be programmed using software to perform the required functions. The processing unit 6 may be implemented as a combination of dedicated hardware to perform some functions and a processor (e.g., one or more programmed microprocessors and associated circuitry) to perform other functions.”), based on the location information and the sensor information, an evaluation processing to evaluate a risk of a user who wears the wearable device, wherein the evaluation processing being configured to be changed based on the location information (pg. 6, ll. 14-17 “…the apparatus 2 is implemented in a fall detection system, in which case the processing unit 6 can be configured to both determine a fall risk from the first data set and second data set, and determine whether the subject has suffered a fall from at least the first data set.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Annegarn discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the location of the communication device includes a location of a bed (pg. 9, ll. 22-24 “…the second data set comprises presence measurements for the subject in… the bedroom…”), a location of a wheelchair (pg. 11, ll. 21-23 “…second data set comprises presence information… and proximity information that indicates whether the subject is proximate to… a walking aid, a first chair or second chair.”), and a location of a toilet (pg. 9, ll. 22-23 “…the second data set comprises presence measurements for the subject in… the toilet…”), and
the controller is configured to execute the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down (pg. 6, ll. 14-17 “…the apparatus 2 is implemented in a fall detection system, in which case the processing unit 6 can be configured to both determine a fall risk from the first data set and second data set, and determine whether the subject has suffered a fall from at least the first data set.”), and
wherein the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down from the bed (pg. 17, ll. 10-18), the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down from the wheelchair (pg. 17, ll. 29 to pg. 18, ll. 2), the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down in the toilet (pg. 18, ll. 3-7), and the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down during walking (pg. 16, ll. 11 to pg. 12, ll. 9) are different respectively (pg. 13, ll. 33 to pg. 14, ll. 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annegarn in view of Posture estimation and human support using wearable sensors and walking-aid robot to Huang et al. (hereinafter, Huang).
Annegarn discloses (Claim 15) wherein the controller is configured to execute a processing identifying a peripheral device located around the user based on at least one of the location information and information identifying the user who wears the wearable device (pg. 6, ll. 14-17 “…the apparatus 2 is implemented in a fall detection system, in which case the processing unit 6 can be configured to both determine a fall risk from the first data set and second data set, and determine whether the subject has suffered a fall from at least the first data set.”) and (Claim 21) wherein the controller is configured to execute a processing identifying a peripheral device located around the user based on the location information (pg. 17, ll. 30-33 “…chairs can be of different sizes and shapes, and include/not include arm rests, etc., so it is useful to identify the chair that the subject was sitting on. Thus, the context sensor 10 can be a sensor that measures the presence of a subject in a particular chair…”).
Annegarn discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing (Claims 15 and 21) controlling/activating the peripheral device based on the evaluation processing to determine whether the user may be falling down based on sensor information and evaluate the risk of the user who wears the wearable device, (Claims 16) where the peripheral device is a device including a caster, and the controller is configured to lock the caster of the peripheral device if the controller determines the user has the risk of falling down, and (Claim 18) wherein the peripheral device including the caster includes at least one of a table and a wheeled walker.
However, Huang teaches (Claims 15, 18 and 21) a walking-aid wheeled robot (see 2. Walking-aid robot, pg. 25) that is developed to assist an individual wearing wearable sensors (see 3.1 Wearable sensors, pg. 27 and 3.2 Gait recognition pgs. 27-29), where, when the tendency/risk to fall is detected from the sensors, the robot will react to prevent the user from falling down (see 3.3 Fall detection pgs. 29-30), (Claim 16) where the peripheral device is a device including a caster (2. Walking-aid robot “The omni-directional mobile base comprises three commercial omni-wheels and actuators…casters are also mounted on the base to widen the support area so as to enhance the stability.”), and (Claim 16) the controller is configured to lock the caster of the peripheral device if the controller determines the user has the risk of falling down (pgs. 38-41 5. Conclusion “During normal walking, the robot is controlled by a conventional admittance control strategy. If any fall is detected using wearable sensors the robot will stop immediately to prevent the user from falling down.”).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the information processing apparatus, including the body worn sensors of Annegarn to including the walking-aid robot to prevent the user from falling down of Huang, as Huang teaches under “5. Conclusions” that the wearable sensors attached to the body would have allowed to use the robot to prevent a fall. Both Annegarn and Huang disclose body worn sensors to detect/prevent falls, to further use the body sensors of Annegarn to control a robot to prevent falls would have been an obvious, practical use of the sensors to prevent injuries.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annegarn and Huang and further in view of “Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned” to Fishinger et al. (hereinafter, Fishinger).
Annegarn and Huang teach where the peripheral devices is a device including a caster to move the deivce (Huang: 2. Walking-aid robot “The omni-directional mobile base comprises three commercial omni-wheels and actuators…casters are also mounted on the base to widen the support area so as to enhance the stability.”). Annegarn and Huang teach the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing if the controller determines the user has the risk of falling down, the controller is configured to control the peripheral device to move the peripheral device closer to the user by driving the caster of the peripheral device.
However, Fishinger teaches a robot of a robot care system that assists in fall prevention and patient handing (Abstract). Fishinger teaches where the robot has a fall detection function that uses sensors to determine if user needs assistance (e.g., identification of body fall/instability), and in this case, moves the robot to approach the user’s position (5.7 Fall detection and help function). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the fall detection system of Annegarn and Huang to include the assistive robot of Fishinger, as Fishinger teaches that fall detection in adults is a major health risk, and their robot would have provided support to individuals to prevent falls and call for help (5.7 Fall detection system). Both Annegarn/Huang and Fishinger teach sensors to detect/prevent falls, to further use the body sensors of Fishinger to control a robot to move to the patient to prevent falls would have been an obvious, practical use of the sensors to prevent injuries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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 (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791