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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024 was received and placed in the record on file. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently, no limitations of the instant claims are being interpreted as invoking a 35 USC 112(f) interpretation.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see hyperlink from paragraph [0003] of the specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The amendment filed 3/28/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The amendment to recite that the PCT/JP2021/036931 is incorporated by reference in its entirety into the application is new matter as it was not originally presented at the time of filing (since this is a national state application, the effective filing date is PCT filing date of 10/6/2021). Furthermore, since the instant specification is a copy of the PCT specification, it is redundant to incorporate the specification into itself. To summarize, the amendment to the specification should simply state “This application is a National Stage application under 35 USC 371 of International Application No. PCT/JP2021/036931, having an International Filing Date of October 6, 2021.” And the next paragraph regarding the disclosure should be removed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the applicant has amended the claims to recite that each of the “position information generation part”, “degree-of-roaming calculation part”, “prediction part” and “notification part” each including “one or more processors”, which is not supported in the original disclosure. A review of the specification only discloses a single processor, drawn to element 151 of the specification in paragraphs [0032]-[0034] and depicted in figure 3. Each of the claimed “parts” appear to be modules/software/ which are executed on the processor element 151 or circuits which are part of the processor element 151. However, the claim as instantly constructed recites a minimum of at least four processors (one processor for each part) and contemplates the possibility of more (as each part includes one or more processors). As such, the instant claims present new matter which was not present in the original application (which is the PCT/JP2021/036931 application filed 10/6/2021), and lack written description support to show that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
The examiner encourages the applicant to amend the claims to recite a single processor and how that single processor executes the functions of each of the parts or similar (i.e. looking at paragraph [0038] of the specification which contemplates dedicated circuits for each of the processes) in order to overcome the instant rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-6; the claims are indefinite in light of the specification because it is unclear if each of the “position information generation part”, “degree-of-roaming calculation part”, “prediction part” and “notification part” are intended to include the same “one or more processors” or if each of the different parts each include “one or more processors”. The specification appears to only support the use of one processor, but the instant claim structure appears to recite each part includes “one or more processors” (i.e. at least 4 processors), but could also possibly be interpreted as each of the parts are included on the same “one or more processors” (i.e. at least one processor). As such, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of applying art and providing compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the “one or more processors” to be one processor for carrying out the functions recited in each of the parts based on the specification.
Further regarding claim 15; the claim lacks antecedent basis as it refers to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 11, however claim 11 is only drawn to a prediction method and does not recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. It appears that the dependent was incorrectly recited and claim 15 should be dependent on claim 14 instead of claim 11.
For the purpose of applying art and providing compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret claim 15 as if it were dependent on claim 14 for the prior art rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-18, using the two-part test for subject matter eligibility, independent claims 1, 7 and 8 are the exemplary independent claims and are directed to a machine (claim 1), a process (claim 7) and a manufacture (claim 8) (Step 1: Yes). The claims are also directed to a judicial exception regarding an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). The claims are recreated below and the abstract idea is bolded and italicized:
Claim 1:
A prediction device, comprising:
a position information generation part, including one or more processors, which configured to generate position information of a subject;
a degree-of-roaming calculation part, including one or more processors, which configured to calculate a degree of roaming indicating a degree of stereotypic behavior relating to walking for the subject on the basis of the position information of the subject;
a prediction part, including one or more processors, which configured to predict occurrence of a predetermined symptom in the subject on the basis of the degree of roaming of the subject; and
a notification part, including one or more processors, which configured to output a notification in response to prediction that symptom will occur in the subject.
Claim 7:
A prediction method, comprising:
generating position information of a subject;
calculating a degree of roaming of the subject indicating a degree of stereotypic behavior relating to walking on the basis of the position information of the subject;
predicting occurrence of a predetermined symptom in the subject on the basis of the degree of roaming of the subject; and
outputting a notification in response to predicting that the symptom will occur in the subject.
Claim 8:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the operations of a prediction method, the operations comprising:
generating position information of a subject;
calculating a degree of roaming of the subject indicating a degree of stereotypic behavior relating to walking on the basis of the position information of the subject;
predicting occurrence of a predetermined symptom in the subject on the basis of the degree of roaming of the subject; and
outputting a notification in response to predicting that the symptom will occur in the subject.
The independent claims encompass an abstract idea drawn to mental processes and mathematical concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or by hand using a pen and paper. In this case, calculating a degree of roaming of the subject indicating a degree of stereotypic behavior related to walking on the basis of the position information of the subject (calculating a metric using a mathematical equation) and predicting occurrence of a predetermined symptom in the subject on the basis of the degree of roaming of the subject (mental process of analyzing the calculated data to predict the occurrence of a symptom) from claims 1, 7 and 8 are drawn to mental processes and mathematical concepts. In other words, the mathematical concept is performing a calculation on collected data using a predetermined mathematical function (in this case the applicant’s degree of roaming equation); and the mental process includes observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Further, the entirety of claim 7 falls within a mental process as there are no additional elements and the entire claim can be performed in the mind (i.e. a doctor/specialist observes a person to “generate position information”, thinks about the observations which were generated and stored in their mind to calculate and analyze a degree of roaming in their brain to predict the occurrence of a predetermined symptom based on the observation and then tells/notifies the subject that the doctor/specialist predicts the symptom will occur based on their calculation and analyzing).
Further, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). The claims fail to recite additional elements or combinations of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. In the instant claims, the identified additional elements of: a position information generation part, including one or more processors, configured to generate position information of a subject (claim 1); a degree-of-roaming calculation part, including one or more processors (claim 1); a prediction part, including one or more processors (claim 1); a notification part, including one or more processors, configured to output a notification in response to prediction that symptom will occur (claim 1); a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the operations (claim 8); an program to instruct the generating of position information of a subject (claim 8); and a program to cause a computer to output a notification in response to predicting that the symptom will occur in the subject (claim 8) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the additional limitations amount to merely applying the judicial exception by including the instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e. implementing the steps on a general purpose computer/processor or storing the steps on a generic computer readable storage medium for execution by a general purpose computer/processor; wherein the parts and computers are all recited at a high level of generality); generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (the processors and storage medium with a computer program); and as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (in this case, a program causing a computer to generating the positional information of a subject and outputting a notification in response to predicting the symptom will occur in the subject are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. These limitations merely amount to necessary data gathering and outputting (see MPEP 2106.05). Further, the additional elements, considered individually and as a whole, along with the abstract idea: does not improve the functioning of a computer or improvement in technology or technological field (the specification is silent to any improvement to a computer through use of the abstract idea); does not apply the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture which is integral to the claims (the recitation of computers, processors and non-transitory storage mediums are recited at a high level of generality); does not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (analyzing data and outputting a result is not a transformation); utilize well-understood, routine and conventional activity (generating position information of a subject and outputting a notification are well-understood, routine and conventional activity recited at a high level of generality); and does not apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicia exception to a particular technological environment (wherein the mathematical concept and abstract idea are merely implemented on a processor and memory including program code).
Finally, the claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: No). The additional elements of: the position information generation part, degree-of-roaming calculation part, prediction part, notification part, the one or more processors (claim 1); non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform operations (claim 8); and causing a computer to generate position information of a subject and output a notification in response to predicting a symptom will occur in the subject (claim 8), do not amount to or contribute to the inventive concept recited in the abstract idea. The addition element, considered individually and as a whole, amount to merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer by reciting implementation by one or more computer processors or on a program for causing a general-purpose computer to carry out the abstract ideas, where the processors and general-purpose computer are recited at a high level of generality and do not attempt to meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Further, the program causing the computer to carry out the operations of generating position information and outputting a notification are mere-extra solution activity (mere data gathering and outputting, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). When considered as a whole, implementing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer and performing extra-solution activity, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are rejected as non-statutory as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea: mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-6 and 9-18 do not recite any additional elements that implement the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they merely further specify details of the abstract idea or recite further steps to the abstract idea wherein eligibility cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.04, II, A, 2; referring to claims 2-4 and 6-11, 13-16 and 18 which only recite additional steps to the abstract ideas or further define abstract ideas); further define an additional element (further defining the position generation part in claim 5) that is conventional, well known and recited at a high level of generality (see further details below); or recite additional elements (step of acquiring depth image indicating depth of target space in which the subject exists in claims 5, 12 and 17) that are mere extra solution activity (mere data gathering). Further regarding claim 5; reciting that the position generating part is configured to acquire depth image indicating depth information of a target space in which the subject exists is the mere recitation of a conventional, well known and routine 3D camera which is evidenced by at least US 2019/0205630 A1 to Kusens which discloses that there are a plurality of suitable 3D motion sensors that can perceive depth that were conventional well known and widely available (see paragraph [0027]).
Accordingly, claims 2-5 and 9-18 do not recite any additional elements provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and are thus rejected as directed to non-statutory subject matter as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andersen et al (Examiner provided non patent literature “Detecting Wandering Behavior of People with Dementia”).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6; Andersen discloses a prediction device, comprising:
a position information generation part (smartphone including GPS sensor), including one or more processors (smart phone processor), which configured to generate position information of a subject (Section II describing the collection of GPS data);
a degree-of-roaming calculation part (step A5: geohash sequence similarity and anomaly score calculation; figure 2), including one or more processors (smartphone and cloud server processors), which configured to calculate a degree of roaming indicating a degree of stereotypic behavior relating to walking for the subject on the basis of the position information of the subject (Section II, B-E describes reviewing the collected GPS data and performing calculations using the data to create an anomaly score representing possible roaming);
a prediction part (step A6), including one or more processors (smartphone and cloud server processors), which configured to predict occurrence of a predetermined symptom in the subject on the basis of the degree of roaming of the subject (Section II, F. describes determining if an anomaly is occurring or about to occur based on the anomaly score exceeding a threshold value); and
a notification part (alarm), including one or more processors (smartphone processor), which configured to output a notification in response to prediction that symptom will occur in the subject (Section II, F. discloses an alarm procedure is triggered when a movement trajectory is classified as anomalous).
Further regarding claim 4; Andersen discloses a model (described algorithms in section 2E for determining the similarity score) configured to receive, as an input, the time series data of the degree of roaming (determined patterns time series of degree of roaming) and to output the probability of occurrence of the symptom (anomaly score), wherein the prediction part is configured to input time-series data including a plurality of degrees of roaming of the subject in a second time period into the model, obtain the probability output from the model, and predict occurrence of the symptom in the subject on the basis of a comparison between the probability output from the model and a predetermined threshold value (section II, D-F wherein Andersen discloses the GPS data is calculated into patterns, which are then input into the similarity algorithm models and outputs an anomaly score which is compared to a predetermined threshold value to predict the occurrence of wandering).
Further regarding claim 6; Andersen discloses the symptom is wanderings (See Section I. Introduction and Section II. Data Processing and Detection Task).
Further regarding claims 7, 11 and 13; Andersen’s prediction method of claims 7, 11 and 13 is described in the rejection of corresponding claims 1, 4 and 6 respectively (wherein the examiner notes that the parts of the device correspond to the steps of the method).
Further regarding claims 8, 16 and 18; Andersen’s prediction method and device are described in the corresponding rejections of claims 1, 4 and 6 and claims 7, 11 and 13, respectively. Andersen further discloses that the algorithm/process for carrying out the method described in Section II is carried out on a computer by executing a program in Python which inherently must be stored on a computer readable storage medium in order to be executing by the computer’s processor (Section III. Experimental Setup).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 14 and 15; Andersen is described in the rejections of claims 1, 7 and 8 above; Andersen further discloses calculating a movement distance of the subject during a first time period (Section II. wherein Andersen discloses detecting the movement of the subject using their GPS data) and calculates a movement range of the subject first in the time period (wherein discloses determining trajectories between start and end points to define a range), and calculates a degree of roaming by comparing the movement distance and movement range (Andersen discloses using the trajectories and patterns to determine a similarity score comparing to an expected distance).
However, Andersen does not explicitly disclose that the degree of roaming is calculated by dividing the movement distance of the subject by the movement range of the subject during the first time period.
While Andersen does not explicitly disclose the calculation of degree of roaming as the division of distance by range, Andersen does disclose comparing a distance travelled with the range between two points of a trajectory and using that to determine a similarity score based on the collected positional data. Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the known data of distance traveled and trajectory between a start and stop point to calculate the degree of roaming by dividing the distance by the trajectory as a mere extraneous calculation to create an index similar to the similarity score.
Further regarding claims 3, 10 and 15; Andersen discloses clustering the positions of the subject in the first time period indicated by the position information of the subject (Section II. B; wherein Andersen discloses clustering the positional data), calculate a size of at least one cluster obtained by clustering (Section II. B; wherein Andersen discloses determining geofenced regions in the clustering), and calculate a movement range of the subject during the first time period on the basis of the size of the at least one cluster (Section II. B-D: wherein Andersen discloses calculating the trajectories based on the positional data and geofenced regions to determine trajectories which is an equivalent of ranges).
Claims 5, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen as applied to claims 1, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Kusens (US 2019/0205630 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 17; Andersen is described in the rejections of claims 1, 7 and 8 above. Andersen discloses generating the positional information using a GPS sensor on a smartphone carried by the user.
This differs from the instant invention, as Andersen does not disclose that the position information generation part/step acquires a depth image indicating the depth information of a target space in which the subject exists, measuring a position of the subject on the basis of the depth image, and generate a position information of the subject.
Kusens teaches the use of 3D motion sensors and cameras as sensors for acquiring depth information of a target space (i.e. where the camera is viewing), measuring the position of the subject on the basis of the depth image, and generating a position information of the subject from the 3D motion sensors/camera (paragraph [0026]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Andersen’s method of generating position information with Kusen’s alternative method of generating position information as simple substitution of one known element for another to yield a predictable result. In this case, it would result in Andersen’s method using depth images to generate positional information, and utilizing that generated positional information in Andersen’s method for determining wandering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2020/0322759 A1 to Kim et al; discloses a system for detecting roaming.
US 2021/0398683 A1 to Clifford et al; discloses passive data collection and use of machine learning models for event prediction such detecting the possibility of dementia or dementia related events.
US 2024/0135796 A1 to Netscher et al; discloses a system and method for detecting, recording and communicating events of cognitively impaired persons.
US 2020/0297285 A1 to Ghalavand; discloses a monitoring system and analysis of a subject’s movement.
US 2017/0095193 A1 to Shin et al; discloses an apparatus and method for recognizing symptoms of dementia and providing service.
US 2019/0244508 A1 to Lenssen et al; discloses system and method for monitoring activities of daily living person.
US 2010/0049095 A1 to Bunn et al; discloses assessment of medical conditions by determining mobility.
US 2018/0137735 A1 to Matsuoka et al; discloses an abnormality detection method based off of user activity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights