DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Objections
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: electroencephalogram measurement device in claim 1; action measurement device in claim 1; electroencephalogram determination device in claims 1 and 9; action analysis device in claim 2; “storage device” in claim 2; “electroencephalogram measurement section” in claim 10-11; “action measurement section” in claim 10-11; “electroencephalogram determination section” in claim 10-11.
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.
The limitations are interpreted as follows:
Electroencephalogram measurement device and electroencephalogram measurement section (see paragraph 0063) is interpreted as an electroencephalogram detection device and electroencephalogram processor configured to output electroencephalogram data on a wearer, where the detection device provides inputs to the processor (Paragraph 0106, device 122 and processor 212, Fig. 4).
Action measurement device or action measurement section (Paragraph 0061) is interpreted as a sensor, in-camera, out-camera, and sensor processor configured to output action data on the wearer, where the sensor, in-camera, and out-camera provide inputs to the sensor processor, or as a sensor and a processor (Paragraph 0061, 0106; sensor 150, cameras 131 and 132, and processor 211, Fig. 4).
Electroencephalogram determination device and electroencephalogram determination section (see paragraph 0059) is interpreted to be a module of a processor (see element 222, Fig. 4).
Action analysis device and action analysis section (Paragraph 0138) is interpreted to be a module of a processor (element 221, Fig. 4).
Storage device is interpreted as storage and memory which interacts with a processor (Element 110, Fig. 3).
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 § 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.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US
Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan
2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 U.S.C. 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong One), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then in the second part of Step 2A (Prong Two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 25 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claim recite(s) "determine whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data” and “carry out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 satisfies Step 1, namely the claim is directed to one of the four statutory classes, machine. Following Step 2A Prong one, any judicial exceptions are identified in the claims. In (CLAIM X), the limitations "determine whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data” and “carry out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found" are abstract ideas as they are directed to a mental process or mathematical calculation, as determining whether an abnormality is found may be performed via visual observation and judgment of data points or signals or may be determined using basic mathematical operations such as applying a threshold or mathematical transform to the data or signal. Similarly, “predetermined processing” may constitute further mental processes or mathematical concepts as the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses making further judgments or mathematical transforms using the data, such as, for example matching a pattern or threshold of the abnormality with known causes. With the identification of an abstract idea, the next phase is to proceed Step 2A, Prong Two, wherewith additional elements and taken as a whole, evaluation occurs of whether the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not recite any additional elements or evidence that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites “an electroencephalogram measurement device configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user; an action measurement device configured to output action data on the user; an electroencephalogram determination device” and “a controller”. However, these components may be seen as the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step, much like the example given in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), such that these limitations are extra-solution activity and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The steps of outputting data lead to the final limitations of “determin[ing]” and “processing” such that the end result of use of the system is only the generic “processing” which may include any generic output, or no output at all. As this is not defined as requiring any further action, such as a form of prophylaxis or treatment or an improvement to a computer or other technology, the claim limitations constitute mere generation of data, in this case the generation of electroencephalogram and action data, such that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into any practical application. Regarding “an electroencephalogram determination device” and “a controller”, the limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, which does not render an abstract idea eligible. The steps performed by the device and the controller are, as claimed, capable of being performed in the human mind similar to the examples given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(C), wherein it is described that “a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” recites a mental process and that claims which merely use a computer as a tool to perform a mental process are not eligible when “there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper” such as “mental processes of parsing and comparing data” when the steps are recited at a high level of generality and a computer is used merely as a tool to perform the processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim elements are recited with a high level of generality (as written, each claimed step may be performed by a user mentally or with the aid of pen and paper after acquiring data from the additional elements) that there are no meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “an electroencephalogram measurement device configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user; an action measurement device configured to output action data on the user; an electroencephalogram determination device” and “a controller” constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitation constitutes adding generic sensors and processors, which Yocca (US 20220202373 A1)describes as well-understood, routine or conventional in its description of various processors working with memory to execute functions and wearable sensors for monitoring a user which are generic and/or commercially available and are well known in the art (Paragraph 0095-0096, 0101, 0106-0109--A wide range of devices/sensors, such as, for example, a smartphone (e.g., iPhone (BYOD or provisioned)), accelerometers and gyroscopes, portable devices, digital devices, smart fabrics, bands and actuators, smartwatch (e.g., an Apple watch (e.g., Apple watch 3) or iWatch), patch such as MC10 Patch, Oura rings (for example, for patients unable to or that do not want to wear a smartwatch, or high-functioning patients), Android devices, sensors like Microsoft Kinect, wireless communication networks and power supplies, and data capture technology for processing and decision support or any conventional or non-conventional device/sensor performing similar functions can be and/or be included in the automated monitoring device). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the present elements amount to no more than mere indications to apply the exception.
In Summary, claim 1 recites abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and does not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claim and is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. As each of these claims depends from claim 1, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in paragraph 8 of this action, these claims must be evaluated on whether they sufficiently add to the practical application of claim 1, or comprise significantly more than the limitations of claim 1.
Besides the abstract idea of claim 1: claims 2-9 recite further abstract ideas and additional elements that are well-understood, routine or conventional (the action analysis device, storage device, communication interface which constitute adding generic memory, processing, and transmitter which are additionally shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional through the disclosure of Yocca cited above) along with providing mere data output which is considered insignificant post-solution activity, as the output (in this case, the notification, the restriction signal, the restriction request signal, or the startup signal) provides no particular prophylaxis or treatment step and may be any generic output and as the steps of storing, deleting, and logging data and beginning a determination may be seen as using a computer to perform a tool of a mental process, where these steps function similarly to gathering, retaining or ignoring data as relevant;
The claim element of claim 1 of a user assistance system is recited with a high level of generality (as written, the actions of the processing circuitry may be carried out by a person alone or with a generic computer in any undefined manner). This limitation provides no practical application, nor does it provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, where the “sections” are interpreted the same as the corresponding “devices” of claim 1 and the information processor is interpreted as being the same as the “controller” of claim 1.
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.
(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 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yocca (US 20220202373 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yocca teaches a user assistance system comprising:
an electroencephalogram measurement device configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user (Paragraph 0100-0102, 0137, 0161, 0166-0167, 0185-0187-- The automated sensoring device used herein, collects the data on integrated physiological parameters (such as EDA, resting EEG, blood pressure, mobility/motor, memory/processing, speech/sleep patterns etc.) and then transfer/signal the collected data…; paragraph 0089—physiological signals such as…changes in resting EEG; Step 301/401-- monitoring one or more physiological signals of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject using the automated sensoring device);
an action measurement device configured to output action data on the user (Paragraph 0100-0103, 0109-- any device that could be worn/placed/mounted on the body of the patient and that is able to detect, and process signals related to sympathetic nervous system activity and/or motor activity…; Step 301/401-- monitoring one or more physiological signals of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject using the automated sensoring device);
an electroencephalogram determination device configured to determine whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data (Paragraph 0048-0049, 0160-170-- analyze, using at least one machine learning model, the physiological data to detect an anomaly from a reference pattern of sympathetic nervous system activity; paragraph 0137-0150-- the analyzing to predict the agitation episode includes comparing the second physiological data with the baseline value of at least one physiological parameter…; paragraph 0102-0103-- filtering the data signals and eliminates the noises such as spikes and non-contact values (to avoid the risk that positive emotions such as joy and happiness may result in an increase in EDA as well) and obtained a baseline value. The baseline value is calculated for a patient to statistically classify any change in the physiological parameters such as EDA and/or resting EEG levels etc. on a defined scale (from 0 to 5); Step 302/402-- identifying when the subject is about to have an agitation episode. This is done via the processing of incoming data from the automated sensoring device); and
a controller configured to carry out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found (Paragraph 0108, 0160-0174-- The disclosed system includes a data collection module configured to passively collect longitudinal data from the subject who has episodes of agitation in the context of diagnosis of diseases including, for example, various neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, delirium or dementia…; Paragraph 0137-0150-- the processor 802 can fine tune the set of physiological parameters and/or the weight(s) associated with the machine learning model (or other mathematical model) so that the machine learning model (or other mathematical model) can provide more accurate predictions…).
Regarding claim 4, Yocca teaches the user assistance system according to claim 1. Yocca additionally teaches in response to the result of determination indicating the abnormality has been found, the controller transmits a restriction signal for restricting processing to a predetermined application program (Paragraph 0042, 0048-0049, 0106-0108, 0120-0129, 0135, 0142, 0163-0165-- send a signal to a second monitoring device to notify the second monitoring device of the probability of the occurrence of the agitation episode of the subject such that treatment can be provided to the subject; paragraph 0100-- transfer/signal the collected data to a computer database external to the patient monitoring device including one or more early warning unit based on an early warning algorithm to transform data into a format that is interpretable as a specific measure, or, an aggregate functional outcome in the form of alert signals).
Regarding claim 5, Yocca teaches the user assistance system according to claim 4. Yocca additionally teaches further comprising a communication interface, wherein
the controller transmits the restriction signal to a predetermined external device via the communication interface (paragraph 0045, 0100, 0106-0108-- the data collection module is configured to communicate the data to a local server and to a network server…transfer/signal the collected data to a computer database external to the patient monitoring device including one or more early warning unit based on an early warning algorithm to transform data into a format that is interpretable as a specific measure, or, an aggregate functional outcome in the form of alert signals…Communication between the devices shown and described with respect to FIG. 1 can be via a communication network. The network can be a digital telecommunication network of servers and/or compute devices…The signal can also be sent to a remote compatible device (not shown in FIG. 1) monitored by a caregiver alerting the caregiver to an impending agitation episode in the subject; paragraph 0164-0165-- the device signaling information related to increases in sympathetic nervous system activity, e.g. remotely via Bluetooth, to a receiving unit, such as an end-user display terminal, which may then actively alert the caregiver… may passively present (e.g. display on a screen) the information received from the device for review and action by the caregiver).
Regarding claim 6, Yocca teaches the user assistance system according to claim 1. Yocca additionally teaches in response to the result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found, the controller transmits a restriction request signal for requesting a restriction of processing to a server that is a service provider of a predetermined application program via the communication interface (paragraph 0045, 0100, 0106-0108-- the data collection module is configured to communicate the data to a local server and to a network server…transfer/signal the collected data to a computer database external to the patient monitoring device including one or more early warning unit based on an early warning algorithm to transform data into a format that is interpretable as a specific measure, or, an aggregate functional outcome in the form of alert signals…Communication between the devices shown and described with respect to FIG. 1 can be via a communication network. The network can be a digital telecommunication network of servers and/or compute devices…The signal can also be sent to a remote compatible device (not shown in FIG. 1) monitored by a caregiver alerting the caregiver to an impending agitation episode in the subject; paragraph 0164-0165-- the device signaling information related to increases in sympathetic nervous system activity, e.g. remotely via Bluetooth, to a receiving unit, such as an end-user display terminal, which may then actively alert the caregiver… may passively present (e.g. display on a screen) the information received from the device for review and action by the caregiver).
Regarding claim 7, Yocca teaches the user assistance system according to claim 1. Yocca additionally teaches in response to the result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found, the controller transmits a startup signal to a predetermined assistance application program (paragraph 0164-0165-- the device signaling information related to increases in sympathetic nervous system activity, e.g. remotely via Bluetooth, to a receiving unit, such as an end-user display terminal, which may then actively alert the caregiver… may passively present (e.g. display on a screen) the information received from the device for review and action by the caregiver; Paragraph 0042, 0048-0049, 0106-0108, 0120-0129, 0135, 0142, 0163-0165-- send a signal to a second monitoring device to notify the second monitoring device of the probability of the occurrence of the agitation episode of the subject such that treatment can be provided to the subject).
Regarding claim 8, Yocca teaches the user assistance system according to claim 1. Yocca additionally teaches the controller collects action logs of the user in response to the result of determination indicating that the abnormality is found (Paragraph 0108, 0113, 0137-0139, 0147-0148--a data collection module configured to passively collect longitudinal data from the subject who has episodes of agitation in the context of diagnosis of diseases including, for example, various neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, delirium or dementia…Data processing steps may include but not limited to file compression, encryption, time stamping…A report of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject to identify a pattern of a change of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject is generated…the processor 802 can receive an indication after sending the signal to alert the prediction of the agitation episode. For example, the caregiver can provide the indication to the processor 802 of whether or not the predicted agitation episode has happened, the intensity level of the agitation episode, the time at which the agitation episode happens, the duration of the agitation episode, and/or other characteristics of the agitation episode).
Regarding claim 9, Yocca teaches the user assistance system according to claim 1. Yocca additionally teaches the electroencephalogram determination device starts the determination based on the action data in response to a predetermined action performed by the user (Paragraph 0188--Motion signals can include, for example, dominant hand (fidgeting, taping fingers/hands, hand-wringing, nail-biting, picking at skin); body (chaotic body positioning changes, Taping feet, Shuffle)…; paragraph 0137-0150-- the analyzing to predict the agitation episode includes comparing the second physiological data with the baseline value of at least one physiological parameter…; paragraph 0548--the recording protocol can include App record continuously until battery dies, App records from the moment you switch on the device & app on, App records while charging, after device restart (by user of b/c of low battery), app needs to trigger data collection manually…).
Regarding claim 10, Yocca teaches a wearable terminal comprising:
an electroencephalogram measurement section configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user (Paragraph 0100-0102, 0137, 0161, 0166-0167, 0185-0187-- The automated sensoring device used herein, collects the data on integrated physiological parameters (such as EDA, resting EEG, blood pressure, mobility/motor, memory/processing, speech/sleep patterns etc.) and then transfer/signal the collected data…; paragraph 0089—physiological signals such as…changes in resting EEG; Step 301/401-- monitoring one or more physiological signals of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject using the automated sensoring device);
an action measurement section configured to output action data on the user (Paragraph 0100-0103, 0109-- any device that could be worn/placed/mounted on the body of the patient and that is able to detect, and process signals related to sympathetic nervous system activity and/or motor activity…; Step 301/401-- monitoring one or more physiological signals of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject using the automated sensoring device);
an electroencephalogram determination section configured to determine whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data (Paragraph 0048-0049, 0160-170-- analyze, using at least one machine learning model, the physiological data to detect an anomaly from a reference pattern of sympathetic nervous system activity; paragraph 0137-0150-- the analyzing to predict the agitation episode includes comparing the second physiological data with the baseline value of at least one physiological parameter…; paragraph 0102-0103-- filtering the data signals and eliminates the noises such as spikes and non-contact values (to avoid the risk that positive emotions such as joy and happiness may result in an increase in EDA as well) and obtained a baseline value. The baseline value is calculated for a patient to statistically classify any change in the physiological parameters such as EDA and/or resting EEG levels etc. on a defined scale (from 0 to 5); Step 302/402-- identifying when the subject is about to have an agitation episode. This is done via the processing of incoming data from the automated sensoring device); and
a controller configured to carry out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found (Paragraph 0108, 0160-0174-- The disclosed system includes a data collection module configured to passively collect longitudinal data from the subject who has episodes of agitation in the context of diagnosis of diseases including, for example, various neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, delirium or dementia…; Paragraph 0137-0150-- the processor 802 can fine tune the set of physiological parameters and/or the weight(s) associated with the machine learning model (or other mathematical model) so that the machine learning model (or other mathematical model) can provide more accurate predictions…).
Regarding claim 11, Yocca teaches a user assistance method for a wearable terminal, the wearable terminal comprising:
an electroencephalogram measurement section configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user (Paragraph 0100-0102, 0137, 0161, 0166-0167, 0185-0187-- The automated sensoring device used herein, collects the data on integrated physiological parameters (such as EDA, resting EEG, blood pressure, mobility/motor, memory/processing, speech/sleep patterns etc.) and then transfer/signal the collected data…; paragraph 0089—physiological signals such as…changes in resting EEG; Step 301/401-- monitoring one or more physiological signals of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject using the automated sensoring device);
an action measurement section configured to output action data on the user (Paragraph 0100-0103, 0109-- any device that could be worn/placed/mounted on the body of the patient and that is able to detect, and process signals related to sympathetic nervous system activity and/or motor activity…; Step 301/401-- monitoring one or more physiological signals of sympathetic nervous system activity in the subject using the automated sensoring device);
an information processor configured to carry out processing using the electroencephalogram data and the action data, the method comprising:
determining whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data (Paragraph 0048-0049, 0160-170-- analyze, using at least one machine learning model, the physiological data to detect an anomaly from a reference pattern of sympathetic nervous system activity; paragraph 0137-0150-- the analyzing to predict the agitation episode includes comparing the second physiological data with the baseline value of at least one physiological parameter…; paragraph 0102-0103-- filtering the data signals and eliminates the noises such as spikes and non-contact values (to avoid the risk that positive emotions such as joy and happiness may result in an increase in EDA as well) and obtained a baseline value. The baseline value is calculated for a patient to statistically classify any change in the physiological parameters such as EDA and/or resting EEG levels etc. on a defined scale (from 0 to 5); Step 302/402-- identifying when the subject is about to have an agitation episode. This is done via the processing of incoming data from the automated sensoring device); and
carrying out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found (Paragraph 0108, 0160-0174-- The disclosed system includes a data collection module configured to passively collect longitudinal data from the subject who has episodes of agitation in the context of diagnosis of diseases including, for example, various neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, delirium or dementia…; Paragraph 0137-0150-- the processor 802 can fine tune the set of physiological parameters and/or the weight(s) associated with the machine learning model (or other mathematical model) so that the machine learning model (or other mathematical model) can provide more accurate predictions…).
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Howard (US 20200037942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Howard teaches a user assistance system comprising:
an electroencephalogram measurement device configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3—electroencephalogram apparatus; a processor… receiving data measuring functioning of at least one of the motor system, cognitive function, and brain activity of a subject during everyday life…; paragraph 0249-0253, 0372-0375—EEGs were analyzed…);
an action measurement device configured to output action data on the user (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3-- the processor to perform receiving data measuring functioning of at least one of the motor system, cognitive function, and brain activity of a subject during everyday life, wherein measuring functioning of the motor system comprises placing a wearable body sensor system on the subject, the wearable body sensor system adapted to measure movements and object interaction of the subject in everyday living situations…);
an electroencephalogram determination device configured to determine whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3-- determining the presence of an abnormal condition based on the gathered at least one motor system data, cognitive function data, and brain activity data of the subject); and
a controller configured to carry out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found (Paragraph 0010, claim 3—generating information indicating movement conditions…).
Regarding claim 10, Howard teaches a wearable terminal comprising:
an electroencephalogram measurement section configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3—electroencephalogram apparatus; a processor… receiving data measuring functioning of at least one of the motor system, cognitive function, and brain activity of a subject during everyday life…; paragraph 0249-0253, 0372-0375—EEGs were analyzed…);
an action measurement section configured to output action data on the user (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3-- the processor to perform receiving data measuring functioning of at least one of the motor system, cognitive function, and brain activity of a subject during everyday life, wherein measuring functioning of the motor system comprises placing a wearable body sensor system on the subject, the wearable body sensor system adapted to measure movements and object interaction of the subject in everyday living situations…);
an electroencephalogram determination section configured to determine whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3-- determining the presence of an abnormal condition based on the gathered at least one motor system data, cognitive function data, and brain activity data of the subject); and
a controller configured to carry out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found (Paragraph 0010, claim 3—generating information indicating movement conditions…).
Regarding claim 11, Howard teaches a user assistance method for a wearable terminal, the wearable terminal comprising:
an electroencephalogram measurement section configured to output electroencephalogram data on a user (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3—electroencephalogram apparatus… processor… receiving data measuring functioning of at least one of the motor system, cognitive function, and brain activity of a subject during everyday life…; paragraph 0249-0253, 0372-0375—EEGs were analyzed…);
an action measurement section configured to output action data on the user (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3-- the processor to perform receiving data measuring functioning of at least one of the motor system, cognitive function, and brain activity of a subject during everyday life, wherein measuring functioning of the motor system comprises placing a wearable body sensor system on the subject, the wearable body sensor system adapted to measure movements and object interaction of the subject in everyday living situations…);
an information processor configured to carry out processing using the electroencephalogram data and the action data (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3—…processor…), the method comprising:
determining whether an abnormality is found in the electroencephalogram data based on the electroencephalogram data and the action data (Paragraph 0010, Claim 3-- determining the presence of an abnormal condition based on the gathered at least one motor system data, cognitive function data, and brain activity data of the subject); and
carrying out predetermined processing in response to a result of determination indicating that the abnormality has been found (Paragraph 0010, claim 3—generating information indicating movement conditions…).
Conclusion
It is noted that as none of “restriction signal”, “restriction request signal”, and “startup signal” are noted as requiring a specific interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations of the claims encompasses the transmission of signals to a caregiver to restrict or prompt activities via some application of the external terminal device used by the caregiver and presented upon the interface of that external device.
No rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 has been applied to claims 2 and 3. The prior art of the record fails to teach and/or fairly suggest “provide an abnormality notification for notifying that the abnormality has been found in the electroencephalogram data and delete the abnormality information in a period in which the result of determination indicates that the user is awake and also the result of determination indicates that no abnormality is found” of claim 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights