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.
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:
“icon display unit”
“display control unit”
“reception unit”
As shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1, each of “unit” identified is shown as being contained with a motion state monitoring apparatus 10. Applicant’s Specification states at Paragraph 0027: “The motion state monitoring apparatus 10 may be, for example, a Personal Computer (PC), a mobile phone terminal, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or the like.” Thus, each “unit” is understood to be carried out by execution of a computer program on well-understood, routine, and conventional devices.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Kobayashi et al. (US 20220057233 A1) (hereinafter – Kobayashi) in view of
Miller et al. (US 20160235374 A1) (hereinafter – Miller).
Re. Claim 1: Kobayashi teaches a motion state monitoring system comprising:
a plurality of sensors attached to respective body parts of bodies of a plurality of respective subjects (Fig. 2, as described in Paragraph 0035: “The measuring instruments 11_1 to 11_11 are respectively attached to body parts 20_1 to 20_11;” Fig. 7, as described Paragraph 0052: system used with a plurality of subjects).
While Kobayashi teaches a motion state monitoring apparatus configured to monitor the respective subjects by the attached sensors (Fig. 1: motion state monitoring apparatus 12), Kobayashi does not teach a plurality of motion state monitoring apparatuses.
Miller teaches analogous art in the technology of wearable sensor devices (Abstract). Miller further teaches the use of a plurality of motion state monitoring apparatuses (Fig. 7a, as described in Paragraph 0107: user measurement device (UMD) may communicate data for additional data analysis).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kobayashi to include the use of a plurality of motion state monitoring apparatuses as taught by Miller, the motivation being that doing so data from other devices may be aggregated, stored, synchronized, and further analyzed (Paragraph 0107), allowing for analysis and tracking of sensor data from multiple motion state monitoring devices.
Kobayashi as modified by Miller further teaches the invention wherein each of the plurality of motion state monitoring apparatuses comprises:
an icon display unit configured to display a plurality of sensor icons corresponding to the plurality of respective sensors (Fig. 7: monitor 300 used to display a plurality of numbers 1 to 11 corresponding to body parts associated with measuring instruments 11_1 to 11_11 as described in Paragraph 0050);
a display control unit configured to cause the icon display unit to display a sensor a distance of which from the motion state monitoring apparatus is within a predetermined distance among the plurality of sensors (Fig. 1: output unit configured to display sensors connected via pairing processing as described at Paragraphs 0035, 0050; Fig. 6: steps S101-S103; Figs. 7-10: body parts 1 to 11 to which sensors are attached are shown in human body schematic diagram 301; Paragraph 0041: “The motion state monitoring apparatus 12 is, for example, one of a Personal Computer (PC), a mobile phone terminal, a smartphone, and a tablet terminal, and is configured so that it can communicate with the sensors 111_1 to 111_11 via a network (not shown)”);
a reception unit configured to receive a setting operation on a sensor icon displayed on the icon display unit (Fig. 6: steps S101-S103, as described in Paragraphs 0050-0051: pairing processing is performed (i.e., a setting operation) to later allow display of a body part to which the paired sensor is attached; additionally or alternatively, Fig. 8 as described in Paragraph 0055: a user has selected body part 20_1 and 20_2, indicated by numerals 1 and 2 on the monitor 300, whereby further selections are made in selection list 303 and setting completion button 304); and
a process unit configured to make, in accordance with the setting operation, the sensor corresponding to the sensor icon correspond to the body part of the subject to which the sensor is to be attached (see citations above; Paragraph 0063: sensor icons displayed correspond to the body part to which the sensor is attached).
Re. Claim 9: Claim 9 recites limitations of claim 1 mutatis mutandis in a method claim; therefore, each citation of claim 1 teaches each requirement of claim 9.
Re. Claim 10: Claim 10 recites limitations of claim 1 mutatis mutandis in a non-transitory computer readable medium claim; therefore, each citation of claim 1 teaches each requirement of claim 10.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Kobayashi et al. (US 20220057233 A1) (hereinafter – Kobayashi) in view of
Miller et al. (US 20160235374 A1) (hereinafter – Miller) in further view of
Connor et al. (US 20130102930 A1) (hereinafter – Connor).
Re. Claim 4: Kobayashi as modified by Miller teaches the invention according to claim 1 and further teaches the invention further comprising an attachment target body part display unit showing the body parts to which the sensors are to be attached on a diagram showing a human body (Fig. 7-10: see numerals 1 to 11 indicating sensors associated with corresponding body parts).
Kobayashi as modified by Miller does not teach the invention wherein the reception unit receives the setting operation by dragging and dropping the sensor icon onto the body part to which the sensor is to be attached.
Connor teaches the invention wherein the reception unit receives the setting operation by dragging and dropping the sensor icon onto the body part to which the sensor is to be attached (Figs. 9A-9C; Paragraph 0080: “The patient monitoring computer application may include a user interface (similar to user interfaces 900, 920 and 950) configured to allow a user to… specify and manipulate the visual representation of the position of the sensors. For example, turning to FIG. 9A, a user may drag and drop the sensor graphics 904a and 904b as desired to indicate the location and positioning of the sensor on the child. The computer application may be configured to correlate the selected position of the sensor with other physiological and medical information associated with the patient.).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kobayashi as modified by Miller to utilize a dragging and dropping operation to associate sensors with corresponding sensor locations on the body, the motivation being that the operation of dragging and dropping allows for easy visualization of which icon is selected and what location the sensor is intended to be representative of on the body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims while also obviating the double patenting rejection applied to each independent claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 requires display of a sensor icon in each of a plurality of motion state monitoring apparatuses, and deleting or disabling a sensor icon displayed in the case that a particular sensor is made to correspond to a body part of a subject. The closest prior art of record is Connor (see prior art rejections above), who teaches dragging and dropping, sensor icons on a single sensor display, but does not teach deleting or disabling the sensor icon after a drag and drop operation.
Claim 3 requires re-setting a sensor icon to correspond to another sensor in the case that an original sensor is inoperable. The closest prior art of record is Beaudry et al. (US 20120029312 A1), who teaches a process for detecting an inoperable bridge (a communication device) and selecting an alternative bridge to replace the inoperable bridge (Paragraphs 0032, 0100, Fig. 10); such bridges are communication devices used to identify sensor movement throughout a facility, and are deficient in reciting correspondence to a particular body part.
Claim 5 requires a display unit and a setting operation which includes clicking each of the sensor icon and the body part to which the sensor is to be attached. The closest prior art of record is Katsu (US 20220280071 A1), who teaches a clicking and setting operation, but directed to assignment of force load data and a timeline to which such data belongs, and not sensor locations on an diagram showing a body.
Claims 6 and 7 require a similar operation to that of claim 5, but with automatic assignment of sensors to corresponding body parts, which is not taught in the current prior art of record.
Claim 8 requires each of the sensors emit a color, and each display of the motion state monitoring system identifying each sensor by making each sensor icon the corresponding color of respective sensors. The closest prior art of record is Gallo et al. (US 20150338447 A1), who teaches a sensor indicator which may be displayed as part of a graphical user interface that further displays a visual sensor representation (e.g., an icon) on a map with a color associated with the sensor reading and sensor reading levels, sensor location, sensor description, etc.; however, Gallo is silent regarding such color associated with a light-emitting unit of a corresponding sensor.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 9, and 10 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 7, and 8 of Application No. 18824248. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 8 of copending Application No. 18824248 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7, and 8 of the reference application encompass are narrower than, respectively, claims 1, 9, and 10 of the instant application, and thus encompass each of claims 1, 9, and 10 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights