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 .
Application Status
This is the first non-final action on the merits. Claims 1-10 as originally filed on January 12, 2024 are currently pending and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 12, 2024 is being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “resetting the number of of consecutive chews”. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 6 will be interpreted as reading “resetting the number of ”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 recite a bone conduction-based eating monitoring method, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claim 8 recite a bone conduction-based eating monitoring apparatus which is within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they "recite" a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claims. An "abstract idea" judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites: A bone conduction-based eating monitoring method, wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method is applied to a wearable device, and wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method comprises:
monitoring a chewing behavior for food being eaten to obtain a vibration signal of a skull related to the chewing behavior;
counting a number of chews according to the vibration signal to obtain a number of consecutive chews; and
if the number of consecutive chews does not reach a target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, sending a first prompt information; and if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information.
The underlined limitations constitute methods of organizing human activity and concepts performed in the human mind. The claim recites the step of monitoring a chewing behavior, sending a first prompt and sending a second prompt, which encompasses an abstract idea that falls under the methods of organizing human activity, specifically associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. monitoring chewing behavior). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Additionally, the claim encompasses a mental process of counting a number of chews and [determining] if the number of consecutive chews reaches or does not reach the target number of chews. The identified abstract idea, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The abstract idea for Claim 8 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claim 1 and 8 is that Claim 1 recites a method, whereas Claim 8 recites an apparatus. Any limitation not identified above as part of methods of organizing human activity, are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed further in detail below. Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 recite at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-7 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2-5 further describe counting the number of chews. Claim 6 describes counting a vibration interval. Claim 7 describes a monitoring instruction. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed toward fundamentally the same abstract ideas as independent claims 1 and 8, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, claims 1-10 as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements or combination of additional elements, beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea will be described as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the “abstract idea(s)”).
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites: A bone conduction-based eating monitoring method, wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method is applied to a wearable device, and wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method comprises:
monitoring a chewing behavior for food being eaten to obtain a vibration signal of a skull related to the chewing behavior;
counting a number of chews according to the vibration signal to obtain a number of consecutive chews; and
if the number of consecutive chews does not reach a target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, sending a first prompt information; and if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the additional elements of bone conduction, wearable device, vibration signal, apparatus, monitoring module, counting module, and prompting module that implement the identified abstract idea. The wearable device, apparatus, monitoring module, counting module, and prompting module are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., merely invoking the computer structure as a tool used to execute the limitations, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The bone conduction and vibration signal are recited at a high-level of generality such that they are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus, do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims 9 and 10 recite additional element(s) beyond those already recited in the independent claims that implement the identified abstract idea. Claim 9 recites a terminal device, processor and memory. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory storage medium, computer program and processor. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because, as stated above, they represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., merely invoking the computer structure as a tool used to execute the limitations).
Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When viewed as a whole, claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite processes that are routine and well-known in the art and simply implements the process on a computer(s) is not enough to qualify as "significantly more."
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a wearable device, apparatus, monitoring module, counting module, and prompting module to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). In addition, the additional elements of bone conduction and a vibration signal generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 9 and 10 recite additional element(s) beyond those already recited in the independent claims that implement the identified abstract idea. Claim 9 recites a terminal device, processor and memory. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory storage medium, computer program and processor. However, these functions are not deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., merely invoking the computer structure as a tool used to execute the limitations).
Therefore, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamano (US 2017/0086779 A1) in further view of Magomedov (US 2014/0251023 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamano teaches: A bone conduction-based eating monitoring method, wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method is applied to a wearable device, and wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method comprises: ([0027])
monitoring a chewing behavior for food being eaten to obtain a vibration signal of a skull related to the chewing behavior; (The human body vibration acquisition unit 2 acquires vibration produced from the inside of the body of the subject, especially vibration of a muscle or a bone in a mouth or around a throat…The human body vibration acquisition unit 2 generates an electrical signal corresponding to the vibration as the vibration signal.”, e.g. see [0027]; “The processing unit 7 executes the eating and drinking action detection processing on the acquired vibration signal to detect an action…such as mastication and swallowing of the subject.”, e.g. see [0034])
counting a number of chews according to the vibration signal to obtain a number of consecutive chews; and (“the mastication frequency measurement unit 16 increments, each time mastication of a subject is detected…a count value representing the number of the detections of mastication”, e.g. see [0078]; “count number of detections of mastication until swallowing is detected” (i.e. obtain a number of consecutive chews), e.g. see claim 7)
if the number of consecutive chews does not reach a target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, sending a first prompt information; and (“When swallowing of the subject is detected…the mastication frequency measurement unit 16 passes the count value…as the number of mastication performed by the subject between the successive swallowing.”, e.g. see [0078]; “The appropriate frequency determination unit 17 compares the number of mastication performed by the subject between the successive swallowing with a predetermined mastication number threshold (for example, 20 times).”; “causes a message to be displayed…to inform the subject of a small number of mastication, when the number of mastication is lower than the mastication number threshold…may cause an audio signal to be outputted to inform the subject”, e.g. see [0079])
Kamano does not teach:
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information.
However, Magomedov in the analogous art of “monitoring chewing movements” (e.g. see [0005]) teaches:
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information. (“if the current number of chewing movements is equal to the threshold number in each mastication cycle, it sends a sound signal to the user…to swallow the food”, e.g. see [0042], [0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamano to include sending a second prompt information if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews as taught by Magomedov, for the purposes of guiding the user through the “food mastication cycle” (Magomedov [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Kamano further teaches:
wherein after counting the number of chews according to the vibration signal to obtain the number of consecutive chews, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method comprises: determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches a preset monitoring value; and if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, obtaining the target number of chews (“The appropriate frequency determination unit 17 compares the number of mastication performed by the subject between the successive swallowing with a predetermined mastication number threshold (for example, 20 times).”, e.g. see [0079])
Regarding claim 3, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 2 as described above.
Kamano does not teach:
wherein after determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, activating an eating monitoring function of the wearable device and sending a prompt message to the user
However, Magomedov in the analogous art teaches:
wherein after determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, activating an eating monitoring function of the wearable device and sending a prompt message to the user (“if the current number of chewing movements is equal to the threshold number in each mastication cycle, it sends a sound signal to the user…to swallow the food”, e.g. see [0042], [0043]; “detecting deviation of the number of chewing movements…and transmitting a sound message…when the threshold value is reached”, e.g. see [0013])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamano to include activating an eating monitoring function of the wearable device and sending a prompt message to the user if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value as taught by Magomedov, for the purposes of guiding the user through the “food mastication cycle” (Magomedov [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 2 as described above.
Kamano does not teach:
wherein before obtaining the target number of chews, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: obtaining a preset instruction; and determining the target number of chews according to the preset instruction
However, Magomedov in the analogous art teaches:
wherein before obtaining the target number of chews, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: obtaining a preset instruction; and determining the target number of chews according to the preset instruction (“a key for setting a threshold number of chewing movements…and a liquid-crystal display to show the current threshold value”, e.g. see [0013]; “The user can then push key 7 or 8 consecutively to increase or decrease the threshold number of chewing movements”, e.g. see [0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamano to include obtaining a preset instruction; and determining the target number of chews according to the preset instruction as taught by Magomedov, for the purposes of allowing for user customization (Magomedov [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 2 as described above.
Kamano does not teach:
wherein before obtaining the target number of chews, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: obtaining a type of food being eaten; and determining the target number of chews according to the type of food
However, Magomedov in the analogous art teaches:
wherein before obtaining the target number of chews, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: obtaining a type of food being eaten; and determining the target number of chews according to the type of food (“the required (threshold) number of chewing movements can be preset…by measuring the frequency and amplitude (intensity) of mastication that depend on food consistency. The chewing frequency and amplitude are different for hard food ( meat, bread, and so on) and for soft food (soup, broth, salad, and so on), and the preset (appropriate) number of chewing movements can be increased or decreased by analyzing these differences to be adapted to the food chewed”, e.g. see [0014])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamano to include obtaining a type of food being eaten and determining the target number of chews according to the type of food as taught by Magomedov, for the purposes of “measuring the frequency and amplitude (intensity) of mastication that depend on food consistency” (Magomedov [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Kamano further teaches:
wherein after obtaining the vibration signal of the skull related to the chewing behavior, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: counting a vibration interval according to the vibration signal; and (“detect…a period of the nonstationary signal…acquire a continuation time of the period”, e.g. see [0008])
wherein after counting the number of chews according to the vibration signal to obtain the number of consecutive chews, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: if the vibration interval reaches a preset duration period, resetting the number of of consecutive chews; and (“compares the continuation time…with a predetermined time threshold, and determines that the period corresponds to swallowing when the continuation time is longer than the time threshold”, e.g. see [0056]; “When swallowing…is detected…the mastication frequency measurement unit 16 resets the count value to 0.”, e.g. see [0078])
counting the number of chews according to a real-time vibration signal and updating the number of consecutive chews (“when the vibration signal of the current frame is the non-stationary signal…it is assumed that the current frame also corresponds to mastication…the continuation time measurement unit 13 increments the count number C”, e.g. see [0053]; “the mastication frequency measurement unit 16 increments, each time mastication of a subject is detected by the determination unit 14, a count value representing the number of the detections of mastication”, e.g. see [0078])
Regarding claim 7, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Kamano further teaches:
wherein before monitoring the chewing behavior for food being eaten to obtain the vibration signal of the skull related to the chewing behavior, the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method further comprises: obtaining a monitoring instruction; and activating an eating monitoring function according to the monitoring instruction (“The user interface unit 4 generates an operation signal corresponding to an operation of a user, such as a signal for instructing a start of a vibration signal analysis”, e.g. see [0030])
Regarding claim 8, Kamano teaches: A bone conduction-based eating monitoring apparatus, wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring apparatus is applied to a wearable device, and wherein the bone conduction- based eating monitoring apparatus comprises: ([0027])
a monitoring module for monitoring a chewing behavior for food being eaten to obtain a vibration signal of a skull related to the chewing behavior; (The human body vibration acquisition unit 2 acquires vibration produced from the inside of the body of the subject, especially vibration of a muscle or a bone in a mouth or around a throat…The human body vibration acquisition unit 2 generates an electrical signal corresponding to the vibration as the vibration signal…the human body vibration acquisition unit 2 includes…a bone conduction microphone”, e.g. see [0027]; “The processing unit 7 executes the eating and drinking action detection processing on the acquired vibration signal to detect an action…such as mastication and swallowing of the subject.”, e.g. see [0034])
a counting module for counting a number of chews according to the vibration signal to obtain a number of consecutive chews; and (“the mastication frequency measurement unit 16 increments, each time mastication of a subject is detected…a count value representing the number of the detections of mastication”, e.g. see [0078]; “count number of detections of mastication until swallowing is detected” (i.e. obtain a number of consecutive chews), e.g. see claim 7)
a prompting module for sending a first prompt message if the number of consecutive chews does not reach the target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, and (“When swallowing of the subject is detected…the mastication frequency measurement unit 16 passes the count value…as the number of mastication performed by the subject between the successive swallowing.”, e.g. see [0078]; “The appropriate frequency determination unit 17 compares the number of mastication performed by the subject between the successive swallowing with a predetermined mastication number threshold (for example, 20 times).”; “causes a message to be displayed on the user interface unit 4 to inform the subject of a small number of mastication, when the number of mastication is lower than the mastication number threshold…may cause an audio signal to be outputted to inform the subject… from the loudspeaker”, e.g. see [0079])
Kamano does not teach:
sending a second prompt message if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews.
However, Magomedov in the analogous art teaches:
sending a second prompt message if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews. (“if the current number of chewing movements is equal to the threshold number in each mastication cycle, it sends a sound signal to the user…to swallow the food”, e.g. see [0042], [0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamano to include sending a second prompt information if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews as taught by Magomedov, for the purposes of guiding the user through the “food mastication cycle” (Magomedov [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Kamano further teaches:
A terminal device, wherein the terminal device comprises a memory, a processor, and a bone conduction-based eating monitoring program stored on the memory and operable on the processor, wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring program, when executed by the processor, implements steps of the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method according to claim 1. (“The eating and drinking action detection apparatus 1 is implemented, for example, as a mobile phone, a smartphone, a tablet, or a computer.”, e.g. see [0026]; “The processing unit 7 includes one or a plurality of processors, a memory circuit, and a peripheral circuit. The processing unit 7 controls entire eating and drinking action detection apparatus 1.”, e.g. see [0033]; “The memory unit 5 includes, for example, a readable/writable semiconductor memory…The memory unit 5 stores various computer programs and various kinds of data”, e.g. see [0031]; “The processing unit 7 executes the eating and drinking action detection processing on the acquired vibration signal”, e.g. see [0034])
Regarding claim 10, Kamano and Magomedov teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Kamano further teaches:
A non-transitory storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements steps of the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method according to claim 1. (“The eating and drinking action detection apparatus 1 is implemented, for example, as a mobile phone, a smartphone, a tablet, or a computer.”, e.g. see [0026]; “The memory unit 5 stores various computer programs”, e.g. see [0031]; “The processing unit 7 includes one or a plurality of processors, a memory circuit, and a peripheral circuit. The processing unit 7 controls entire eating and drinking action detection apparatus 1.”, e.g. see [0033]; “The storage-medium access apparatus 6…for accessing a storage medium 6a…reads…computer programs”, e.g. see [0032])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference Shalon (US 2006/0064037 A1) discloses monitoring and modifying behavior. Reference Tanriover (US 2019/0038186 A1) discloses identifying food chewed and beverage drank. Reference Connor (US 2021/0249116 A1) discloses smart glasses and wearable systems for measuring food consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaisha Abdullah whose telephone number is (571)272-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9171. 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.
/A.A./
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681