DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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: “display control unit” and “acceptance unit” in claims 1-8.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim(s), applicant recites the generic terms “display control unit” and “acceptance unit”, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and which the specification fails to provide adequate clarification as to the structures which perform the recited functions corresponding to the generic terms recited in the claim(s). As such, the claim(s) attempts to cover any and all structures or algorithms which perform the recited functions. As such, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention, failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-8 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 claim 1, the claim invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by using the placeholders, “display control unit” and “acceptance unit” which requires the specification to describe a corresponding structure which perform the claimed functions. The specification, however, is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions.
In particular, the claimed function for the display control unit is “to display, on one screen, a measurement result icon […] and a display setting area”, but the specification does not disclose what structural component actually performs the operations of displaying. Instead, the specification merely provides a black box type disclosure of a “display control unit” (e.g. Figure 1, element 124) as well as merely restating the performed function (see e.g. Specification filed 8/29/2024, ¶36 which states that the control unit displays the data on a monitor, but this is recited as the display control unit using a monitor, as opposed to disclosing the structure that is performing the control aspect for displaying, e.g. an processor configured with a particular algorithm for the function.) Examiner further notes that ¶¶54-55 discusses generic computer components that may be used to execute program code to perform the described functions. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, however, in addition to a processor, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The specification fails to disclose such corresponding algorithm connected to the disclosed processor. At most, the specification merely restates the claimed function itself, without disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the recited function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the recited display control unit control function can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
In addition, the claimed function for the acceptance unit is “to accept a setting operation…”, but the specification does not disclose what structural component actually performs the operations of accepting the setting operation. Instead, the specification merely provides a black box type disclosure of a “acceptance unit” (e.g. Figure 1, element 125) as well as merely restating the performed function (see e.g. Specification filed 8/29/2024, ¶¶37-40 which generally discusses an acceptance unit 125 that accepts a setting operation performed by the user, and describes different manners of the user operation being performed, but fails to disclose any corresponding structure that accepts whatever operation is performed by the user). Examiner further notes that ¶¶54-55 discusses generic computer components that may be used to execute program code to perform the described functions. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, however, in addition to a processor, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The specification fails to disclose such corresponding algorithm connected to the disclosed processor. At most, the specification merely restates the claimed function itself, without disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the recited function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the recited display control unit control function can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “display control unit” and “acceptance unit”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and fail to further limit the claim language in a manner that provides sufficient structure to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As such, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1 discussed above.
Claims 1-10 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 claim 1, the claim recites “a display control unit configured to display, on one screen, a measurement result icon indicating a result of measurement of a motion to be monitored” in lines 5-6. As currently drafted, it is unclear as to what the display unit is configured to display, as the claim states that the unit is configured to display “a measurement result icon indicating a result of measurement of a motion”, which appears to indicate that icon displays a determined or received result, i.e. a value of some sort that has already been obtained, and for which the icon is configured to display. The claim, however, then states “indicating a result of measurement of a motion to be monitored” indicating that the result is not yet obtained, but will be monitored after the icon is displayed. So the claim both says that the icon indicates a result of a measurement, as in the result is already obtained, but then goes on to state that the result is from something that is to be monitored, as if at a future time. The claim is therefore indefinite as to whether the result is already obtained for the icon or is yet to be obtained at the time the icon is displayed. As such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporates the same indefinite language as recited in claim 1, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Claims 9 and 10 contain substantially the same indefinite language as recited in claim 1 and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a plurality of measurement result icons respectively indicating a plurality of results of measurement of a plurality of motions to be monitored” which is the same language at issue in claim 1 (i.e. results displayed but also to be monitored as if not yet received). Accordingly, claim 2 is indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 3-6 depend from claim 2 and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons as claim 2 set forth above.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the display control unit displays, on the screen, the measurement result icon indicating the result of measurement which is determined to be displayed in the display setting area.” The claim is indefinite as to what is “displayed in the display setting area.” This could be either “the measurement result icon” or “the result of measurement which is determined”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Kobayashi et al. (US 2022/0054042 A1) in view of
Baarz et al. (US 2015/0040047 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayahsi discloses:
A motion state monitoring system configured to monitor a motion of a subject based on a result of detection by each of a plurality of sensors attached to a plurality of respective body parts of a body of the subject, the motion state monitoring system (Kobayashi, Abstract; ¶34: The training support system 1 is a system for monitoring a motion of a subject and providing support for making the motion of the subject close to a desired motion based on a result of the monitoring; Fig. 2 and ¶¶36-37: measuring instruments 11_1 to 11_11 attached to body parts; Further see ¶¶42-44: motion state monitoring apparatus 12 is an apparatus that outputs a result of a calculation indicating a motion state of the subject P ssbased on results (sensing values) of detection performed by the sensors 111_1 to 111_11 and selection of measurements) comprising:
A display control unit configured to display,(Kobayashi, Fig. 7 and ¶¶49-50: selection list 303 providing detailed motions to be monitored – see Fig. 5 with cursor shown selecting “Bending and Stretching of Right Elbow”; ¶51: the user has selected the “bending and stretching of the right elbow” from the selection list 303. Here, it is possible to measure the bending and stretching motion of the right elbow based on a result of the detection performed by each of the sensor (111_1) attached to the right upper arm (the body part 20_1) and the sensor (111_2) attached to the right forearm (the body part 20_2)) and a display setting area for setting an area that displays the result of measurement, (Kobayashi, Figs. 13 and 14 and ¶¶66-67 disclose the user interface with displayed graphs of respective results of detection by two sensors selected by a user and result of a calculation indicating the motion state of the “bending and stretching of the right elbow” in graph 308_1 – i.e. the region is a “display setting area” for setting an area that displays the result of measurement)
the result of measurement being acquirable from the sensor attached to the body part of the body of the subject (Kobayashi, Fig. 2 and ¶¶36-37: measuring instruments 11_1 to 11_11 attached to body parts; Further see ¶¶42-44 discussing measurement calculations from sensor data; ¶54: measure the bending and stretching motion of the right elbow based on a result of the detection performed by each of the sensor (111_1) attached to the right upper arm (the body part 20_1) and the sensor (111_2) attached to the right forearm (the body part 20_2); and
An acceptance unit configured to accept a setting operation for the display setting area for setting an area that displays the result of measurement for the measurement result icon (Kobayashi, Fig. 13 and ¶67: graphs 308_1 and 308_2 showing motion states of the motions to be monitored, where “the contents which these graphs show can be freely selected by a user”)
The only limitation not explicitly taught by Kobayashi is the particular arrangement of elements on a screen, such so as to display, on one screen, a measurement result icon indicating a result of measurement and a display setting area for setting an area that displays the result of measurement. In other words, the limitation interpreted as displaying on a single display screen of a graphical user interface both the icon for the result data and the area in which the result data are displayed (examiner notes that this is not interpreted as a computer screen or display device in general, which would in fact one screen upon which Kobayashi displays both elements, just not necessarily simultaneously, but rather a single Graphical User Interface screen image, in view of the specification).
Baarz teaches:
A display control unit configured to display, on one screen, a measurement result icon indicating a result of measurement and a display setting area for setting an area that displays the result of measurement (Baarz, Figs. 1 and 2, and ¶13: data visualization interface has a charting region that displays data, or the segments of data, in different chart formats associated with selected data cards that are interactive, where “a user can intuitively drag-and-drop a selected data card onto the charting region of the data visualization interface, and the charting region automatically updates to display an interactive visualization of data according to data metrics of the selected data card”; Also see ¶17 and ¶20 discussing drag and drop of data cards, i.e. icons, over the charting region of the data visualization interface, resulting in updating the displayed charting region data)
Both Kobayashi and Baarz are directed to user interfaces for allowing a user to select and visualize different data in a chart visualization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for providing visualization of monitored data based on user selection for indicating the data to display in a chart region as provided by Kobayashi, by including the user interface controls for providing user interface elements for selecting data for display in a chart region as provided by Baarz, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved graphical user interface that allows easy navigation and visualization of body sensor data by incorporating a more intuitive and direct user interface control for selecting preferred data for display, while also allowing all elements on the same screen to provide for easier visibility of data and easier understanding and control of the information by a user.
Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 1 performs the method of claim 9 and as such claim 9 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a control program for causing a computer to execute control processing in a motion state monitory system configured to perform operations. (Kobayashi, ¶¶81-82 discloses the corresponding computer components and stored instructions for performing related functions)
Further regarding claim 10, the operations perform the method of claim 9, and as such, claim 10 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 9 set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi further discloses:
Wherein the display control unit displays(Kobayashi, Fig. 7 and ¶¶49-50: selection list 303 providing detailed motions to be monitored – see Fig. 5 with cursor shown selecting “Bending and Stretching of Right Elbow”; ¶51: the user has selected the “bending and stretching of the right elbow” from the selection list 303. Here, it is possible to measure the bending and stretching motion of the right elbow based on a result of the detection performed by each of the sensor (111_1) attached to the right upper arm (the body part 20_1) and the sensor (111_2) attached to the right forearm (the body part 20_2) and
a plurality of display setting areas for setting a plurality of areas each of which displays a selected one of the plurality of results of measurement, (Kobayashi, Figs. 13-14 and ¶67: graphs 308_1 and 308_2 showing motion states of the motions to be monitored, where “the contents which these graphs show can be freely selected by a user”)
the results of measurement being acquirable from the plurality of sensors attached to the body parts of the body of the subject (Kobayashi, Fig. 2 and ¶¶36-37: measuring instruments 11_1 to 11_11 attached to body parts; Further see ¶¶42-44: motion state monitoring apparatus 12 is an apparatus that outputs a result of a calculation indicating a motion state of the subject P based on results (sensing values) of detection performed by the sensors 111_1 to 111_11 and selection of measurements)
Kobayashi modified by Baarz further teaches:
displays, on one screen, a plurality of measurement result icons respectively indicating a plurality of results of measurement and a plurality of display setting areas for setting a plurality of areas each of which displays a selected one of the plurality of results of measurement (Baarz, Figs. 1 and 2, and ¶13: data visualization interface has a charting region that displays data, or the segments of data, in different chart formats associated with selected data cards that are interactive, where “a user can intuitively drag-and-drop a selected data card onto the charting region of the data visualization interface, and the charting region automatically updates to display an interactive visualization of data according to data metrics of the selected data card”; Also see ¶17 and ¶20 discussing drag and drop of data cards, i.e. icons, over the charting region of the data visualization interface, resulting in updating the displayed charting region data)
In other words, Kobayashi is relied on for all the limitations except for the particular arrangement of elements on a graphical user interface screen, which presents both the plurality of measurement result icons and also presents a plurality of areas for displaying selected results (e.g. Kobayashi, Fig. 13-14 which presents different areas having different sensed data presented based on user selection). The combined display of icons for selection with the area for display on one screen is taught by Baarz. It should be noted that there is no clear definition of a “plurality of areas” and the multiple screen areas of Baarz are read on by the claims. This, however, is also not necessary for the combination of teachings, as Kobayashi teaches all the limitations except a screen that presents the icon for selection on the same screen as a separate area for displaying the selected icon data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious as Baarz teaches selecting an icon, dragging it to ta display region, resulting in the display of the selected data, all on the same screen, which combined with the screen of Kobayashi having the multiple areas for presenting data that is selected by a user, teaches the limitations of the claim.
Both Kobayashi and Baarz are directed to user interfaces for allowing a user to select and visualize different data in a chart visualization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for providing visualization of monitored data based on user selection for indicating the data to display in a chart region as provided by Kobayashi, by including the user interface controls for providing user interface elements for selecting data for display in a chart region as provided by Baarz, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved graphical user interface that allows easy navigation and visualization of body sensor data by incorporating a more intuitive and direct user interface control for selecting preferred data for display, while also allowing all elements on the same screen to provide for easier visibility of data and easier understanding and control of the information by a user.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi further discloses:
Wherein the acceptance unit accepts a setting operation for the common display setting area for setting an area that displays the results of measurement for two or more of the plurality of measurement result icons (Kobayashi, Fig. 14 shows e.g. regions 308_1 and 308_2; ¶67 discloses graphs can be freely selected by a user; ¶56: the “bending and stretching of the left elbow”, and the “internal and external rotation of the left shoulder” are selected as the motions to be monitored; Figs. 9 and 14 show the selection of at least two or more results and the resulting display of two or more graphs based on the selection)
Also Kobayashi modified by Baarz further teaches:
Wherein the acceptance unit accepts a setting operation for the common display setting area for setting an area that displays the results of measurement for two or more of the plurality of measurement result icons (Baarz, Figs. 1-2 and ¶17: charting region updates to present a trended view of the data or data segment selected data card that is dropped on the charting region; Also ¶18:
[0018] A user can also navigate to other data cards than just the four shown in this example for partner distribution, campaign gainers, quality score, and campaign losers. Any number of data cards 104 can be displayed by user selection of a forward carousel control 110 and/or a back carousel control 112 to display other data cards that are displayed for selection in a carousel of the data cards. Further, a user can select to chart entire grids of data, single rows of data, or selected rows of data from a data card 104, and drop them onto the charting region 102 of the data visualization interface 100 to see a graph of the data in the chart format that is associated with a selected data card. The user can then analyze the data and/or data segments without interrupting user workflow by charting and/or changing the trending data nearly immediately with the various, different data cards.
)
Both Kobayashi and Baarz are directed to user interfaces for allowing a user to select and visualize different data in a chart visualization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for providing visualization of monitored data based on user selection for indicating the data to display in a chart region as provided by Kobayashi, by including the user interface controls for providing user interface elements for selecting data for display in a chart region as provided by Baarz, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved graphical user interface that allows easy navigation and visualization of body sensor data by incorporating a more intuitive and direct user interface control for selecting preferred data for display, while also allowing all elements on the same screen to provide for easier visibility of data and easier understanding and control of the information by a user.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi modified by Baarz further teaches:
Wherein the acceptance unit accepts the setting operation by an operation for dragging for dragging and dropping the measurement result icon onto the display setting area, the operation input through an operation terminal (Baarz, Figs. 1 and 2, and ¶13: data visualization interface has a charting region that displays data, or the segments of data, in different chart formats associated with selected data cards that are interactive, where “a user can intuitively drag-and-drop a selected data card onto the charting region of the data visualization interface, and the charting region automatically updates to display an interactive visualization of data according to data metrics of the selected data card”; Also see ¶17 and ¶20 discussing drag and drop of data cards, i.e. icons, over the charting region of the data visualization interface, resulting in updating the displayed charting region data; Fig. 2 and ¶28 user of computing device 304 shown with drag and drop on interface)
Both Kobayashi and Baarz are directed to user interfaces for allowing a user to select and visualize different data in a chart visualization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for providing visualization of monitored data based on user selection for indicating the data to display in a chart region as provided by Kobayashi, by including the user interface controls for providing user interface elements for selecting data for display in a chart region as provided by Baarz, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved graphical user interface that allows easy navigation and visualization of body sensor data by incorporating a more intuitive and direct user interface control for selecting preferred data for display, while also allowing all elements on the same screen to provide for easier visibility of data and easier understanding and control of the information by a user.
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi modified by Baarz further teaches:
Wherein the display control unit displays, on the screen, the measurement result icon indicating the result of measurement which is determined to be displayed in the display setting area (Baarz, Fig. 1 shows the gathered data presented within the icon itself, which is then dragged to the chart area for display; ¶25: The data service 302 maintains the data (e.g., the trending data 316, updated data, etc.) that is displayed in the charting region 102 of the data visualization interface 100, as well as the data that is displayed in each of the data cards 104 of the data visualization interface)
Both Kobayashi and Baarz are directed to user interfaces for allowing a user to select and visualize different data in a chart visualization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for providing visualization of monitored data based on user selection for indicating the data to display in a chart region as provided by Kobayashi, by including the user interface controls for providing user interface elements related to collected data for selecting data for display in a chart region as provided by Baarz, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved graphical user interface that allows easy navigation and visualization of body sensor data by incorporating a more intuitive and direct user interface control for selecting preferred data for display, while also allowing all elements on the same screen to provide for easier visibility of data and easier understanding and control of the information by a user.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi further discloses:
Wherein the plurality of results of measurement include angles of joints of the body of the subject based on the results of detection by the plurality of sensors or the angles of joints in any coordinate system based on one of the result of detection by the plurality of sensors (Kobayashi, ¶43: The selection unit 121 selects, from among the sensors 111_1 to 111_11 associated with the respective body parts 20_1 to 20_11 of the body of the subject P, one or a plurality of sensors used to measure a motion (a motion such as bending and stretching the right elbow and internally and externally rotating the left shoulder) to be monitored which is specified by a user such as an assistant; ¶50: motions such as bending of joints, e.g. elbow – see Fig. 14 showing angle of upper arms and bending and stretching of elbows, and ¶¶66-67 disclosing detection of motion state of bending shown)
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi further discloses:
the system further comprising the plurality of sensors (Kobayashi, Fig. 2 and ¶¶36-37: measuring instruments 11_1 to 11_11 attached to body parts)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Kobayashi et al. (US 2022/0054042 A1) in view of
Baarz et al. (US 2015/0040047 A1) and in further view of
Bullo (Michael Bullo, “Quickly extract pages from PDF in Acrobat”, published at YouTube.com at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H35JdB1DASk as of Jan 25, 2019, video time 2:50)
Regarding claim 6, the limitations included from claim 5 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 5 set forth above. Further regarding claim 6, Kobayashi modified by Baarz further discloses:
Wherein the acceptance unit accepts a change operation for changing an area that displays the result of measurement by an operation for dragging and dropping the measurement result icon displayed (Baarz, Figs. 1 and 2, and ¶13: data visualization interface has a charting region that displays data, or the segments of data, in different chart formats associated with selected data cards that are interactive, where “a user can intuitively drag-and-drop a selected data card onto the charting region of the data visualization interface, and the charting region automatically updates to display an interactive visualization of data according to data metrics of the selected data card”; Also see ¶¶17-18 and ¶20 discussing drag and drop of data cards, i.e. icons, over the charting region of the data visualization interface, resulting in updating the displayed charting region data)
Both Kobayashi and Baarz are directed to user interfaces for allowing a user to select and visualize different data in a chart visualization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for providing visualization of monitored data based on user selection for indicating the data to display in a chart region as provided by Kobayashi, by including the user interface controls for providing user interface elements related to collected data for selecting data for display in a chart region as provided by Baarz, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved graphical user interface that allows easy navigation and visualization of body sensor data by incorporating a more intuitive and direct user interface control for selecting preferred data for display, while also allowing all elements on the same screen to provide for easier visibility of data and easier understanding and control of the information by a user.
The only limitation not explicitly taught by Kobayashi modified by Baarz is the movement of display data from one display area to another as claimed. Controlling the display of data in different areas of a graphical user interface by dragging representative icons, however, is a well-known technique (Examiner notes that operating systems have allowed users to transfer files between multiple displayed windows, by dragging and dropping an icon from a first window to a second window, with each window having the capability of presenting of preview window for the contents of the selected icons in a particular window, i.e. Windows Vista)
Bullo discloses:
Wherein the acceptance unit accepts a change operation for changing an area that displays the data associated with an icon by an operation for dragging and dropping the icon displayed in one of the display setting areas onto another display setting area, the operation being input through an operation terminal (Bullo discloses using thumbnails of pages to transfer page data from one document window to a second document window, resulting in updated viewable pages in a second window based on a drag and drop of an icon – see Video time 0:37 disclosing “we can easily just click on pages to jump to pages” and showing thumbnail clicked on to present larger image in right view section:
PNG
media_image1.png
508
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Video time 2:13 – 2:45 discloses the updating a second display window by dragging and dropping a page from the first display window to the second display window, both of which have a view area of the larger image corresponding to the selected thumbnail:
PNG
media_image2.png
514
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
908
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
Examiner notes that Kobayashi modified by Baarz teaches the majority of the claim, including dragging and dropping operations to update an area of a display of the result data presented in two separate areas of a screen, including updating an area based on an icon dragged to the area. The only limitation missing is that an icon can be dragged from a first display area (e.g. window) to another display area (e.g. window) to update the presentation of data in the second window. The combination of Kobayashi, Baarz and Bullo teaches the limitations of the claim.
Both Kobayashi and Baarz are directed to user interfaces for allowing a user to select and control the visualization of data within areas of the screen interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for providing visualization of monitored data based on user selection for indicating the data to display in a chart region as provided by Kobayashi, including the user interface controls for providing user interface elements related to collected data for selecting data for display in a chart region as provided by Baarz, by further incorporating the technique of allowing user control over the movement between two display areas using a drag and drop motion on a thumbnail as provided by Bullo, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved graphical user interface that allows easier and more flexible control over the display of visualization data by providing a user with easier to use and intuitive controls for changing the location of data on an interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights