DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “160” has been used to designate both inertial sensor and feedback device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "150" and "160" have both been used to designate feedback device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 and 2 do not comply with the requirements in rule 1.84(t)(u). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the drawings and specification are not in agreement, see the drawing objections above, amendments to the specification will be required.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms Bluetooth and WiFi, which each is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should each be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims fail to conform with MPEP 608.01(m): “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).” As the claim(s) contain additional periods, or does not end in a period the claim(s) is objected to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1
detect an event of interest by: (mental process/mathematical concepts)
determining that the event of interest has occurred based on a comparison between the inertial input data and a predetermined inertial threshold; (mental process/mathematical concepts)
analyse the grip of the user on the sleeve, by: (mental process/mathematical concepts)
determining a grip attribute based on the input data; (mental process/mathematical concepts)
determining a medical status of the user based on the grip attribute (mental process/mathematical concepts)
Claim 17
detecting an event of interest, by: (mental process/mathematical concepts)
determining that the event of interest has occurred based on a comparison between the inertial input data and a predetermined inertial threshold; (mental process/mathematical concepts)
analysing the grip of the user on the sleeve by: (mental process/mathematical concepts)
determining a grip attribute based on the input data; (mental process/mathematical concepts)
determining a medical status of the user based on the grip attribute; (mental process/mathematical concepts)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1
a sleeve positionable, in use, on an object configured to be gripped by a user; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
a distributed array of pressure sensors arranged to detect a pressure applied to the sleeve; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
an inertial sensor arranged to detect an inertial measurement of the object; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
a processor operable to: (generic computer structures used as a tool)
receiving inertial input data from the inertial sensor; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
detect, with the array of pressure sensors, a grip of a user on the sleeve; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
receiving input data from the array of pressure sensors; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
output the medical status corresponding to the user (generic post-solution activities, insignificant data output)
Claim 17
detecting, by an array of pressure sensors, a grip of a user on a sleeve; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
detecting, by an inertial sensor, an inertial measurement of the object; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
receiving inertial input data from the inertial sensor; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
receiving input data from the array of pressure sensors; (structures related to data gathering pre-solution activities)
and outputting the medical status corresponding to the user (generic post-solution activities, insignificant data output)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified above in steps 2A. The features related to the sensors on a sleeve are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm/mental process, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the method/system as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm/mental process. In addition, these sensor structures on sleeves are known from US 2020/0289890, US 2010/0036288, US 2014/0366650, US 9403059, US 2018/0117432, US 2022/0314086.. The method does not contain any computing structure, such that the steps can all be analog/mental processing of the data gathered which further supports that the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further system details which are related to computational systems known in the art cited above, and further details of intended data processing capabilities (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Kim, US 2020/0289890).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a medical status analysis system comprising:
a sleeve positionable, in use, on an object configured to be gripped by a user (see at least [0055]-[0057], [0059], Fig. 1C);
a distributed array of pressure sensors arranged to detect a pressure applied to the sleeve (see at least Figure 1C, [0057] one or more sensors);
an inertial sensor arranged to detect an inertial measurement of the object (see at least [0057] “one or more gyroscopes 130 (e.g., a three-axis gyroscope), one or more accelerometers 131 (e.g., a three-axis accelerometer), one or more magnetometers 132 (e.g., a three-axis magnetometer)”; and
a processor operable to (see at least [0057], operable is an intended use such that all details met by processor presence in the system):
detect, with the inertial sensor, an event of interest (intended use, see at least [0043], [0063]), by:
receiving inertial input data from the inertial sensor (intended use, see at least [0043], [0063]); and
determining that the event of interest has occurred based on a comparison between the inertial input data and a predetermined inertial threshold (intended use, see at least, [0043], [0063], any measurement greater than 0 is of interest, i.e. movement);
detect, with the array of pressure sensors, a grip of a user on the sleeve (intended use, see at least [0043], [0074]);
analyse the grip of the user on the sleeve (see at least [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068]), by:
receiving input data from the array of pressure sensors (intended use, see at least [0043], [0063]);
determining a grip attribute based on the input data (intended use, see at least [0043]); and
determining a medical status of the user based on the grip attribute (intended use, see at least [0043], [0064], [0068], comparative strength, including strength over time); and
output the medical status corresponding to the user (intended use, see at least [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the inertial sensor is one or more selected from the range of: an accelerometer; a gyroscope; a tilt sensor; and a magnetometer (see at least [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the event of interest comprises: inertial input data that has met the predetermined inertial threshold; and a clock data; wherein the clock data corresponds to the inertial input data (intended use, see at least, [0043], [0063], any measurement greater than 0 is of interest, i.e. movement, [0044] real-time).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the input data comprises a temporal component (intended use, see at least [0044] real-time).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches wherein the processor is further operable to: compare the temporal component of the input data to the clock data of the event of interest; and output event data having a temporal component matching the event clock data (intended use, see at least [0044] real-time).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches wherein the grip attribute is determined using the event data having the matching temporal component (intended use, see at least [0044] real-time).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the grip attribute is one or more selected from the range of: an average grip strength; a maximum grip strength; a temporal change in grip strength; a longitudinal change in grip strength across a length of the sleeve; and a lateral change in grip strength across a width of the sleeve substantially perpendicular to a length of the sleeve (intended use, see at least [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the processor is operable to determine the average grip strength by: averaging the input data over the temporal component (intended use, and further limits alternative components, see at least rejection of claim 7, [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068], [0114]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the processor is operable to determine the maximum grip strength by: calculating a maximum pressure comprised in the input data over the temporal component (intended use, and further limits alternative components, see at least rejection of claim 7, [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the processor is operable to determine the temporal change in grip strength by: determining a first pressure having a first time stamp corresponding to the temporal component; determining a second pressure having a second time stamp corresponding to the temporal component; and calculating a difference between the first pressure and the second pressure (intended use, and further limits alternative components, see at least rejection of claim 7, [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068], [0044] real-time).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the first time stamp corresponds to the second time stamp (intended use, and further limits alternative components, see at least rejection of claim 7, [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068], [0044] real-time).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the processor is operable to determine the longitudinal change in grip strength by: determining a first longitudinal pressure at a first longitudinal position along a longitudinal axis of the sleeve; and determining a second longitudinal pressure at a second longitudinal position spaced from the first longitudinal position along the said longitudinal axis of the sleeve; wherein determining the longitudinal change in grip strength comprises calculating a difference between the first longitudinal pressure and the second longitudinal pressure (intended use, and further limits alternative components, see at least rejection of claim 7, [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches wherein the processor is operable to determine the lateral change in grip strength by: determining a first lateral pressure at a first lateral position along an axis orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the sleeve; and determining a second lateral pressure at a second lateral position; wherein determining the lateral change in grip strength comprises calculating a difference between the first lateral pressure and the second lateral pressure (intended use, and further limits alternative components, see at least rejection of claim 7, [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068]).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches wherein the input data from the array of pressure sensors is stored on a remote server (intended use, see also Figure 10A).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches wherein the remote server is in communication with at least one other medical status analysis system (further limits intended use, see also Figure 10A).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the processor is adjacent to the sleeve and is operatively connected to: the array of pressure sensors; and the inertial sensor (see at least Figure 1C, [0044], [0057]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a medical status analysis method comprising the steps:
detecting, by an array of pressure sensors, a grip of a user on a sleeve (see at least [0043], [0055]-[0057], [0059], Fig. 1C, [0063], [0074]);
detecting, by an inertial sensor, an inertial measurement of the object (see at least [0057], [0043], [0063])”;
detecting, with the inertial sensor, an event of interest (see at least, [0043], [0063], any measurement greater than 0 is of interest, i.e. movement), by:
receiving inertial input data from the inertial sensor (see at least [0043], [0063]); and
determining that the event of interest has occurred based on a comparison between the inertial input data and a predetermined inertial threshold(see at least, [0043], [0063], any measurement greater than 0 is of interest, i.e. movement);
analysing the grip of the user on the sleeve (see at least [0043], [0064], [0066], [0068]) by:
receiving input data from the array of pressure sensors (see at least [0043], [0063]);
determining a grip attribute based on the input data (see at least [0043]);
determining a medical status of the user based on the grip attribute (see at least [0043], [0064], [0068], comparative strength, including strength over time); and
outputting the medical status corresponding to the user (see at least [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches a grip analysis system wherein the grip analysis system is the medical status analysis system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0036288, US 2014/0366650, US 9403059, US 2018/0117432, US 2022/0314086 teach related systems and structures to concepts claimed and disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791