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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in claim
Claim 1,
“signal reception unit”; “a candidate region identification unit”; “an information generation unit”; “a biological information association unit”.
Claims 5, 10-12, 16,
“biological information association unit”.
Claim 15,
“signal reception unit”; “the biological information association unit”.
Claim 9,
“candidate region identification unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-16, 19, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stump (Pub. No.: US 2021/0000347)
Regarding claims 1, 19, 26, Stump discloses a signal reception unit configured to receive a signal related to biological information (respiratory rate of a subject 100) reflected from at least one person to be measured [see 0092-0093] by disclosing one or more physiological sign portions (110, 120) of enhanced monitoring device 140 may include a respiratory rate sensor (not shown) configured to sense and/or process respiratory rate of a subject 100 and respiratory rate sensor may receive an input from an ECG sensor (111, 121), PPG sensor (115), and/or neck motion sensor (113, 123) [see 0092];
a candidate region identification unit configured to calculate an arrival direction of the
signal and/or a distance to the at least one person to be measured from the signal received [see 0092-0093, 0181] by disclosing orientation sensor 108 is configured to monitor an orientation of a subject relative to a plurality of orientation axes and to generate an electronic orientation signal based on the monitored orientation and indicative of the subject 100 standing, walking, running, kneeling, sitting, lying face up, lying face down, laying on a side and/or in a vehicle [see 0093];
identify a candidate region (e.g., on the back of an ear, over a mastoid region, USP, LSP1, LSP2, skull, nose, or face surface opposite a portion of an eyeglasses physiological sign monitoring portion) of the at least one person to be measured using the arrival direction and/or the distance calculated [see 0071, 0092-0093, 0164] by disclosing respiratory rate sensor may include a neck motion sensor and take measurements directly with physical respiration motion data observed from the neck (e.g., in electronic signals generated by neck motion sensor 113 in first physiological sign portion 110 and/or by neck motion sensor 123 in second physiological sign portion 120) [see 0092];
an information generation unit (respiratory rate sensor) configured to generate biological information (internal biological activities or signals such as breathing rate, see 0093) corresponding to the candidate region of the at least one person to be measured from the signal received [see 0092-0093] by disclosing respiratory rate sensor may be configured to monitor a breathing rate of a subject 100 and to generate an electronic respiratory rate signal based on the monitored respiratory rate [see 0092];
a biological information association unit (enhanced monitoring device 140) configured to associate the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated (internal biological activities or signals such as breathing rate, see 0093), on the basis of a feature related to the biological information generated or to the candidate region [see 0037, 0092-0093] by disclosing movements associated with sitting, standing, walking, lying face down, laying face up, or any other suitable orientation, including subtle localized body movements that can be correlated to internal biological activities or signals such as breathing rate [see 0093].
Regarding claim 10, Stump discloses wherein the biological information association unit associates the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated, on the basis of a feature of a spatial distribution (measurement points) of the candidate region of the at least one person to be measured [see 0044-0045, 0047-0052, 0090, 0100, 0164].
Regarding claim 11, Stump discloses wherein the biological information association unit associates the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated, on the basis of a magnitude of an amplitude indicated by the biological information generated [see 0158-0159].
Regarding claim 12, Stump discloses wherein the biological information association unit associates the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated, on the basis of a feature of movement (walking/running) of the at least one person to be measured acquired from the signal received [0093, 0159].
Regarding claim 13, Stump discloses wherein the feature of the movement of the at least one person to be measured is a feature related to a sleeping position (lying face up, lying face down, laying on a side) of the at least one person to be measured [see 0093]
Regarding claim 14, Stump discloses wherein the feature of the movement of the at least one person to be measured is a feature related to walking of the at least one person to be measured [see 0093]
Regarding claim 15, Stump discloses wherein the signal reception unit acquires the signal related to biological information by receiving a signal reflected from the at least one person to be measured wearing a reflector [see 0071, 0164];
the biological information association unit associates the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated, on the basis of a feature of the signal reflected from the reflector [see 0071, 0164].
Regarding claim 16, Stump discloses wherein the biological information association unit associates the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated, on the basis of information identifying the at least one person to be measured acquired in advance [see 0112, 0116, 0132-0133] by disclosing memory 143 may store processed biological and/or environmental signal data until a time when such data is transferred to other subsystems within and/or external to electronic subsystems within enhanced monitoring device 140 including subsystems within second physiological sign portion 120 of enhanced monitoring device 140 [see 0112] and prior physiological parameters [see 0133].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stump (Pub. No.: US 2021/0000347) in view of Hecox (Pub. No.: US 2021/0052209)
Regarding claim 5, Stump doesn’t disclose wherein the biological information association unit associates the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated, on the basis of a degree of similarity of a temporal change in movement of the at least one person to be measured indicated by the biological information generated.
Nonetheless, Hecox discloses wherein the biological information association unit associates the at least one person to be measured with the biological information generated, on the basis of a degree of similarity of a temporal change in movement of the at least one person to be measured indicated by the biological information generated [see 0048] by disclosing the morphology of the observed artifact or other spurious waveforms can demonstrate visual similarity to seizures [see 0048].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Stump and Hecox by having the biological information generated, on the basis of a degree of similarity of a temporal change in movement of the at least one person to be measured indicated by the biological information generated; because the morphology of the observed artifact or other spurious waveforms can demonstrate visual similarity to seizures [see 0048, Hecox].
Regarding claim 6, Stump discloses wherein the temporal change in the movement of the at least one person to be measured includes a feature of a respiratory rate per unit time [see 0067, 0092-0093, 0136], a time ratio between exhalation and inhalation, or a slope of a respiratory waveform.
Regarding claim 7, Stump discloses wherein the temporal change in the movement of the at least one person to be measured includes a feature of a respiratory waveform and/or a heartbeat waveform [see 0072, 0092-0093, 0136].
Regarding claim 8, Stump doesn’t disclose wherein the temporal change in the movement of the at least one person to be measured is a temporal change in the movement of the at least one person to be measured during a seizure of the at least one person to be measured.
Nonetheless, Hecox discloses a temporal change in the movement of the at least one person to be measured during a seizure [see 0048, 0083].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Stump and Hecox by measuring a temporal change in the movement of the at least one person to be measured during a seizure; because the morphology of the observed artifact or other spurious waveforms can demonstrate visual similarity to seizures [see 0048, Hecox].
Regarding claim 9, Stump discloses the candidate region identification unit calculates the arrival direction of the signal and/or the distance to the at least one person to be measured from the signal received identifies the candidate region of the at least one person to be measured using the arrival direction and/or the distance calculated at a time [see 0092-0093, 0164]; other than (which means not during a seizure, emphasis added) during a seizure of the at least one person to be measured.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797