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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the adult physiological or behavioral signals” in line 9. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more adult physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 1 recites “the child physiological or behavioral signals” in lines 9-10. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more child physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 4 recites “the child and adult physiological or behavioral signals” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more child and adult physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 9 recites “the set” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the set of possible adult-child activities—
-Claim 10 recites “receiving or more” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –receiving one or more—
-Claim 10 recites “the adult physiological or behavioral signals” in line 6. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more adult physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 10 recites “the child physiological or behavioral signals” in lines 6-7. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more child physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 11 recites “comprising” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending –further comprising—
-Claim 11 recites “the method comprises” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends deletion of this recitation.
-Claim 12 recites “the child physiological or behavioral signals” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more child physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 12 recites “the adult physiological or behavioral signals” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more adult physiological or behavioral signals—
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 10 recite “output system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to provide a feedback signal. According to the specification the output system includes a mobile phone or tablet [Pg. 9, lines 7-11] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, and 13 recites “a controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to analyze an association between the adult physiological or behavioral signals and the child physiological or behavioral signals during the selected adult-child activity, and thereby estimate a level of synchrony between the adult and child associated with the selected adult-child activity. According to the specification the controller includes software and/or hardware, processor, microprocessors, microcode [Pg. 16, lines 33-36] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites “sensor arrangement” in line 3. It is unclear what the term arrangement imparts on the requirements of the limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this requires an arrangement of sensors, a structural arrangement or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “the adult and child” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites “the set for improving the level of synchrony” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 3 recites “the memory” in line 6. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to a memory originally referenced in claim 3, line 2 or whether this limitation is referring to an external memory originally referenced in claim 3, line 2. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 3 recites “the level of synchrony historically achieved” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 3 recites “historical data” in line 7. It is unclear whether or not this is the same or different from historical data originally referenced in claim 3, line 3. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 5 recites “adult-child interaction” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not this is the same or different for adult-child interaction originally referenced in claim 1, line 8. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 6 recites “the child physiological or behavioral signal” in line 2. It’s unclear which child physiological or behavioral signal is being referred to. Should possibly read –the one or more child physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 6 recites “the adult physiological or behavioral signal” in line 3. It’s unclear which child physiological or behavioral signal is being referred to. Should possibly read –the one or more adult physiological or behavioral signals—
-Claim 7 recites “to some extent” in lines 4 and 7. It is unclear what this recitation encompasses in terms of the requirements of the claim. Further clarification should be provided to identify what extent of synchrony is required.
-Claim 7 recites “the music output” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 7 recites “the characteristics of the story telling voice” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 7 recites “estimated level of synchrony” in line 6. It is unclear whether or not this is the same or different from the estimated level of synchrony originally referenced in claim 1, lines 10-11. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 7 recites “the story telling voice” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 9 recites “the user” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 9 recites “the synchrony level” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –the level of synchrony— or –the estimated level of synchrony—
-Claim 10 recites “the adult and child” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “the output system” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “the set for improving the level of synchrony” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 11 recites “the level of synchrony historically achieved” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 11 recites “historical data” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not this is the same or different from historical data originally referenced in claim 11, line 2. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 13 recites “said program” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 13 recites “the controller” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 13 recites “the system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “program code means” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term contains the word means but it is unclear as to whether this claim limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a series of mental processes that can occur in the human mind. These mental processes include acquiring physiological or behavioral information of a child and an adult and determining a level of synchrony between said adult and child. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the at least one controller is recited as performing the generic computer function of collecting, and estimating levels of synchrony associated with an activity and outputting signals to identify suitable activities. Further, mere instructions or commands to apply a judicial exception using a generic processing device does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the acquisition, selection steps merely define the data that can be presented to the mind and the outputting or controlling steps can be performed by hand (an individual making a decision on an activity) based on the individual's analysis (the mental process). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited in claims 1-13 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The recitation of level of synchrony is not presented in a manner relevant to a medical condition since synchrony is broadly interpreted as an adult interacting with a child and not necessarily encompassing a medical condition.
An analysis of the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed towards a system or apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
Claims 10-13 are directed towards a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1-13 recite limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. These claims recite acquiring physiological or behavioral information, determining associations between signals, estimating levels of synchrony and controlling outputs. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practically performable in a human’s mind, or with pen and paper, to analyze physiological data as well to compute whether that data corresponds to data point considered to be associated with “activities” or “level of synchrony”. Analyzing information and making a determination based on information is akin to an observation, evaluation or judgement that defines the mental process grouping. Thus Claims 1-13 are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1-13 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1-13 recite the following additional elements:
-sensor arrangement
-output system
-controller
-memory
-microphone
-speaker
-computer program
-computer program code
The sensor arrangement, output system, controller, memory, microphone, speaker, computer program and computer program code components are generically recited at a high level of generality. Further mere instructions or commands to apply judicial exception using a generic controller device independently does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Most notably, none of the additional elements recited in these claims apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. While the bodies of these claims discuss reducing improving level of synchrony, there is no claim limitation that recites a particular treatment method as the identification of a suitable activity as recited would not necessarily indicate a change to “level of synchrony” as recited by the claim due to the broad interpretation of “synchrony.” The recitation of synchrony is not presented in a manner relevant to a medical condition since this could be broadly interpreted as a communication or transfer of information to an adult as related to a state of a child and not necessarily encompassing a medical condition.
Thus claims 1-13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 2 includes reference to a user selecting the activity, claims 3 and 11 recite involvement of historical data, claims 4, 6, 8, and 12 further limit types of activities and signal data, claim 5 describes how data is acquired, claim 7 recites dependence of components on level of synchrony, claim 9 recites identification and selection of activities, and claim 13 is drawn towards the algorithms involved with controlling aspects of the method. These are also generically recited at a high level of generality. Mere command to apply a judicial exception using a generic controller does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the processes and steps can be considered nonfunctional descriptive material because there are no elements that show how the processor interacts with other components or fulfills the function of identifying activities to deliver a change within the system to improve level of synchrony.
In reconsidering the additional elements of the method, the additional elements were determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on the following evidence:
-Cail (U.S. 20200281521) discloses a sensor arrangement [0016; “sensor array”], output system [0038; “smartphone, a tablet”], controller [0019], memory [0017], microphone [0027], speaker [0037], computer program [0085], computer program code [0087] in reference to an infant monitoring device that provides recommendations to the guardian [Abstract].
Therefore, these elements are demonstrated to be generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hannula (U.S. 20220167930).
Regarding Claim 1, Hannula teaches a system for assisting in the development of an adult-child attachment relationship [Abstract; “recognize and maintain emotional interaction between mother and her baby”], comprising: a physiological or behavioral sensor arrangement for sensing one or more child physiological or behavioral signals and for sensing one or more adult physiological or behavioral signals [0027]—reference to sensors and microphones and [0033]—reference to the mother also wearing the sensors continuously;
an output system [0092]—reference to a mobile phone; and
a controller [0091]-reference to a control unit, and processors
wherein the controller is adapted to:
for a selected one of a set of possible adult-child activities involving interaction between the adult and child [0097]—reference to baby caring activities, analyze an association between the adult physiological or behavioral signals and the child physiological or behavioral signals during the selected adult-child activity [0098]—discloses the association between sensor signals and signals used to relax, calm or improve babies’ emotional condition, and thereby estimate a level of synchrony between the adult and child associated with the selected adult-child activity [Abstract; “improve the baby’s life rhythm”]; and
control the output system to provide a feedback signal which depends on the estimated level of synchrony, wherein the feedback signal is for identifying one or more suitable other activities of the set for improving the level of synchrony [0054], [0107], [Fig. 10, steps 303 (sensor data/feedback), 305 (checks/feedback), 314 (checks/feedback), 306 (signal generator ceased/identifying one or more suitable other activities].
Regarding Claim 2, Hannula teaches wherein the controller is adapted to receive an indication of a user-selected adult-child activity [0077]—discloses the user selecting desired volume of listening to music or [0099]—audio/motion/airflow files.
Regarding Claim 3, Hannula teaches comprising: a memory, or a communications system for interrogating an external memory [0106]—reference to history memory and [0095]—reference to an external data gateway, storing the set of possible adult-child activities and historical data relating to the level of synchrony historically achieved in response to performance of the adult-child activities [0043]—reference to saving history memory for used movement, voice action patterns and environmental settings and cyclic properties that are good to the baby in coordination with the mother’s emotional status;
wherein the controller is adapted to select one of a set of possible adult-child activities for improving the level of synchrony based in part on the historical data and to control the memory to record the level of synchrony as historical data [0043; “If the baby wakes back up to the Drowsy or even Morose or Panic level, AI unit starts to try with another action pattern, which it has learned earlier in a similar situation.”]
Regarding Claim 4, Hannula teaches wherein the child and adult physiological or behavioral signals each comprise or identify one or more of:
a heart rate [0051];
a skin conductance [0050];
respiration characteristics [0050];
a direction of gaze (not required by the claim);
a type of facial expression (not required by the claim);
sounds made by the child and/or adult [0030];
movements [0030].
Regarding Claim 5, Hannula teaches wherein the physiological or behavioral sensor arrangement comprises a microphone for recording sounds made during adult-child interaction [0030].
Regarding Claim 6, Hannula teaches wherein the controller is adapted to derive a level of anxiety of the child from the child physiological or behavioral signal [0110]—referencing level of panic of the baby and optionally also a level of anxiety of the adult from the adult physiological or behavioral signal (not interpreted to be required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 7, Hannula teaches comprising: a speaker for playing music, wherein the controller is adapted to select characteristics of the music in dependence on the estimated level of synchrony during the adult-child activity, such that the music output reflects the level of synchrony to some extent; or a speaker for playing a story telling [0108]—describing the volume and periodicity based on real-time analysis of mother’s sensors during a/m/a actions, wherein the controller is adapted to select the characteristics of the story telling voice in dependence on estimated level of synchrony, such that the story telling voice reflects the level of synchrony to some extent (not interpreted to be required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 8, Hannula teaches wherein the set of adult-child activities include one or more of:
a peek-a-boo game (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
a sound copying game (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
a Kangaroo care session (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
the adult singing to the child [0116];
the adult rubbing the child's back (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
bedtime rituals [0047];
visiting a venue for an interactive experience (not interpreted to be required by the claim); and
performing arts and crafts together (not interpreted to be required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 9, Hannula teaches wherein the controller is adapted to: receive an identification of an adult-child activity to add to the set [0050; “The platform sensors and sensor sheet sensors…of the baby.”];
or request identification by the user of an adult-child activity which is being performed, based on continuous monitoring of the synchrony level (not interpreted to be required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 10, Hannula teaches a computer-implemented method for assisting the development of an adult-child attachment relationship [Abstract; “recognize and maintain emotional interaction between mother and her baby”], comprising: during a selected one of a set of possible adult-child activities [Fig. 9, reference to “actions”], [0101-0102]—includes description of baby care activities and [0097]—reference to baby caring activities, receiving one or more sensed child physiological or behavioral signals and receiving or more adult physiological or behavioral signals [0027]—reference to sensors and microphones and [0033]—reference to the mother also wearing the sensors continuously;
analyzing an association between the adult physiological or behavioral signals and the child physiological or behavioral signals [0098]—discloses the association between sensor signals and signals used to relax, calm or improve babies’ emotional condition, and thereby estimating a level of synchrony between the adult and child associated with the selected adult-child activity [Abstract; “improve the baby’s life rhythm”]; and
controlling the output system to provide a feedback signal which depends on the estimated level of synchrony, wherein the feedback signal is for identifying one or more suitable other activities of the set for improving the level of synchrony [0054], [0107], [Fig. 10, steps 303 (sensor data/feedback), 305 (checks/feedback), 314 (checks/feedback), 306 (signal generator ceased/identifying one or more suitable other activities].
Regarding Claim 11, Hannula teaches comprising selecting one of a set of possible adult-child activities for improving the level of synchrony taking account of historical data relating to the level of synchrony historically achieved in response to use of the adult-child activities and the method comprises recording the estimated level of synchrony as historical data [0043]—reference to saving history memory for used movement, voice action patterns and environmental settings and cyclic properties that are good to the baby in coordination with the mother’s emotional status and [0043; “If the baby wakes back up to the Drowsy or even Morose or Panic level, AI unit starts to try with another action pattern, which it has learned earlier in a similar situation.”]
Regarding Claim 12, Hannula teaches wherein: the child physiological or behavioral signals and adult physiological or behavioral signals each comprise or result from one or more of:
a heart rate [0051];
a skin conductance [0050];
respiration characteristics [0050];
a direction of gaze (not required by the claim);
a type of facial expression(not required by the claim); and
movements [0030]; and/or
wherein the set of adult-child activities include one or more of:
a peek-a-boo game (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
a sound copying game (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
a Kangaroo care session (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
the adult singing to the child [0116];
the adult rubbing the child's back (not interpreted to be required by the claim);
bedtime rituals [0047];
visiting a venue for an interactive experience (not interpreted to be required by the claim); and
performing arts and crafts together (not interpreted to be required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 13, Hannula teaches a computer program [Fig. 10, element 310 (AI algorithms)] and [0119; claims 1, 4, 19, 20] comprising computer program code means which is adapted, when said program is run on the controller of the system, to implement the method of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Kim (U.S. 10076632)—discloses a computing device that soothes a child
-Bender (U.S. 9597805)—includes reference to a care apparatus provides output in the form of images, sounds, music, and videos
-Cooper (U.S. 20150250419)—references a monitoring device that provides an alert to caregivers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights