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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-20.
Claims 1-16 are drawn to a motion evaluation method (i.e., a process). Claims 17-20 are drawn to a method for motion evaluation and feedback (i.e., a process).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-20.
Claim 1 recites:
A motion evaluation method, comprising: obtaining a motion signal of a subject, the motion signal representing a motion state of the subject;
determining an evaluation criterion related to the motion signal;
obtaining an evaluation result by evaluating the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion, the evaluation result including an error type;
and generating evaluation feedback based on the evaluation result.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can obtain a motion state of a subject, determine evaluation criterion, obtain an evaluation result, and generate evaluation feedback. Applicant discloses “the processing device … may obtain a user operation instruction … Exemplary operation instructions may include but not limited to setting user information (e.g., gender, age, height, weight, disease history, etc.), selecting a motion mode (e.g., running, rope skipping, swimming, muscle training, etc.), and setting a motion time.” [0054].
Independent claim 17 describes nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 are directed towards mini-tasks (determining a feedback mode, determining an action type, and determining a ratio, etc.) for a motion evaluation method. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-16 and 18-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1 and 17 and dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable under US 20160081594 A1 (“Gaddipati”).
In regards to claim 1, Gaddipati discloses
A motion evaluation method, comprising: ([0012], “A … motion evaluation method comprising tracking … movement”) obtaining a motion signal of a subject, the motion signal representing a motion state of the subject ([0190], “When a fall is detected, an … alarm signal is sent to a monitoring agent”);
determining an evaluation criterion related to the motion signal ([0038], “The ROME ([0001], “range of motion evaluation (ROME)”) system can provide … evaluation … allowing … workers … to be trained to the same standards” Examiner notes that standards are closely related to criterion.);
obtaining an evaluation result by evaluating the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion ([0190], “activities that ROME can capture, analyze, and generate report include … bathing, dressing, transferring, using the toilet, continence, and eating” Examiner notes that analyzing data and generating a report is a method used to provide information to obtain an evaluation result.), the evaluation result including an error type ([0126]-[0129], “FIG. 35 is ... a Process to Calculate plane-fit error ... FIG. 37 is ... a Process to Calculate rectangle-fit error ... FIG. 38 is ... a Process to Calculate sensor calibration error”);
and generating evaluation feedback based on the evaluation result ([0180], “ROME will automatically measure metrics real-time and provide constructive feedback”).
In regards to claim 2, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the generating evaluation feedback based on the evaluation result includes ([0180], “ROME will automatically measure metrics real-time and provide constructive feedback”): determining a target feedback mode among a plurality of feedback modes based on the evaluation result or a user type of the subject, wherein the plurality of feedback modes notify the subject at different feedback times or in different feedback types ([0040], “Ability to … compare … movement from multiple time points”);
and generating feedback based on the target feedback mode ([0054]-[0055], “Using … information … to generate metrics …. Generating … evaluation reports” Examiner notes that evaluation reports are designed to provide feedback.).
In regards to claim 3, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the motion signal includes at least one of: a posture signal, an electromyography signal, a mechanical signal, an electrocardiography signal, a respiratory signal, or a sweat signal ([0190], “When a fall is detected, an … alarm signal is sent to a monitoring agent” Examiner notes that an alarm signal can be a posture signal.).
In regards to claim 4, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the determining evaluation criterion related to the motion signal includes:
determining an action type of the subject by performing an action recognition operation on the subject based on the motion signal ([0190], “When a fall is detected, an … alarm signal is sent to a monitoring agent” Examiner notes that a fall can be classified as a type of action.);
and determining the evaluation criterion related to the motion signal based on the action type ([0190], “activities that ROME can capture, analyze, and generate report include … transferring” Examiner notes that transferring is an action type.).
In regards to claim 5, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the determining an action type of the subject by performing an action recognition operation on the subject based on the motion signal includes: for each frame of the motion signal, determining whether to perform the action recognition operation ([0190], “ROME, with its pattern recognition capability, can identify when a fall happens or when there is a reduced activity”);
and in response to a determination to perform the action recognition operation, determining the action type of the subject by performing the action recognition operation on one or more frames of the motion signal, the one or more frames at least including the frame ([0201], “An instantaneous linear velocity … for a single frame is estimated using numerical differentiation of the … position with respect to time”).
In regards to claim 6, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the determining evaluation criterion related to the motion signal includes:
determining a target part corresponding to the action type ([0236], “patient is asked to move his body to reach a … target” Examiner notes that the action type can be moving his body.);
and the evaluating the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion includes:
obtaining a target motion signal of the target part ([0236], “ROME software calculates the time and the total distance the patient takes to reach a target” Examiner notes that a calculation can include an evaluation to obtain a signal.);
and evaluating the target motion signal of the target part based on the evaluation criterion ([0190], “activities that ROME can capture, analyze, and generate report include … transferring” Examiner notes that transferring is motion and that ROME can evaluate motion.).
In regards to claim 7, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluating the target motion signal of the target part based on the evaluation criterion includes: determining a reference part based on the target part ([0236], “ROME software calculates the time and the total distance the patient takes to reach a target” Examiner notes that a calculation can include an evaluation and that given a target, ROME may calculate a reference.”);
determining a ratio between an amplitude of the target motion signal of the target part and an amplitude of a reference motion signal of the reference part ([0172], “The calibration process calculates a transform for each sensor relative to a real-world calibration object such as a table” Examiner notes that calculating calibration can involve a ratio.);
determining whether the ratio is less than ([0029], “automated algorithms can be designed to calculate … basic problems and … assessment”) a ratio threshold ([0237], “Nurse … sets … thresholds for alert situations”);
and in response to determining that the ratio is less than the ratio threshold, determining that the evaluation result includes a compensation error ([0164], “An error value is then calculated”).
In regards to claim 8, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluating the target motion signal of the target part based on the evaluation criterion includes: determining an amplitude of the target motion signal ([0186], “ROME estimates number of steps, stride length, height of each step” Examiner notes that amplitude is a measure of height.);
determining whether the amplitude of the target motion signal is less than a first motion amplitude ([0186], “ROME estimates number of steps, stride length, height of each step” Examiner notes that amplitude is a measure of height.);
and in response to determining that the amplitude of the target motion signal is less than the first motion amplitude, determining that the evaluation result includes a compensation error ([0164], “An error value is then calculated”).
In regards to claim 9, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluating the target motion signal of the target part based on the evaluation criterion includes: determining the amplitude of the target motion signal ([0186], “ROME estimates number of steps, stride length, height of each step” Examiner notes that amplitude is a measure of height.);
determining whether the amplitude of the target motion signal is less than a second motion amplitude ([0186], “ROME estimates number of steps, stride length, height of each step” Examiner notes that amplitude is a measure of height.);
and in response to determining that the amplitude of the target motion signal is less than the second motion amplitude, determining that the evaluation result is an efficiency error ([0164], “An error value is then calculated”).
In regards to claim 10, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the target motion signal includes a first signal and a second signal ([0190], “When a fall is detected, an … alarm signal is sent to a monitoring agent”),
and the evaluating the target motion signal of the target part based on the evaluation criterion includes: identifying a first feature value of the first signal and a second feature value of the second signal ([0190], “data is stored on the local computer and uploaded to a cloud ... ROME... can identify when a fall happens or when there is a reduced activity ... When a fall is detected, an ... alarm signal is sent to a monitoring agent” Examiner notes that a feature value is a measured value of data.);
determining a time difference between the first feature value of the first signal and the second feature value of the second signal ([0189], “ROME ... measures the patient's ability to reach the maximum distance ... and also measures the time it takes to reach that distance” Examiner notes that ROME can calculate a time difference.);
determining whether the time difference is greater than a time difference threshold ([0237], “Nurse … sets … thresholds for alert situations”);
and in response to determining that the time difference is greater than the time difference threshold, determining that the evaluation result includes an efficiency error ([0164], “An error value is then calculated”).
In regards to claim 11, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluating the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion includes: determining one or more target parts corresponding to the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion, wherein the one or more target parts include at least two symmetrical parts of the subject ([0186], “When a patient is walking in the TUG ([0184], “Timed Up and Go”) test, ROME estimates … symmetry of placing legs”);
obtaining target motion signals of the at least two symmetrical parts based on the motion signal ([0236], “ROME software calculates the time and the total distance the patient takes to reach a target” Examiner notes that a calculation can include an evaluation to obtain a signal.);
and evaluating the target motion signals of the at least two symmetrical parts based on the evaluation criterion ([0038], “The ROME ([0001], “range of motion evaluation (ROME)”) system can provide … evaluation … allowing … workers … to be trained to the same standards” Examiner notes that standards are closely related to criterion.).
In regards to claim 12, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluating the target motion signals of the at least two symmetrical parts based on the evaluation criterion includes ([0186], “When a patient is walking in the TUG ([0184], “Timed Up and Go”) test, ROME estimates … symmetry of placing legs”): determining a signal difference between the target motion signals of the at least two symmetrical parts ([0180], “ROME will automatically measure metrics real-time” Examine notes that signal difference is a metric that ROME can measure and calculate.);
determining whether the signal difference is greater than a signal difference threshold ([0237], “Nurse … sets … thresholds for alert situations”);
and in response to determining that the signal difference is greater than the signal difference threshold, determining that the evaluation result includes a symmetry error ([0164], “An error value is then calculated”).
In regards to claim 13, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluating the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion includes: determining a target part corresponding to the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion ([0236], “ROME software calculates the time and the total distance the patient takes to reach a target” Examiner notes that a calculation can include an evaluation to obtain a signal.);
determining a frequency of a target motion signal of the target part ([0238], “ROME … can track … frequency”);
and determining a fatigue state of the target part based on the frequency and the evaluation criterion ([0200], “Data from ROME ... can ... be used to determine the root cause for injuries while working on a specific job tasks” Examiner notes that fatigue is a common cause of workplace injuries.).
In regards to claim 14, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluating the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion includes: determining a target part corresponding to the motion signal based on the evaluation criterion ([0236], “ROME software calculates the time and the total distance the patient takes to reach a target” Examiner notes that a calculation can include an evaluation to obtain a signal.);
obtaining a target motion signal of the target part ([0190], “When a fall is detected, an … alarm signal is sent to a monitoring agent”);
determining an evaluation parameter of the target part based on the target motion signal ([0188], “The ROME sensor detects and measures key parameters that include … motion”);
and determining an injury type or an injury level of the target part based on the evaluation parameter and the evaluation criterion ([0198], “Data from ROME can aid in ... quantifying the intensities of pain experienced while performing ... actions ... This data ... can be used to ... indicate ... injury”).
In regards to claim 15, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the evaluation parameter includes at least one of an internal rotation angle, an abduction angle, or a motion acceleration of the target part ([0185], “ROME … measures the sway, velocity and acceleration”).
In regards to claim 16, Gaddipati discloses
further comprising: evaluating the motion signal based on a motion evaluation model ([0012], “A … motion evaluation method comprising tracking … movement”).
In regards to claim 17, Gaddipati discloses
A method for motion evaluation and feedback, comprising ([0012], “A … motion evaluation method comprising tracking … movement”): obtaining a motion signal of a subject, the motion signal representing a motion state of the subject ([0190], “When a fall is detected, an … alarm signal is sent to a monitoring agent”);
obtaining an evaluation result by evaluating the motion signal based on an evaluation criterion related to the motion signal ([0190], “activities that ROME can capture, analyze, and generate report include … bathing, dressing, transferring, using the toilet, continence, and eating” Examiner notes that analyzing data and generating a report is a method used to provide information to obtain an evaluation result.);
determining a target feedback mode among a plurality of feedback modes based on the evaluation result, wherein the plurality of feedback modes notify the subject at different feedback times or in different feedback types ([0040], “Ability to … compare … movement from multiple time points”);
and generating evaluation feedback based on the target feedback mode ([0054]-[0055], “Using … information … to generate metrics …. Generating … evaluation reports” Examiner notes that evaluation reports are designed to provide feedback.).
In regards to claim 18, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the feedback times include immediate feedback or feedback after a motion ([0180], “ROME will automatically measure metrics real-time and provide constructive feedback”).
In regards to claim 19, Gaddipati discloses
further comprising: determining an action type of the subject by performing an action recognition operation on the subject based on the motion signal ([0190], “ROME, with its pattern recognition capability, can identify when a fall happens or when there is a reduced activity”).
In regards to claim 20, Gaddipati discloses
wherein the determining a target feedback mode among a plurality of feedback modes based on the evaluation result includes: determining the target feedback mode among the plurality of feedback modes based on at least one of: the action type, a user type of the subject, and the evaluation result ([0190], “activities that ROME can capture, analyze, and generate report include … transferring” Examiner notes that transferring is an action type.).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CT. 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, Xuan Thai, can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Publication Information
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent
Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the
Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the
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.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715