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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 4-10 as presented May 11, 2026 are currently pending and considered below.
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: monitoring module, counting module, prompting module, determining module, obtaining module and reminding module in claim 8.
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. A review of the Specification does not reveal any particular structure associated with “monitoring module”, “counting module”, “prompting module”, “determining module”, “obtaining module” and “reminding module”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites limitations of “monitoring module”, “counting module”, “prompting module”, “determining module”, “obtaining module” and “reminding module” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification does not provide sufficient description of the corresponding structure for the “monitoring module”, “counting module”, “prompting module”, “determining module”, “obtaining module” and “reminding module to perform the claimed function, and therefore, there is a lack of written description under 112(a) for these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites limitations of “monitoring module”, “counting module”, “prompting module”, “determining module”, “obtaining module” and “reminding module” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A review of the as-filed disclosure indicates that there is no structure associated with this engine. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “comparing the number of consecutive chews with a target number of chews” in the third paragraph of the claim. However, the step of “obtaining the target number of chews” does not occur until the sixth paragraph of the claim. Furthermore, the step of obtaining the target number of chews is conditioned upon the consecutive chew first reaching a “preset monitoring value”. It is not possible for the smart glasses to compare a live chew count against a “target number” that the system has not yet obtained. A review of the specification reveals that the “target number” is obtained before the primary comparison occurs. The system first uses a “preset monitoring value” to “avoid false triggering” and verify the user in the eating stage ([0103]-[0104]). If the preset monitoring value is reached, the system “enters the monitoring cycle and obtains the target number of chews” ([0105]-[0106]). Only after the target number is obtained does the system continue to track the chewing behavior and perform the step of comparing the consecutive chews against the target number ([0095]). Because the operational steps and module functions are recited out of chronological order, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the proper sequence of execution, rendering the claims indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claims 1 and 8 will be interpreted in a manner as best understood and consistent with Applicant’s specification, wherein the system assesses if the “preset monitoring value” is reached in order to enter the monitoring cycle and obtain the “target number of chews”, and then the system compares the consecutive chews to the target number.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “the wearable device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amended claims 1 and 8 recite “smart glasses” in the preamble and earlier limitations of the claim. Therefore, it is unclear whether Applicant has introduced “the wearable device” as a new claim element, or if Applicant intended “the wearable device” to refer to the “smart glasses” recited earlier in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claims 1 and 8 will be interpreted in a manner as best understood by the Examiner, where “the wearable device” is treated the same as the “smart glasses”.
Claims 4-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph due to their dependence on claim 1.
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 and 4-10 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, 4-7, 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 smart glasses, and wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method comprises:
the smart glasses obtaining a vibration signal of a skull related to a chewing behavior by a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses, and monitoring the chewing behavior for food being eaten by obtaining the vibration signal;
the smart glasses counting a vibration number of a temporal bone according to the vibration signal by a vibration sensor, and counting a number of chews according to the vibration number of the temporal bone to obtain a number of consecutive chews; and
after obtaining the number of consecutive chews, the smart glasses comparing the number of consecutive chews with a target number of chews, and if the number of consecutive chews does not reach the target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, sending a first prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration; and
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration,
wherein after the 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:
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,
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,
wherein the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage.
The underlined limitations constitute methods of organizing human activity and concepts performed in the human mind. The claim recites the step of monitoring the chewing behavior, sending a first prompt, sending a second prompt, activating an eating monitoring function, sending a prompt message 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, comparing the number of consecutive chews with a target number, [determining] if the number of consecutive chews reaches or does not reach the target number of chews, determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches a preset monitoring value, obtaining the target number of chews, and avoid false triggering of a monitoring function. 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 and 4-7 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 4 and 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 and 4-10 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 smart glasses, and wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method comprises:
the smart glasses obtaining a vibration signal of a skull related to a chewing behavior by a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses, and monitoring the chewing behavior for food being eaten by obtaining the vibration signal;
the smart glasses counting a vibration number of a temporal bone according to the vibration signal by a vibration sensor, and counting a number of chews according to the vibration number of the temporal bone to obtain a number of consecutive chews; and
after obtaining the number of consecutive chews, the smart glasses comparing the number of consecutive chews with a target number of chews, and if the number of consecutive chews does not reach the target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, sending a first prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration; and
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration,
wherein after the 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:
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,
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,
wherein the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the additional elements of bone conduction, smart glasses, bone conduction microphone, wearable device, vibration signal, vibration sensor, apparatus, image, sound, vibration, monitoring module, counting module, prompting module, determining module, obtaining module and reminding module that implement the identified abstract idea. The wearable device, apparatus, image, sound, monitoring module, counting module, prompting module, determining module, obtaining module and reminding 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, smart glasses, bone conduction microphone, vibration, vibration signal and vibration sensor 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 and 4-10 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, image, sound, monitoring module, counting module, prompting module, determining module, obtaining module and reminding 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, smart glasses, bone conduction microphone, vibration, vibration signal and vibration sensor 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 and 4-10 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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamano (US 2017/0086779 A1) in further view of Wei (WO 2019000781 A1), Connor (US 2016/0012749 A1) and 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 […], and wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring method comprises: ([0027])
[…] obtaining a vibration signal of a skull related to a chewing behavior by a bone conduction microphone […], and monitoring the chewing behavior for food being eaten by obtaining the vibration signal; (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…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])
[…] counting a vibration number […] according to the vibration signal by a vibration sensor, and counting a number of chews according to the vibration number […] 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)
after obtaining the number of consecutive chews, the smart glasses comparing the number of consecutive chews with a target number of chews, and if the number of consecutive chews does not reach the target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, sending a first prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration; 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])
[…] obtaining the target number of chews, (obtaining the “predetermined mastication number threshold (for example, 20 times)”, e.g. see [0079])
Kamano does not teach:
smart glasses
a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses
the smart glasses counting a vibration number of a temporal bone
However, Wei in the analogous art of smart glasses containing bone-conduction technology (e.g. see abstract) teaches:
smart glasses (applying bone-conduction methods and sensors to “smart glasses”, e.g. see abstract)
a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses (a “bone conduction microphone” installed directly on the smart glasses; the “bone conduction device” is installed in an “accommodation cavity” at the temple and includes a protruding “vibration unit” that makes physical contact with the head of the user to capture and transmit vibrations, e.g. see “Summary of the invention”)
the smart glasses counting a vibration number of a temporal bone (the vibration unit of the bone conduction microphone is located at and protrudes from the “front ends of the temples” (the front end of the eyeglasses temple frame anatomically rests directly over the user’s temporal bone, capturing the vibration number of the temporal bone), e.g. see claim 1)
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 smart glasses, a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses the smart glasses counting a vibration number of a temporal bone as taught by Wei, for the purposes of “reduc[ing] the contact area between the bone conduction device and the user in the smart glasses” which “improves the sound quality, and improves the user experience” (Wei, “Summary of the invention”).
Kamano and Wei do not teach:
wherein after the counting the number of chews, the method further 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
wherein after determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, the 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,
wherein the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage.
However, Connor in the analogous art of eyeglasses for monitoring and analyzing mastication and dietary behaviors (e.g. see [0100], [0167]) teaches:
wherein after the counting the number of chews, the method further comprises: determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches a preset monitoring value; and (analyzing data from a “chewing sensor” to “differentiate between motions which are associated with food consumption versus motions which are associated with talking, coughing, yawning, and swallowing that are not part of food consumption”, e.g. see [0533]; to achieve this, analyzing sensor data to “determine with a high degree of probability whether a person is consuming food”, e.g. see [0489])
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value (the system triggers its primary eating monitoring functions once a high probability of food consumption is determined, e.g. see [0489], [0495])
wherein after determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, the 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, (the system is “automatically activated to start taking pictures and/or recording images when data from one or more wearable sensors indicates that a person is near food…and/or consuming food”, e.g. see [0495]; modifying “a person's food consumption by sending a communication or message to the person wearing the device”; this is accomplished by a “nutritional intake modification component” that can “display information on a wearable or mobile device, send a text, make a phone call, or initiate another form of electronic communication”, e.g. see [0597])
wherein the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage. (configuring the sensor analysis to “differentiate between motions which are associated with food consumption versus motions which are associated with talking, coughing, yawning, and swallowing that are not part of food consumption”, e.g. see [0533]; the system utilizes this differentiation because activating the monitoring functions continually “may be undesirable in terms of privacy, excessive energy use, or both”, e.g. see [0201])
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 and Wei to include determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches a preset monitoring value, after determining whether 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, and the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage as taught by Connor, for the purposes of avoiding triggering monitoring functions when not eating and reduce “excessive energy use” to preserve battery life (Connor [0533], [0201]).
Kamano, Wei and Connor do not teach:
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration,
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 by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration, (“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, Wei and Connor 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 4, Kamano, Wei, Connor and Magomedov teach the method of claim 1 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, Wei, Connor and Magomedov teach the method of claim 1 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, Wei, Connor 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 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, Wei, Connor 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 […], and wherein the bone conduction-based eating monitoring apparatus comprises: ([0027])
a monitoring module for obtaining a vibration signal of a skull related to a chewing behavior by a bone conduction microphone […], and monitoring the chewing behavior for food being eaten by obtaining the vibration signal; (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…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 vibration number […] according to the vibration signal by a vibration sensor, and counting a number of chews according to the vibration number […] 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 after obtaining the number of consecutive chews, comparing the number of consecutive chews with a target number of chews, and if the number of consecutive chews does not reach the target number of chews and the chewing behavior of a user terminates, sending a first prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews; (“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…from the loudspeaker”, e.g. see [0079])
an obtaining module for obtaining the target number of chews […] (obtaining the “predetermined mastication number threshold (for example, 20 times)”, e.g. see [0079])
Kamano does not teach:
smart glasses
a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses
counting a vibration number of a temporal bone
However, Wei in the analogous art of smart glasses containing bone-conduction technology (e.g. see abstract) teaches:
smart glasses (applying bone-conduction methods and sensors to “smart glasses”, e.g. see abstract)
a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses (a “bone conduction microphone” installed directly on the smart glasses; the “bone conduction device” is installed in an “accommodation cavity” at the temple and includes a protruding “vibration unit” that makes physical contact with the head of the user to capture and transmit vibrations, e.g. see “Summary of the invention”)
counting a vibration number of a temporal bone (the vibration unit of the bone conduction microphone is located at and protrudes from the “front ends of the temples” (the front end of the eyeglasses temple frame anatomically rests directly over the user’s temporal bone, capturing the vibration number of the temporal bone), e.g. see claim 1)
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 smart glasses, a bone conduction microphone installed on the smart glasses and counting a vibration number of a temporal bone as taught by Wei, for the purposes of “reduc[ing] the contact area between the bone conduction device and the user in the smart glasses” which “improves the sound quality, and improves the user experience” (Wei, “Summary of the invention”).
Kamano and Wei do not teach:
a determining module for after the counting the number of chews, determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches a preset monitoring value:
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value
a reminding module for after the determining whether 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 number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value,
wherein the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage.
However, Connor in the analogous art of eyeglasses for monitoring and analyzing mastication and dietary behaviors (e.g. see [0100], [0167]) teaches:
a determining module for after the counting the number of chews, determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches a preset monitoring value: (analyzing data from a “chewing sensor” to “differentiate between motions which are associated with food consumption versus motions which are associated with talking, coughing, yawning, and swallowing that are not part of food consumption”, e.g. see [0533]; to achieve this, analyzing sensor data to “determine with a high degree of probability whether a person is consuming food”, e.g. see [0489])
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value (the system triggers its primary eating monitoring functions once a high probability of food consumption is determined, e.g. see [0489], [0495])
a reminding module for after the determining whether 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 number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value, (the system is “automatically activated to start taking pictures and/or recording images when data from one or more wearable sensors indicates that a person is near food…and/or consuming food”, e.g. see [0495]; modifying “a person's food consumption by sending a communication or message to the person wearing the device”; this is accomplished by a “nutritional intake modification component” that can “display information on a wearable or mobile device, send a text, make a phone call, or initiate another form of electronic communication”, e.g. see [0597])
wherein the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage. (configuring the sensor analysis to “differentiate between motions which are associated with food consumption versus motions which are associated with talking, coughing, yawning, and swallowing that are not part of food consumption”, e.g. see [0533]; the system utilizes this differentiation because activating the monitoring functions continually “may be undesirable in terms of privacy, excessive energy use, or both”, e.g. see [0201])
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 and Wei to include determining whether the number of consecutive chews reaches a preset monitoring value, after determining whether 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, and the preset monitoring value is configured to avoid false triggering of a monitoring function of the smart glasses by user's chewing behavior during a non-eating stage as taught by Connor, for the purposes of avoiding triggering monitoring functions when not eating and reduce “excessive energy use” to preserve battery life (Connor [0533], [0201]).
Kamano, Wei and Connor do not teach:
if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews, sending a second prompt information by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration,
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 by a form of image, a form of sound, or a form of vibration, (“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, Wei and Connor 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, Wei, Connor 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, Wei, Connor 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])
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to Claim 6, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the bases of objection.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of Claims 1 and 4-10, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts the claim steps represent a “complete and whole technical solution”. However, the conditional nature of several limitations dictate that certain steps are not required to be performed during execution. Notably, claim 1 recites “if the number of consecutive chews does not reach the target number of chews”, “if the number of consecutive chews reaches the target number of chews” and “if the number of consecutive chews reaches the preset monitoring value”. Because the execution of these steps is conditional, there is no requirement for them to actually be performed in every instance. The claims cannot provide a definitive technical benefit, nor can they demonstrate integration into a practical application, when the very steps alleged to provide that integration are not strictly required to be performed.
Furthermore, the abstract nature of these conditional steps is further highlighted by the chronologically flawed logic identified in the 112(b) rejection. The claims recite comparing a live chew to a “target number of chews” prior to the condition where the system actually “obtains the target number of chews”. The lack of a sound and chronologically ordered sequence of computer operations fails to demonstrate an integrated, technologically specific process.
Applicant’s argues that apparatus claim 8 recites “actual physical components” rather than “simply transplanting abstract idea to computer modules”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 8 is drafted entirely using functional “modules”. As noted in the 112(f) claim interpretation, the “monitoring module”, “counting module”, “prompting module”, “determining module”, “obtaining module” and “reminding module” do not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification describes these “modules” merely as software executed by a general-purpose processor ([0061]-[0081]). Therefore, claiming generic functional modules serves as a tool to execute the abstract idea, which fails to provide a practical application or inventive concept.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Claims 1 and 4-10, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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 H 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.
/A.A./
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights