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
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/606,906 originally filed on March 15, 2024. Claims 1-39 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 30, and 39 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 2, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/452,294, filed March 15, 2023.
Drawings
The Replacement Drawings filed May 24, 2024 are acknowledged and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “configured as one or a lamp and a mirror.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “configured as one [[or]] of a lamp and a mirror.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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 limitations are:
“a data analysis module” in claims 1, 2, 9, 13, 18-21, 25-27, 30, 32, 35, 36, and 39, defined in paragraph [0048].
“a user prompting module” in claim 1, 2, 9, 13, 26-29, 30, and 35-39, defined in paragraph [0048].
“a caregiver reporting module” in claim 25, defined in paragraph [0048].
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a camera.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 4. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the camera”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 4. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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, 2, 9-11, and 14-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 30, and 39 are each directed to “a computerized health assistive device” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “monitoring a person’s health and providing guidance,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“storing a care plan for the person, said care plan identifying at least one action to be taken by the person in relation to a deteriorated health state;
…gather data relevant to assessment of the person's health… capture an image of the person… capture a voice sample from the person…
provide audible prompts to the person; and
…display an image of the person… display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts;
…analyze data… determine as a function of said data whether the person is in the deteriorated health state;
…identify a specific action to be taken from said at least one action to be taken in said care plan… communicate said specific action to be taken… as a prompt to said person...”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a computerized health assistive device,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “at least one sensor,” “a camera,” “a microphone,” “a user interface device,” “a speaker,” “a display device,” “a data analysis module,” “a user prompting module,” “a housing,” “a personal computer,” “a tablet computer,” “a smartphone,” “a voice-based assistant device,” “a biometric sensor,” “a weather sensor,” “an environmental sensor,” “a wearable device sensor,” “an internet-of-things device sensor,” and “a remote sensor” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “monitoring a person’s health and providing guidance” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a computerized health assistive device,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “at least one sensor,” “a camera,” “a microphone,” “a user interface device,” “a speaker,” “a display device,” “a data analysis module,” “a user prompting module,” “a housing,” “a personal computer,” “a tablet computer,” “a smartphone,” “a voice-based assistant device,” “a biometric sensor,” “a weather sensor,” “an environmental sensor,” “a wearable device sensor,” “an internet-of-things device sensor,” and “a remote sensor” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computerized health assistive device” is described in paragraph [0036] as follows: “an exemplary special-purpose intelligent health assistant device 100(Assistive Device 100d) is shown. The device is representative of all intelligent health assistive devices (100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, collectively, 100) in that it is a computerized health assistive device for monitoring a person's health and providing care plan-based guidance to the person. In accordance with the present invention, the Assistive Device 100 comprises a housing 105 that houses a processor and a memory operatively connected to the processor.” The assistive device is claimed to comprise the elements “a processor,” “a memory,” “at least one sensor,” “a camera,” “a microphone,” “a user interface device,” “a speaker,” “a display device,” “a data analysis module,” “a user prompting module,” “a housing,” “a personal computer,” “a tablet computer,” “a smartphone,” “a voice-based assistant device,” “a biometric sensor,” “a weather sensor,” “an environmental sensor,” “a wearable device sensor,” “an internet-of-things device sensor,” and “a remote sensor.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as being a generic computer or generic computing components, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
It is noted that the additional elements of “a mirror,” “a lamp,” “glass,” “wearable glasses,” “a remote photopleghysmography sensor,” “a blood pressure sensor,” “a heart rate sensor,” and “a heart rate variability sensor” may not be ubiquitous standard equipment, and may be considered significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 3-8, 12, and 13 are not included in this rejection under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2, 9-11, 14-29, 31-38 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2, 9-11, 14-29, 31-38 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1 and 30.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 14-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 13-17, 19-22, 25, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 2020/0297264) in view of Borsody (US 2021/0321932).
Regarding claim 1, Asano discloses a computerized health assistive device for monitoring a person's health and providing care plan-based guidance to the person (Asano Abstract, “an information processing method, and a program capable of recognizing a state of a brain function of the user through a natural interaction with the user”), the health assistive device comprising:
a processor (Asano [0042], “the control unit 12 is implemented by an electronic circuit such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and a microprocessor”);
a memory operatively connected to said processor, said memory storing a care plan for the person, said care plan identifying at least one action to be taken by the person in relation to a deteriorated health state (Asano [0059], “The user-related information storage unit 125 stores personal information of the user (e.g. name, age, and birthday of the user, name, age, and birthday of a relative, etc.) or an action history of the user (content of meals, outgo history, view history, etc.). In this specification, action information includes at least one of an action history, an action plan, and an operation during an action (in the following description, the action history is used as the action information).”);
a user interface device operatively connected to said processor and operable to provide at least one of an audible prompt and a visual prompt to the person (see Asano Fig. 6, showing a dialogue between the user and the device including audible prompts and a visual prompt);
at least one sensor configured to gather data relevant to assessment of the person's health (Asano [0063], “in response to a photo display request from the user that indicates “please show a photo”, the information processing device 1 answers that “a photo will be shown on a television”, transmits image information to the television via the communication unit 13, and displays the photo on a television screen. At this time, the information processing device 1 asks a question regarding the displayed photo. For example, in a case where it is identified by image analysis that two people are included in the photo and one of them is the user, a topic regarding a person shown in the photo together with the user is presented to the user, and information regarding the person is acquired on the basis of a response of the user. In the example illustrated in FIG. 6, for example, a question indicating “who is shown together?” is asked, and from an answer of the user that indicates “it is my grandchild Taro”, user-related information indicating “a name of a grandchild: Taro” is acquired. Furthermore, a question indicating “when is the birthday of Taro?” is asked, and from an answer of the user that indicates “maybe it is May 1”, user-related information indicating “a birthday of a grandchild: May 1” is acquired.”);
a data analysis module operable to analyze data from said at least one sensor and to determine as a function of said data whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0114], “the alert determination unit 124 compiles determination results, obtains a rate of problematic responses (e.g. responses determined to be “FORGET”, “WRONG_MEMORY”, or “INCONSISTENT”, etc.), and compares the obtained rate with a preset threshold value (step S146). At this time, the alert determination unit 124 can not only obtain a rate of problematic responses in a certain period of time and perform comparison with a threshold value, but also compile temporal variations in rate of problematic responses by shifting a period of time in which compiling is performed, and make comparison with another threshold value.”); and
a user prompting module operable to identify a specific action to be taken from said at least one action to be taken in said care plan stored in said memory (Asano [0115], “in a case where the rate of problematic responses exceeds the threshold value (step S146/Yes), the alert determination unit 124 transmits alert (e.g. alert including a report about a dementia sign of an elderly person) to a pre-registered contact name (e.g. kindred, primary care doctor, etc.) (step S149).”).
Asano does not explicitly teach to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person.
However, Borsody discloses to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person (Borsody [0072], “shortness-of-breath or labored breathing would be identified and interpreted by the device as evidence of an impending or actual asthma attack, at which point in time the patient 22 would be informed to use any of a variety of available breathing treatments including inhalers and/or, if the patient 22's condition is sufficiently severe, the device would notify nursing and/or emergency medical services 28 to assist the patient 22,” after making a determination of a deteriorating health condition, the device informs the patient of available breathing treatments).
Borsody is analogous to Asano, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano, to include to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Asano in view of Borsody discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as one of a personal computer, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a smartphone, and a voice-based assistant device (see Asano Fig. 2, showing information processing device 1, which is a voice-based assistant device).
Regarding claim 3, Asano does not teach wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as a special-purpose assistive device selected from a group consisting of a mirror, a lamp, glass and wearable glasses.
However, Borsody discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as a special-purpose assistive device selected from a group consisting of a mirror, a lamp, glass and wearable glasses (Borsody [0081], “the medical device 3 may be integrated into one or more domestic apparatuses 84, or home fixtures or appliances, such as a mirror, clock, refrigerator, sink, toilet, chair, bed, television, microwave oven, or electric light, including a light fixture attached to the ceiling, for example. Preferably the domestic apparatus 84 is one that a patient 22 will interact with or be in proximity to on a regular or frequent basis”).
Borsody is analogous to Asano, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano, to include wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as a special-purpose assistive device selected from a group consisting of a mirror, a lamp, glass and wearable glasses, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Asano does not teach every limitation of wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as one or a lamp and a mirror and comprises: a housing supporting said processor, said memory, said user interface device, said least one sensor, said data analysis module, and said user prompting module, and wherein said at least one sensor comprises a speaker supported on said housing and configured to provide audible prompts to the person and a microphone supported on said housing and configured to capture voice responses from the person.
Asano does disclose a housing supporting said processor, said memory, said user interface device, said least one sensor, said data analysis module, and said user prompting module, and wherein said at least one sensor comprises a speaker supported on said housing and configured to provide audible prompts to the person and a microphone supported on said housing and configured to capture voice responses from the person (Asano [0033], “the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array) and a speech output unit 16, and has an agent function of implementing a voice dialogue with a user.”). Asano does not teach wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as one or a lamp and a mirror.
However, Borsody discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as one or a lamp and a mirror (Borsody [0081], “the medical device 3 may be integrated into one or more domestic apparatuses 84, or home fixtures or appliances, such as a mirror, clock, refrigerator, sink, toilet, chair, bed, television, microwave oven, or electric light, including a light fixture attached to the ceiling, for example. Preferably the domestic apparatus 84 is one that a patient 22 will interact with or be in proximity to on a regular or frequent basis”).
Borsody is analogous to Asano, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano, to include wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as one or a lamp and a mirror, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Asano in view of Borsody discloses wherein said at least one sensor is integrated into a housing of the computerized health assistive device as a local sensor (see Asano Fig. 1, showing the device with integrated microphone array 10).
Regarding claim 15, Asano discloses wherein said at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of a remote photoplethysmography sensor, a camera, a microphone, a blood pressure sensor, a heart rate sensor, a heart rate variability sensor, a biometric sensor, a weather sensor, an environmental sensor, a wearable device sensor, and an internet-of-things device sensor (Asano [0033], “the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array)”).
Regarding claim 16, Asano does not teach wherein said at least one sensor is separate from a housing of the computerized health assistive device as a remote sensor.
However, Borsody discloses wherein said at least one sensor is separate from a housing of the computerized health assistive device as a remote sensor (Borsody [0069], “Alternatively, or in addition, a central controller as disclosed herein may be remote from the sensors 62, such as where the central controller is implemented as a cloud-based system that communicates with multiple sensors 62, which may be located at multiple locations and may be local or remote with respect to one another.”).
Borsody is analogous to Asano, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano, to include wherein said at least one sensor is separate from a housing of the computerized health assistive device as a remote sensor, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Asano in view of Borsody discloses wherein said at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of a remote photoplethysmography sensor, a camera, a microphone, a blood pressure sensor, a heart rate sensor, a heart rate variability sensor, a biometric sensor, a weather sensor, an environmental sensor, a wearable device sensor, and an internet-of-things device sensor (Asano [0033], “the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array)”).
Regarding claim 19, Asano in view of Borsody discloses wherein said data analysis module is operable to perform natural language processing to analyze substantive responses from a voice sample captured via a microphone to determine whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0052], “The speech semantic analysis unit 121 applies a so-called natural language process to the speech data (text) input from the speech recognition unit 11, and performs the extraction of a keyword in the speech, the estimation of speech intent of the user, and the like. A speech analysis result is output to the user speech content determination unit.”).
Regarding claim 20, Asano in view of Borsody discloses wherein said data analysis module is operable to perform natural language processing to analyze substantive responses from voice sample responses captured via a microphone in response to questions from an assessment tool to determine whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0052], “The speech semantic analysis unit 121 applies a so-called natural language process to the speech data (text) input from the speech recognition unit 11, and performs the extraction of a keyword in the speech, the estimation of speech intent of the user, and the like. A speech analysis result is output to the user speech content determination unit.”; also Asano [0058], “The dialogue data storage unit 123 stores information (system side speech content and user speech content) used in the determination in the user speech content determination unit 122, and the determination result, in association with each other. Here, an example of data in the dialogue data storage unit 123 is illustrated in FIG. 4. As illustrated in the drawing, date and time of occurrence, system speech content, user speech content, and a determination result are held. The date and time of occurrence is date and time at which a dialogue (interaction) of a question and a response has been performed. In addition, the system speech content is a confirmation item asked to the user (“yesterday dinner”, “yesterday outgo destination”, “with whom the user has been talking on a telephone”, etc.), for example. In addition, the user speech content is response content of the user (“not remember”, “Shibuya”, “son”, etc.). The determination result indicates to which of the several patterns classified in advance as described above, the response content corresponds, for example.”).
Regarding claim 21, Asano in view of Borsody discloses wherein said data analysis module is operable to compare currently-captured sensor data to previously-captured sensor data to determine whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0114], “the alert determination unit 124 compiles determination results, obtains a rate of problematic responses (e.g. responses determined to be “FORGET”, “WRONG_MEMORY”, or “INCONSISTENT”, etc.), and compares the obtained rate with a preset threshold value (step S146). At this time, the alert determination unit 124 can not only obtain a rate of problematic responses in a certain period of time and perform comparison with a threshold value, but also compile temporal variations in rate of problematic responses by shifting a period of time in which compiling is performed, and make comparison with another threshold value.”).
Regarding claim 22, Asano does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from a clinician's safety plan developed for the person that identifies at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource.
Asano discloses if the patient’s health deteriorates, alerting family members or a doctor (Asano [0115], “in a case where the rate of problematic responses exceeds the threshold value (step S146/Yes), the alert determination unit 124 transmits alert (e.g. alert including a report about a dementia sign of an elderly person) to a pre-registered contact name (e.g. kindred, primary care doctor, etc.)”), but does not explicitly disclose identifying at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource.
However, Borsody discloses identifying at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource (Borsody [0072], “shortness-of-breath or labored breathing would be identified and interpreted by the device as evidence of an impending or actual asthma attack, at which point in time the patient 22 would be informed to use any of a variety of available breathing treatments including inhalers and/or, if the patient 22's condition is sufficiently severe, the device would notify nursing and/or emergency medical services 28 to assist the patient 22.”).
Borsody is analogous to Asano, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano, to include identifying at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, Asano in view of Borsody discloses a caregiver reporting module configured to transmit data to a computing device of a caregiver of the person when the data analysis module determines that the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0115], “in a case where the rate of problematic responses exceeds the threshold value (step S146/Yes), the alert determination unit 124 transmits alert (e.g. alert including a report about a dementia sign of an elderly person) to a pre-registered contact name (e.g. kindred, primary care doctor, etc.)”)
Regarding claim 39, Asano discloses a computerized health assistive device for monitoring a person's health and providing care plan-based guidance to the person (Asano Abstract, “an information processing method, and a program capable of recognizing a state of a brain function of the user through a natural interaction with the user”), the health assistive device comprising:
a processor (Asano [0042], “the control unit 12 is implemented by an electronic circuit such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and a microprocessor”);
a memory operatively connected to said processor, said memory storing a care plan for the person, said care plan identifying at least one action to be taken by the person in relation to a deteriorated health state (Asano [0059], “The user-related information storage unit 125 stores personal information of the user (e.g. name, age, and birthday of the user, name, age, and birthday of a relative, etc.) or an action history of the user (content of meals, outgo history, view history, etc.). In this specification, action information includes at least one of an action history, an action plan, and an operation during an action (in the following description, the action history is used as the action information).”);
at least one sensor configured to gather data relevant to assessment of the person's health, said at least one sensor comprising a microphone configured to capture a voice sample from the person (Asano [0063], “in response to a photo display request from the user that indicates “please show a photo”, the information processing device 1 answers that “a photo will be shown on a television”, transmits image information to the television via the communication unit 13, and displays the photo on a television screen. At this time, the information processing device 1 asks a question regarding the displayed photo. For example, in a case where it is identified by image analysis that two people are included in the photo and one of them is the user, a topic regarding a person shown in the photo together with the user is presented to the user, and information regarding the person is acquired on the basis of a response of the user. In the example illustrated in FIG. 6, for example, a question indicating “who is shown together?” is asked, and from an answer of the user that indicates “it is my grandchild Taro”, user-related information indicating “a name of a grandchild: Taro” is acquired. Furthermore, a question indicating “when is the birthday of Taro?” is asked, and from an answer of the user that indicates “maybe it is May 1”, user-related information indicating “a birthday of a grandchild: May 1” is acquired.”; see also Asano Fig. 1, microphone array 10);
a user interface device operatively connected to said processor (see Asano Fig. 6, showing a dialogue between the user and the device by the user interface), aid user interface device comprising:
a speaker configured to provide audible prompts to the person (see Asano Fig. 6, showing a dialogue between the user and the device with audible output); and
a data analysis module operable to analyze data from said at least one sensor and to determine as a function of said data whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0114], “the alert determination unit 124 compiles determination results, obtains a rate of problematic responses (e.g. responses determined to be “FORGET”, “WRONG_MEMORY”, or “INCONSISTENT”, etc.), and compares the obtained rate with a preset threshold value (step S146). At this time, the alert determination unit 124 can not only obtain a rate of problematic responses in a certain period of time and perform comparison with a threshold value, but also compile temporal variations in rate of problematic responses by shifting a period of time in which compiling is performed, and make comparison with another threshold value.”);
a user prompting module operable to identify a specific action to be taken from said at least one action to be taken in said care plan stored in said memory (Asano [0115], “in a case where the rate of problematic responses exceeds the threshold value (step S146/Yes), the alert determination unit 124 transmits alert (e.g. alert including a report about a dementia sign of an elderly person) to a pre-registered contact name (e.g. kindred, primary care doctor, etc.) (step S149).”)
…
a housing supporting said processor, said memory, said user interface device, said at least one sensor, said data analysis module, said speaker, said data analysis module, and said user prompting module (see Asano Fig. 1, showing device with housing; also Asano [0033], “the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array) and a speech output unit 16, and has an agent function of implementing a voice dialogue with a user.”).
Asano does not explicitly teach to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person.
However, Borsody discloses to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person (Borsody [0072], “shortness-of-breath or labored breathing would be identified and interpreted by the device as evidence of an impending or actual asthma attack, at which point in time the patient 22 would be informed to use any of a variety of available breathing treatments including inhalers and/or, if the patient 22's condition is sufficiently severe, the device would notify nursing and/or emergency medical services 28 to assist the patient 22,” after making a determination of a deteriorating health condition, the device informs the patient of available breathing treatments).
Borsody is analogous to Asano, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano, to include to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody, and in further view of Tran (US 10,052,026).
Regarding claim 4, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach every limitation of wherein said computerized health assistive device is configured as a mirror and comprises: a housing supporting said processor, said memory, said user interface device, said at least one sensor, said data analysis module, and said user prompting module, and wherein said at least one sensor comprises a camera supported on said housing and said user interface device comprises a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera.
Asano does disclose a computerized health assistive device comprising a housing supporting a processor, memory, user interface, sensor, data analysis module, user prompting module, and camera (see Asano Fig. 1, showing the device; also Asano [0033], describing the features of the device; also Asano [0076], including a human sensor and a camera). Borsody discloses that the health assistive device can be configured as a mirror (Borsody [0081], the device can be integrated into a mirror). However, neither Asano nor Borsody teaches a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera.
However, Tran discloses a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera (Tran col. 3 lines 48-51, “When the display is active, to simulate a mirror, the display can capture the user's 3D model and superimpose the room's background with the user's movement and thus an electronic mirror is presented.”).
Tran is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera, as taught by Tran, as a way to continually monitor health and make time spent in the bathroom in front of the mirror productive (Tran col. 1 line 61 through col. 2 line 16). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Asano in view of Borsody does not explicitly teach wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a second display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person.
However, Tran discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a second display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person (Tran col. 32 lines 25-30, “an input device may prompt a user to enter sequentially a set of hypertension metrics, e.g., a hypertension score, a functionality score, and information regarding use of one or more medications (e.g., type of medication, dosage taken, time of day, route of administration, etc.).”).
Tran is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a second display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person, as taught by Tran, as a way to continually monitor health and make time spent in the bathroom in front of the mirror productive (Tran col. 1 line 61 through col. 2 line 16). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Asano in view of Borsody and Tran discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a user input device adapted to receive touch input from the person (Asano [0121], “an interaction is implemented via a display equipped with a touch panel”).
Regarding claim 7, Asano in view of Borsody and Tran discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a microphone supported on said housing and configured to capture voice responses from the person (Asano [0040], “the speech input unit 10 is implemented by a microphone, an amplifier, or the like. In addition, the speech input unit 10 may be implemented by a microphone array including a plurality of microphones.”).
Regarding claim 12, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises wherein said at least one sensor comprises a camera supported on said housing, and wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a third display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera.
Asano does disclose wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises wherein said at least one sensor comprises a camera supported on said housing (see Asano Fig. 1, showing the device; also Asano [0076], including a human sensor and a camera). However, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a third display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera.
However, Tran discloses wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a third display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera (Tran col. 3 lines 48-51, “When the display is active, to simulate a mirror, the display can capture the user's 3D model and superimpose the room's background with the user's movement and thus an electronic mirror is presented.”).
Tran is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a third display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera, as taught by Tran, as a way to continually monitor health and make time spent in the bathroom in front of the mirror productive (Tran col. 1 line 61 through col. 2 line 16). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8 and 30-33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody and Tran, and in further view of Rosenberg et al. (hereinafter “Rosenberg,” US 2023/0356059).
Regarding claim 8, Asano in view of Borsody and Tran does not teach every limitation of wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises speaker supported on said housing and configured to provide audible prompts to the person and a microphone supported on said housing and configured to capture voice responses from the person, and wherein said display device defines a third display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts.
Asano does disclose wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises speaker supported on said housing and configured to provide audible prompts to the person and a microphone supported on said housing and configured to capture voice responses from the person (Asano [0033], “the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array) and a speech output unit 16, and has an agent function of implementing a voice dialogue with a user.”). However, Asano in view of Borsody and Tran does not teach wherein said display device defines a third display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts.
However, Rosenberg discloses wherein said display device defines a third display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts (Rosenberg [1323-1324], “the smart mirror 3904 is further configured to display, while the user performs an exercise, an image of a… virtual trainer 3912… the trainer 3912 is displayed in a different portion of the smart mirror 3904 with respect to the image of the user 3908. In other words, the trainer 3912 and the image of the user 3908 are non-overlapping. Further, the trainer 3912 is displayed with a reduced size relative to the image of the user 3908. In other examples, a relative position and size of the trainer 3912 and the image of the user 3908 may be changed or adjusted (either automatically in response to various conditions, such as whether the trainer 3912 is speaking, based on user inputs, etc.)”).
Rosenberg is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody and Tran, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody and Tran, to include wherein said display device defines a third display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts, as taught by Rosenberg, since it combines prior art elements of displaying a speaking avatar to a smart mirror display according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Asano discloses a computerized health assistive device for monitoring a person's health and providing care plan-based guidance to the person (Asano Abstract, “an information processing method, and a program capable of recognizing a state of a brain function of the user through a natural interaction with the user”), the health assistive device comprising:
a processor (Asano [0042], “the control unit 12 is implemented by an electronic circuit such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and a microprocessor”);
a memory operatively connected to said processor, said memory storing a care plan for the person, said care plan identifying at least one action to be taken by the person in relation to a deteriorated health state (Asano [0059], “The user-related information storage unit 125 stores personal information of the user (e.g. name, age, and birthday of the user, name, age, and birthday of a relative, etc.) or an action history of the user (content of meals, outgo history, view history, etc.). In this specification, action information includes at least one of an action history, an action plan, and an operation during an action (in the following description, the action history is used as the action information).”);
at least one sensor configured to gather data relevant to assessment of the person's health, said at least one sensor comprising … a microphone configured to capture a voice sample from the person (Asano [0063], “in response to a photo display request from the user that indicates “please show a photo”, the information processing device 1 answers that “a photo will be shown on a television”, transmits image information to the television via the communication unit 13, and displays the photo on a television screen. At this time, the information processing device 1 asks a question regarding the displayed photo. For example, in a case where it is identified by image analysis that two people are included in the photo and one of them is the user, a topic regarding a person shown in the photo together with the user is presented to the user, and information regarding the person is acquired on the basis of a response of the user. In the example illustrated in FIG. 6, for example, a question indicating “who is shown together?” is asked, and from an answer of the user that indicates “it is my grandchild Taro”, user-related information indicating “a name of a grandchild: Taro” is acquired. Furthermore, a question indicating “when is the birthday of Taro?” is asked, and from an answer of the user that indicates “maybe it is May 1”, user-related information indicating “a birthday of a grandchild: May 1” is acquired.”; see also Asano Fig. 1, microphone array 10);
a user interface device operatively connected to said processor (see Asano Fig. 6, showing a dialogue between the user and the device through the user interface), said user interface device comprising:
a speaker configured to provide audible prompts to the person (see Asano Fig. 6, showing a dialogue between the user and the device with audible output); and
…
a data analysis module operable to analyze data from said at least one sensor and to determine as a function of said data whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0114], “the alert determination unit 124 compiles determination results, obtains a rate of problematic responses (e.g. responses determined to be “FORGET”, “WRONG_MEMORY”, or “INCONSISTENT”, etc.), and compares the obtained rate with a preset threshold value (step S146). At this time, the alert determination unit 124 can not only obtain a rate of problematic responses in a certain period of time and perform comparison with a threshold value, but also compile temporal variations in rate of problematic responses by shifting a period of time in which compiling is performed, and make comparison with another threshold value.”);
a user prompting module operable to identify a specific action to be taken from said at least one action to be taken in said care plan stored in said memory (Asano [0115], “in a case where the rate of problematic responses exceeds the threshold value (step S146/Yes), the alert determination unit 124 transmits alert (e.g. alert including a report about a dementia sign of an elderly person) to a pre-registered contact name (e.g. kindred, primary care doctor, etc.) (step S149).”)
…
a housing supporting said processor, said memory, said user interface device, said at least one sensor, said data analysis module, said speaker, and said user prompting module (see Asano Fig. 1, showing device with housing; also Asano [0033], “the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array) and a speech output unit 16, and has an agent function of implementing a voice dialogue with a user.”).
Asano does not explicitly teach said at least one sensor comprising a camera configured to capture an image of the person.
However, Borsody discloses said at least one sensor comprising a camera configured to capture an image of the person (Borsody [0081], “the medical device 3 monitors for patient reported perceptions 6 or physical signs 10 of stroke, for example, the camera could capture video to determine if there is drooping of one part of the face or body compared to the other”).
Borsody is analogous to Asano, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano, to include said at least one sensor comprising a camera configured to capture an image of the person, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Asano in view of Borsody does not teach a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera.
However, Tran discloses a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera (Tran col. 3 lines 48-51, “When the display is active, to simulate a mirror, the display can capture the user's 3D model and superimpose the room's background with the user's movement and thus an electronic mirror is presented.”).
Tran is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of the person captured by said camera, as taught by Tran, as a way to continually monitor health and make time spent in the bathroom in front of the mirror productive (Tran col. 1 line 61 through col. 2 line 16). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Asano in view of Borsody and Tran does not teach a second display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts.
However, Rosenberg discloses a second display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts (Rosenberg [1323-1324], “the smart mirror 3904 is further configured to display, while the user performs an exercise, an image of a… virtual trainer 3912… the trainer 3912 is displayed in a different portion of the smart mirror 3904 with respect to the image of the user 3908. In other words, the trainer 3912 and the image of the user 3908 are non-overlapping. Further, the trainer 3912 is displayed with a reduced size relative to the image of the user 3908. In other examples, a relative position and size of the trainer 3912 and the image of the user 3908 may be changed or adjusted (either automatically in response to various conditions, such as whether the trainer 3912 is speaking, based on user inputs, etc.)”).
Rosenberg is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody and Tran, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody and Tran, to include a second display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts, as taught by Rosenberg, since it combines prior art elements of displaying a speaking avatar to a smart mirror display according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Asano in view of Tran and Rosenberg does not explicitly teach to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person.
However, Borsody further discloses to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person (Borsody [0072], “shortness-of-breath or labored breathing would be identified and interpreted by the device as evidence of an impending or actual asthma attack, at which point in time the patient 22 would be informed to use any of a variety of available breathing treatments including inhalers and/or, if the patient 22's condition is sufficiently severe, the device would notify nursing and/or emergency medical services 28 to assist the patient 22,” after making a determination of a deteriorating health condition, the device informs the patient of available breathing treatments).
Borsody is analogous to Asano in view of Tran and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Tran and Rosenberg, to include to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31, Asano in view of Borsody and Rosenberg does not explicitly teach wherein said display device further defines a third display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person.
However, Tran further discloses wherein said display device further defines a third display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person (Tran col. 32 lines 25-30, “an input device may prompt a user to enter sequentially a set of hypertension metrics, e.g., a hypertension score, a functionality score, and information regarding use of one or more medications (e.g., type of medication, dosage taken, time of day, route of administration, etc.).”).
Tran is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody and Rosenberg, to include wherein said display device further defines a third display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person, as taught by Tran, as a way to continually monitor health and make time spent in the bathroom in front of the mirror productive (Tran col. 1 line 61 through col. 2 line 16). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32, Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg discloses wherein said data analysis module is further operable to analyze data from at least one of a remote photoplethysmography sensor, a blood pressure sensor, a heart rate sensor, a heartrate variability sensor, a biometric sensor, a weather sensor, an environmental sensor, a wearable device sensor, and an internet-of-things device sensor to determine as a function of said data whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Asano [0045], “The communication unit 13 according to the present embodiment receives various types of information from a camera, a user terminal, and various sensors, for example. The various sensors may be provided on a user terminal, may be provided on a wearable terminal worn by the user, or may be installed on a door or a sofa of a room, a passage way, or the like. As the various sensors, for example, a gyro sensor, an acceleration sensor, a direction sensor, a positioning unit, a biosensor, and the like are assumed.”).
Regarding claim 33, Asano in view of Tran and Rosenberg does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from a clinician's safety plan developed for the person that identifies at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource.
Asano does disclose if the patient’s health deteriorates, alerting family members or a doctor (Asano [0115], “in a case where the rate of problematic responses exceeds the threshold value (step S146/Yes), the alert determination unit 124 transmits alert (e.g. alert including a report about a dementia sign of an elderly person) to a pre-registered contact name (e.g. kindred, primary care doctor, etc.)”), but does not explicitly disclose identifying at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource.
However, Borsody further discloses identifying at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource (Borsody [0072], “shortness-of-breath or labored breathing would be identified and interpreted by the device as evidence of an impending or actual asthma attack, at which point in time the patient 22 would be informed to use any of a variety of available breathing treatments including inhalers and/or, if the patient 22's condition is sufficiently severe, the device would notify nursing and/or emergency medical services 28 to assist the patient 22.”).
Borsody is analogous to Asano in view of Tran and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health monitors. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Tran and Rosenberg, to include identifying at least one of a coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, as taught by Borsody, in order to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of diseases (Borsody [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody, and in further view of Rosenberg.
Regarding claim 9, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach every limitation of wherein said computerized health assistive device comprises: a housing supporting said processor, said memory, said user interface device, said least one sensor, said data analysis module, and said user prompting module, and wherein said at least one sensor comprises a speaker supported on said housing and configured to provide audible prompts to the person and a microphone supported on said housing and configured to capture voice responses from the person, and wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts.
Asano does disclose wherein said computerized health assistive device comprises: a housing supporting said processor, said memory, said user interface device, said least one sensor, said data analysis module, and said user prompting module, and wherein said at least one sensor comprises a speaker supported on said housing and configured to provide audible prompts to the person and a microphone supported on said housing and configured to capture voice responses from the person (see Asano Fig. 1, showing device with housing; also Asano [0033], “the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array) and a speech output unit 16, and has an agent function of implementing a voice dialogue with a user.”). However, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts.
However, Rosenberg discloses wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts (Rosenberg [1323-1324], “the smart mirror 3904 is further configured to display, while the user performs an exercise, an image of a… virtual trainer 3912… the trainer 3912 is displayed in a different portion of the smart mirror 3904 with respect to the image of the user 3908. In other words, the trainer 3912 and the image of the user 3908 are non-overlapping. Further, the trainer 3912 is displayed with a reduced size relative to the image of the user 3908. In other examples, a relative position and size of the trainer 3912 and the image of the user 3908 may be changed or adjusted (either automatically in response to various conditions, such as whether the trainer 3912 is speaking, based on user inputs, etc.)”).
Rosenberg is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said user interface device comprises a display device defining a first display area configured to display an image of an avatar as animated to appear to speak the audible prompts, as taught by Rosenberg, since it combines prior art elements of displaying a speaking avatar to a smart mirror display according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody and Rosenberg, and in further view of Tran.
Regarding claim 10, Asano in view of Borsody and Rosenberg does not explicitly teach wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a second display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person.
However, Tran discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a second display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person (Tran col. 32 lines 25-30, “an input device may prompt a user to enter sequentially a set of hypertension metrics, e.g., a hypertension score, a functionality score, and information regarding use of one or more medications (e.g., type of medication, dosage taken, time of day, route of administration, etc.).”).
Tran is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody and Rosenberg, to include wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a second display area configured to display a visual prompt to the person, as taught by Tran, as a way to continually monitor health and make time spent in the bathroom in front of the mirror productive (Tran col. 1 line 61 through col. 2 line 16). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Asano in view of Borsody, Rosenberg, and Tran discloses wherein said computerized health assistive device further comprises a user input device adapted to receive touch input from the person (Asano [0121], “an interaction is implemented via a display equipped with a touch panel”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody, and in further view of Rau et al. (hereinafter “Rau,” US 10,874,340).
Regarding claim 18, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach wherein said data analysis module is operable to analyze voice tone from a voice sample captured via a microphone to determine whether the person is in the deteriorated health state.
However, Rau discloses wherein said data analysis module is operable to analyze voice tone from a voice sample captured via a microphone to determine whether the person is in the deteriorated health state (Rau col. 3 lines 44-54, “one or more sensors designed to capture and measure changes in physiological parameters selected from the group consisting of: … changes in voice pitch and tone and perturbation and speech rate, changes in facial muscles, brain electrical activity, and heart electrical activity.”; also Rau col. 19 line 49 through col. 20 line 21, “The changes in the frequency and intensity of these words and expressions are shown in comparative graphical and tabular formats to the clinician… Increasing trend in negative emotions and expressive words evidences deterioration.”).
Rau is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health monitoring devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said data analysis module is operable to analyze voice tone from a voice sample captured via a microphone to determine whether the person is in the deteriorated health state, as taught by Rau, in order to improve methods and apparatus for monitoring and treating mental health patients (Rau col. 1 lines 28-55). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody, and in further view of Moturu et al. (hereinafter “Moturu,” US 2017/0004260).
Regarding claim 23, Asano in view of Borsody does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from input from the person via the user interface device to self-identify at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource.
However, Moturu discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from input from the person via the user interface device to self-identify at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource (Moturu [0124], “therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention provision parameters of a dynamic care plan can be influenced from user preferences including at least one of preferred types of therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention categories, preferred therapeutic intervention provision parameters (e.g., a selection of personal contacts to contact for therapeutic interventions involving other individuals, etc.). User preferences can be selected manually (e.g., by a patient based on options provided at an application executing on a patient mobile computing device, etc.), automatically (e.g., inferred from log of use data, supplemental data, survey data, etc.), and/or through any other means.”).
Moturu is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from input from the person via the user interface device to self-identify at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, as taught by Moturu, in order to provide therapeutic interventions to users in an effective, time-sensitive, and personalized manner (Moturu [0026]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Asano in view of Borsody and Moturu discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from input from the person via the user interface device in response to questions provided to the person via said user interface device (Asano [0033], “a speech input unit 10 (e.g. microphone array) and a speech output unit 16, and has an agent function of implementing a voice dialogue with a user,” the primary user interface in Asano is via speech input).
Regarding claim 26, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach every limitation of wherein said at least one action of said care plan is at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is in the deteriorated health state.
However, Moturu discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is in the deteriorated health state (Moturu [0124], “therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention provision parameters of a dynamic care plan can be influenced from user preferences including at least one of preferred types of therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention categories, preferred therapeutic intervention provision parameters (e.g., a selection of personal contacts to contact for therapeutic interventions involving other individuals, etc.). User preferences can be selected manually (e.g., by a patient based on options provided at an application executing on a patient mobile computing device, etc.), automatically (e.g., inferred from log of use data, supplemental data, survey data, etc.), and/or through any other means.”; also Moturu [0087], “the user can be guided to focus on his/her breath (e.g., in relation to a high PHQ-9 score) with audio-guided medication (e.g., using speaker modules of a mobile computing device executing an associated application),” guidance provided through audio).
Moturu is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is in the deteriorated health state, as taught by Moturu, in order to provide therapeutic interventions to users in an effective, time-sensitive, and personalized manner (Moturu [0026]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody, and in further view of Rufo et al. (hereinafter “Rufo,” US 2018/0342329).
Regarding claim 27, Asano in view of Borsody does not teach every limitation of wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of a clinician visit, an activity, and a medication, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the current health state of the person is not indicative of the deteriorated health state.
However, Rufo discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of a clinician visit, an activity, and a medication, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the current health state of the person is not indicative of the deteriorated health state (Rufo [0177], “when the time associated with a reminder arrives, a reminder window 236 is displayed, as shown in a second calendar screen shot 237 illustrated in FIG. 11. Moreover, a voice message (or other audio alert) associated with the reminder 236 may be played over speakers”; also Rufo [0290], “if a medication is prescribed by the doctor, the HAPPIE home unit 103 may automatically communication with a pharmacy concerning the medication, and the calendar module will automatically insert into the resident's calendar an alert for picking up the medication at the pharmacy, medication reminders for each dose, and as well as an alert for ordering a refill of the medication when needed.”).
Rufo is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of a clinician visit, an activity, and a medication, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the current health state of the person is not indicative of the deteriorated health state, as taught by Rufo, in order to facilitate caregiving for seniors and other adults (Rufo [0018]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 28, Asano in view of Borsody does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data.
However, Rufo discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data (Rufo [0114], “The HAPPIE home unit 103 communicates with the resident by displaying text messages, text alerts, text reminders, video messages, and live streaming video displayed by the HAPPIE home unit 103 on a television or on video monitors 156. Audio messages, audio alerts and audio reminders are broadcast by the HAPPIE home unit 103 through speakers 157 and can be heard throughout the home.”; also Rufo [0177], “when the time associated with a reminder arrives, a reminder window 236 is displayed, as shown in a second calendar screen shot 237 illustrated in FIG. 11. Moreover, a voice message (or other audio alert) associated with the reminder 236 may be played over speakers”; also Rufo [0290], “if a medication is prescribed by the doctor, the HAPPIE home unit 103 may automatically communication with a pharmacy concerning the medication, and the calendar module will automatically insert into the resident's calendar an alert for picking up the medication at the pharmacy, medication reminders for each dose, and as well as an alert for ordering a refill of the medication when needed.”).
Rufo is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data, as taught by Rufo, in order to facilitate caregiving for seniors and other adults (Rufo [0018]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, Asano in view of Borsody does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data associated with one of a current weather condition and a current environmental condition of the person.
However, Rufo discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data associated with one of a current weather condition and a current environmental condition of the person (Rufo [0165], “The first home screen 200 includes a weather/time/date display area 201. This area 201 preferably displays the current time at the home premises. The current weather conditions are also displayed, along with the date and day of the week in the weather/time/date display area 201.”; also Rufo [0177], “when the time associated with a reminder arrives, a reminder window 236 is displayed, as shown in a second calendar screen shot 237 illustrated in FIG. 11. Moreover, a voice message (or other audio alert) associated with the reminder 236 may be played over speakers”; also Rufo [0221], “In the event of local weather or security alerts, the HAPPIE home unit 103 broadcasts warnings that the home of a patient or subscriber may be in the path of a tornado, hurricane, wildfire, flood, mud slide, etc.”; also Rufo [0290], “if a medication is prescribed by the doctor, the HAPPIE home unit 103 may automatically communication with a pharmacy concerning the medication, and the calendar module will automatically insert into the resident's calendar an alert for picking up the medication at the pharmacy, medication reminders for each dose, and as well as an alert for ordering a refill of the medication when needed.”).
Rufo is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data associated with one of a current weather condition and a current environmental condition of the person, as taught by Rufo, in order to facilitate caregiving for seniors and other adults (Rufo [0018]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, and in further view of Moturu.
Regarding claim 34, Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg does not teach wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from input from the person via the user interface device to self-identify at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource.
However, Moturu discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from input from the person via the user interface device to self-identify at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource (Moturu [0124], “therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention provision parameters of a dynamic care plan can be influenced from user preferences including at least one of preferred types of therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention categories, preferred therapeutic intervention provision parameters (e.g., a selection of personal contacts to contact for therapeutic interventions involving other individuals, etc.). User preferences can be selected manually (e.g., by a patient based on options provided at an application executing on a patient mobile computing device, etc.), automatically (e.g., inferred from log of use data, supplemental data, survey data, etc.), and/or through any other means.”).
Moturu is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is derived from input from the person via the user interface device to self-identify at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, as taught by Moturu, in order to provide therapeutic interventions to users in an effective, time-sensitive, and personalized manner (Moturu [0026]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 35, Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg does not teach wherein said at least one action of said care plan is at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is in the deteriorated health state.
However, Moturu discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is in the deteriorated health state (Moturu [0124], “therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention provision parameters of a dynamic care plan can be influenced from user preferences including at least one of preferred types of therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention categories, preferred therapeutic intervention provision parameters (e.g., a selection of personal contacts to contact for therapeutic interventions involving other individuals, etc.). User preferences can be selected manually (e.g., by a patient based on options provided at an application executing on a patient mobile computing device, etc.), automatically (e.g., inferred from log of use data, supplemental data, survey data, etc.), and/or through any other means.”; also Moturu [0087], “the user can be guided to focus on his/her breath (e.g., in relation to a high PHQ-9 score) with audio-guided medication (e.g., using speaker modules of a mobile computing device executing an associated application),” guidance provided through audio).
Moturu is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is at least one of a preferred coping mechanism, an activity, a mindfulness exercise and an assistive resource, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is in the deteriorated health state, as taught by Moturu, in order to provide therapeutic interventions to users in an effective, time-sensitive, and personalized manner (Moturu [0026]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, and in further view of Rufo.
Regarding claim 36, Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg does not teach wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of a clinician visit, an activity, and a medication, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is not in the deteriorated health state.
However, Rufo discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of a clinician visit, an activity, and a medication, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is not in the deteriorated health state (Rufo [0177], “when the time associated with a reminder arrives, a reminder window 236 is displayed, as shown in a second calendar screen shot 237 illustrated in FIG. 11. Moreover, a voice message (or other audio alert) associated with the reminder 236 may be played over speakers”; also Rufo [0290], “if a medication is prescribed by the doctor, the HAPPIE home unit 103 may automatically communication with a pharmacy concerning the medication, and the calendar module will automatically insert into the resident's calendar an alert for picking up the medication at the pharmacy, medication reminders for each dose, and as well as an alert for ordering a refill of the medication when needed.”).
Rufo is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of a clinician visit, an activity, and a medication, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person when the data analysis module determines that the person is not in the deteriorated health state, as taught by Rufo, in order to facilitate caregiving for seniors and other adults (Rufo [0018]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 37, Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg does not teach wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data.
However, Rufo discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data (Rufo [0114], “The HAPPIE home unit 103 communicates with the resident by displaying text messages, text alerts, text reminders, video messages, and live streaming video displayed by the HAPPIE home unit 103 on a television or on video monitors 156. Audio messages, audio alerts and audio reminders are broadcast by the HAPPIE home unit 103 through speakers 157 and can be heard throughout the home.”; also Rufo [0177], “when the time associated with a reminder arrives, a reminder window 236 is displayed, as shown in a second calendar screen shot 237 illustrated in FIG. 11. Moreover, a voice message (or other audio alert) associated with the reminder 236 may be played over speakers”; also Rufo [0290], “if a medication is prescribed by the doctor, the HAPPIE home unit 103 may automatically communication with a pharmacy concerning the medication, and the calendar module will automatically insert into the resident's calendar an alert for picking up the medication at the pharmacy, medication reminders for each dose, and as well as an alert for ordering a refill of the medication when needed.”).
Rufo is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data, as taught by Rufo, in order to facilitate caregiving for seniors and other adults (Rufo [0018]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 38, Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg does not teach wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data associated with one of a current weather condition and a current environmental condition of the person.
However, Rufo discloses wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data associated with one of a current weather condition and a current environmental condition of the person (Rufo [0165], “The first home screen 200 includes a weather/time/date display area 201. This area 201 preferably displays the current time at the home premises. The current weather conditions are also displayed, along with the date and day of the week in the weather/time/date display area 201.”; also Rufo [0177], “when the time associated with a reminder arrives, a reminder window 236 is displayed, as shown in a second calendar screen shot 237 illustrated in FIG. 11. Moreover, a voice message (or other audio alert) associated with the reminder 236 may be played over speakers”; also Rufo [0221], “In the event of local weather or security alerts, the HAPPIE home unit 103 broadcasts warnings that the home of a patient or subscriber may be in the path of a tornado, hurricane, wildfire, flood, mud slide, etc.”; also Rufo [0290], “if a medication is prescribed by the doctor, the HAPPIE home unit 103 may automatically communication with a pharmacy concerning the medication, and the calendar module will automatically insert into the resident's calendar an alert for picking up the medication at the pharmacy, medication reminders for each dose, and as well as an alert for ordering a refill of the medication when needed.”).
Rufo is analogous to Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, as both are drawn to the art of health assistive devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Asano in view of Borsody, Tran, and Rosenberg, to include wherein said at least one action of said care plan is a reminder of at least one of an activity, a coping mechanism, and a mindfulness exercise, and wherein said user prompting module is operable to communicate said specific action to be taken via said user interface device as a prompt to said person as a function of sensor data associated with one of a current weather condition and a current environmental condition of the person, as taught by Rufo, in order to facilitate caregiving for seniors and other adults (Rufo [0018]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamamoto et al. (US 2004/0137413) Judgment ability evaluation apparatus, robot, judgment ability evaluation method, program, and medium
Chornenky (US 2010/0308999) Security and monitoring apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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 Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SA/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715