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 Objections
Claims 5-6, 10-11, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 5 and 10, the claims recite the term “indexes”. Examiner suggested amending the claim to recite “indices” in place of “indexes”.
Regarding claims 6, 11, and 14, the claims recite, “…control unit that controls stop of sensing of the biological signal…”. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite, “…control unit that [[controls stop of ]] stops sensing [[of]] the biological signal…”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “…estimating a sensitivity to biological reaction…”. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite, “…estimating a sensitivity to a biological reaction…”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
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:
“a sensitivity estimation unit”,
“an integration estimation unit”, and
“a single-modal state estimation unit” in claims 1-2.
For examination purposes, a sensitivity estimation unit, an integration estimation unit, and a single-modal state estimation unit will be interpreted as software modules carried out by CPU 301 as supported by [0172] of the disclosure.
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 1-15 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 and 15, it is unclear if “at least one of the modals” is a modal chosen from “respective modals each representing a type of biological signal” or if it is chosen from “a plurality of modals”. In order to further advance prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the respective modals to be a plurality of the modals, and the at least one of the modals is chosen from the plurality of modals. Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
Regarding claims 1-15, the process recited by the claims is unclear because the specification has provided no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Therefore it is unclear as to how the claimed software modules (estimation units) are actually making estimations. Examiner notes that a mere description of software features is an insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure to support the computer-implemented means for user state estimation (MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “ wherein the variation heterogeneity represents that at least one of a property or a degree of the variation of the biological signal is different” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear is the property or degree of variation is different from a past measurement, or if it is different from a measurement taken by another modal. In order to further advance prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim to mean the property or degree of variation is different from a measurement taken by another modal.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of estimating the state of a user) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-15 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method/system for estimating the state of a user.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1-15, the recited steps are directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the limitations of “estimating signal qualities”, “detecting at least one of the modals having variation heterogeneity”, and “integrally estimating a state of a user” are a process, as drafted, that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and judgment) under the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, these limitations recited in claims 1-15 are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing gathered data.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1-15, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For claims 1 and 15, the additional limitation of “a signal processing unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the limitation of “estimating signal qualities for respective modals each representing a type of a biological signal of a user” amounts to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “estimating signal qualities for respective modals each representing a type of a biological signal of a user” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activities which do not amount to an inventive concept. The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations of “a signal processing unit” in claim 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-14 are further directed to the abstract idea. The above mentioned claims do not introduce any additional elements which amount to significantly more under the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analyses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 5-6, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Geva et al (US 2017/0027531) hereinafter Geva.
Regarding claim 1, Geva discloses a signal processing apparatus ([0038] monitoring system 1000) comprising:
a signal processing unit ([0042] acquisition module 1510) that estimates signal qualities for respective modals each representing a type of a biological signal of a user ([0059] physiological sensors 1110 may sense oxygen saturation, heart rate, body composition, ECG, EMG, EEG) ;
a sensitivity estimation unit ([0042] validation module 1520) that detects at least one of the modals having variation heterogeneity representing that variation of the biological signal is different from a plurality of the modals ([0053] Validation sensors 1120 are positioned so that they can be used in conjunction with physiological parameter sensors 1110 for controlling the validity status of a physiological parameter measurement), and
estimates a sensitivity to biological reaction of the modal based on a detection result of the modal having the variation heterogeneity ([0053] the readings of a plurality of validation sensors 1120 may be combined together in order to get indication that the physiological measurement will be reliable); and
an integration estimation unit ([0042] monitoring engine 1500) that integrally estimates a state of the user on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction ([0042] monitoring engine 1500 may provide the user only with physiological parameter information for which it is determined by validation module 1520 that the mentioned information is valid).
Regarding claim 2, Geva discloses a single-modal state estimation unit ([0059] physiological sensors 1110) that estimates states of the user for the respective modals ([0059] physiological sensors 1110 may sense oxygen saturation, heart rate, body composition, ECG, EMG, EEG),
wherein the sensitivity estimation unit detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of variation amounts of the states of the user for the respective modals ([0053] the readings of a plurality of validation sensors 1120 may be compared against each other to determine different weightings or to discard readings of physiological sensors 1110), and
the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user by integrating the states of the user for the respective modals on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction ([0042] monitoring engine 1500 may provide the user only with physiological parameter information for which it is determined by validation module 1520 that the mentioned information is valid).
Regarding claim 5, Geva discloses the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user by integrating the states of the user for the respective modals on a basis of reliabilities of the states of the user for the respective modals using the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction as indexes ([0053] readings of a plurality of validation sensors 1120 may be compared against each other to determine different weightings or to discard readings of physiological sensors 1110).
Regarding claim 6, Geva discloses a sensor control unit ([0151] processor 1130) that controls stop of sensing of the biological signal of at least one of the modals for which the reliability of the state of the user for the corresponding modal is estimated to be lower than a threshold ([0053] the readings of a plurality of validation sensors 1120 may be compared against each other to determine different weightings or to discard readings of physiological sensors 1110 or, in an embodiment to automatically toggle between physiological sensors 1110 acquiring the same physiological parameter; [0151] processor controls operation for monitoring parameters).
Regarding claim 13, Geva discloses wherein the variation heterogeneity represents that at least one of a property or a degree of the variation of the biological signal is different ([0053] Validation sensors 1120 are positioned so that they can be used in conjunction with physiological parameter sensors 1110 for controlling the validity status of a physiological parameter measurement).
Regarding claim 14, Geva discloses a sensor control unit ([0151] processor 1130) that controls stop of sensing of the biological signal of at least one of the modals for which the signal quality is estimated to be worse than a threshold ([0053] the readings of a plurality of validation sensors 1120 may be compared against each other to determine different weightings or to discard readings of physiological sensors 1110 or, in an embodiment to automatically toggle between physiological sensors 1110 acquiring the same physiological parameter; [0151] processor controls operation for monitoring parameters).
Regarding claim 15, Geva discloses a signal processing method performed by a signal processing apparatus, comprising:
estimating signal qualities for respective modals each representing a type of a biological signal of a user ([0059] physiological sensors 1110 may sense oxygen saturation, heart rate, body composition, ECG, EMG, EEG);
detecting at least one of the modals having variation heterogeneity representing that variation of the biological signal is different from a plurality of the modals ([0053] Validation sensors 1120 are positioned so that they can be used in conjunction with physiological parameter sensors 1110 for controlling the validity status of a physiological parameter measurement), and
estimating a sensitivity to biological reaction of the modal based on a detection result of the modal having the variation heterogeneity ([0053] the readings of a plurality of validation sensors 1120 may be combined together in order to get indication that the physiological measurement will be reliable); and
integrally estimating a state of the user on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction ([0042] monitoring engine 1500 may provide the user only with physiological parameter information for which it is determined by validation module 1520 that the mentioned information is valid).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geva (US 2017/0027531) in view of James et al (US 2009/0076346) hereinafter James.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Geva discloses the system of claim 2 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the sensitivity estimation unit detects a baseline section indicating a section where a state of the user is stable from among states of the user for each modal, and detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of the variation amount of the state of the user for each modal calculated with the state of the user in the baseline section as a base.
However, James discloses a sensitivity estimation unit detects a baseline section indicating a section where a state of the user is stable from among states of the user for each modal ([0148] baseline value of sensor outputs), and
detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of the variation amount of the state of the user for each modal calculated with the state of the user in the baseline section as a base ([0149] sensor output is at a value that is sufficiently different from a baseline value).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Geva with a sensitivity estimation unit detects a baseline section indicating a section where a state of the user is stable from among states of the user for each modal, and detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of the variation amount of the state of the user for each modal calculated with the state of the user in the baseline section as a base as taught by James. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining an adverse event is occurring.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Geva discloses the system of claim 3 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein when calculating the variation amount of the state of the user for each modal, on a basis of a type of application or physiological knowledge, the sensitivity estimation unit uses a value obtained by multiplying a reliability of the state of the user for the corresponding modal by a preset correction coefficient.
However, James discloses when calculating the variation amount of the state of the user for each modal, on a basis of a type of application or physiological knowledge, the sensitivity estimation unit uses a value obtained by multiplying a reliability of the state of the user for the corresponding modal by a preset correction coefficient (EQ1: OUTPUT=aX+bY; [0191] a and b comprise positive or negative coefficients determined from empirical data and X, and Z comprise measured signals for the patient). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Geva with when calculating the variation amount of the state of the user for each modal, on a basis of a type of application or physiological knowledge, the sensitivity estimation unit uses a value obtained by multiplying a reliability of the state of the user for the corresponding modal by a preset correction coefficient. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining an adverse event is occurring.
Claim(s) 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geva (US 2017/0027531) in view of Inz et al (US 2022/0165393) hereinafter Inz.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Geva discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose a single-modal feature amount calculation unit that calculates feature amounts of the biological signals of the respective modals, wherein the sensitivity estimation unit detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of variation amounts of the feature amounts for the respective modals, and the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user using the feature amounts for the respective modals on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction.
However, Inz discloses a single-modal feature amount calculation unit ([0078] processing subsystem 210) that calculates feature amounts of the biological signals of the respective modals ([0078] feature extraction 350),
wherein the sensitivity estimation unit detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of variation amounts of the feature amounts for the respective modals ([0080] Fig. 9 shows feature vectors 355 feeding into machine learning subsystem 360, which has anomaly detection 620), and
the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user using the feature amounts for the respective modals on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction ([0080] event detector 640 accepts anomaly signals 625 from the anomaly detector 620 and event or classification labels from the supervised learning subsystem 630).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Geva with a single-modal feature amount calculation unit that calculates feature amounts of the biological signals of the respective modals, wherein the sensitivity estimation unit detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of variation amounts of the feature amounts for the respective modals, and the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user using the feature amounts for the respective modals on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction as taught by Inz. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of measuring physiological and behavioral variables in order to detect behavioral disorders (Inz, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Geva discloses the system of claim 7 as discussed above, but fails to disclose the sensitivity estimation unit detects a baseline section indicating a section where a feature amount of the user is in a stable state from among feature amounts of the user for each modal, and detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of the variation amount of the feature amount of the user for each modal calculated with the feature amount of the user in the baseline section as a base.
However, Inz discloses the sensitivity estimation unit detects a baseline section indicating a section where a feature amount of the user is in a stable state from among feature amounts of the user for each modal ([0088] Baseline and ongoing physiological profiles of each user 110 are learned by machine learning subsystem 360), and
detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of the variation amount of the feature amount of the user for each modal calculated with the feature amount of the user in the baseline section as a base ([0088] by learning the dynamics and statistics of multiple physiological variables over time for each user 110 and for multiple users 110, a reliable mapping between physiological variables and behavioral disorders, and their severity, is determined for individual users 110).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Geva with the sensitivity estimation unit detects a baseline section indicating a section where a feature amount of the user is in a stable state from among feature amounts of the user for each modal, and detects the modal having the variation heterogeneity on a basis of the variation amount of the feature amount of the user for each modal calculated with the feature amount of the user in the baseline section as a base as taught by Inz. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of measuring physiological and behavioral variables in order to detect behavioral disorders (Inz, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Geva discloses the system of claim 8 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein when calculating the variation amount of the feature amount for each modal, on a basis of a type of application or physiological knowledge, the sensitivity estimation unit uses a value obtained by multiplying the feature amount for the corresponding modal by a coefficient of sign correction of a preset variation direction.
However, Inz discloses when calculating the variation amount of the feature amount for each modal, on a basis of a type of application or physiological knowledge, the sensitivity estimation unit uses a value obtained by multiplying the feature amount for the corresponding modal by a coefficient of sign correction of a preset variation direction ([0082] Paths and/or nodes are weighted, with the weighting of each being altered as the system 100 learns from additional input over time; Fig. 11; Examiner notes this would require extracted parameter features to be multiplied by a coefficient (weight)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Geva with when calculating the variation amount of the feature amount for each modal, on a basis of a type of application or physiological knowledge, the sensitivity estimation unit uses a value obtained by multiplying the feature amount for the corresponding modal by a coefficient of sign correction of a preset variation direction as taught by Inz. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of measuring physiological and behavioral variables in order to detect behavioral disorders (Inz, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Geva discloses the system of claim 7 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user by adjusting contribution degrees of the feature amounts for the respective modals on a basis of reliabilities of the feature amounts for the respective modals using the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction as indexes.
However, Inz discloses the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user by adjusting contribution degrees of the feature amounts for the respective modals on a basis of reliabilities of the feature amounts for the respective modals using the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction as indexes ([0082] Paths and/or nodes are weighted, with the weighting of each being altered as the system 100 learns from additional input over time; [0088] by learning the dynamics and statistics of multiple physiological variables over time for each user 110 and for multiple users 110, a reliable mapping between physiological variables and behavioral disorders, and their severity, is determined for individual users 110).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Geva with the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user by adjusting contribution degrees of the feature amounts for the respective modals on a basis of reliabilities of the feature amounts for the respective modals using the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction as indexes as taught by Inz. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of measuring physiological and behavioral variables in order to detect behavioral disorders (Inz, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Geva discloses a sensor control unit ([0151] processor 1130) that controls stop of sensing of the biological signal of at least one of the modals for which the reliability of the state of the user for the corresponding modal is estimated to be lower than a threshold ([0053] the readings of a plurality of validation sensors 1120 may be compared against each other to determine different weightings or to discard readings of physiological sensors 1110 or, in an embodiment to automatically toggle between physiological sensors 1110 acquiring the same physiological parameter; [0151] processor controls operation for monitoring parameters).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Geva discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the sensitivity estimation unit registers information indicating estimated sensitivities to the biological reaction of the modals in a database, and the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction indicated by information registered in the database.
However, Inz discloses wherein the sensitivity estimation unit registers information indicating estimated sensitivities to the biological reaction of the modals in a database ([0073] data recorded by the system 100 and saved in a data store (e.g., local or cloud-based database or blockchain distributed storage) is used with the state transition and state estimation and/or prediction model to provide a previous state and state history of the particular patient), and
the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction indicated by information registered in the database ([0073] Data is continually processed from incoming signals to establish a currently estimated state for the user 110, and model data is used to parse signal data, apply model parameters, and evaluate derived measures to establish a predicted future state for that patient).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Geva with the sensitivity estimation unit registers information indicating estimated sensitivities to the biological reaction of the modals in a database, and the integration estimation unit integrally estimates the state of the user on a basis of the signal qualities and the sensitivities to the biological reaction indicated by information registered in the database as taught by Inz. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of measuring physiological and behavioral variables in order to detect behavioral disorders (Inz, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792