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: a processing module in claim 12.
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 3 and 6-8 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 claims 3 and 6 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 7, the phrase “but not limited to” render the claim vague because the limitation includes the claimed items but can also include others (See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Since claim 8 depends on claim 7, it is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reason as claim 7. Additionally, claim 5 recites the limitation between 10 to 50 principal components are recovered. This limitation is unclear and would at least put the reader in doubt because it is not known from what reference number of components the 10 to 50 are recovered. Please clarify.
Claim 12 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Products must distinguish over the prior art in terms of their structure (or structure + structure's function when claimed functionally) rather than function alone (MPEP 2114). Therefore, an "apparatus" not having structural limitations fails to "particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 2ⁿᵈ paragraph. A similar limitation also occurs in claim 15. Applicant is advised to define the apparatus by virtue of the individual structural element that serve to perform the individual functions recited in the corresponding method claim/s. The examiner suggests amending the claim by deleting the limitation "adapted to" and replacing it with the limitation "arranged to or configured to".
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan, et al. (US 8,075,499) in view of Jing, et al. (Seizure Signals Separation Using Constrained Topographic Blind Source Separation).
With regard to claim 1, Nathan, et al. (hereinafter “Nathan”) discloses unobtrusive method for seizure detection (See for example, col. 3, lines 4-5); the method comprising the following steps: i. recording a video signal by means of a camera (See for example, video cameras 102a-n in Fig. 1, and the associated text ); ii. processing at least a part of the video signal recorded by executing a motion detection step in order to calculate motion features signals (See for example, col. 3, lines 37-49); iii. generating time-series signals from the motion features signals calculated (See for example, col. 3, lines 37-45); said motion time-series signals comprising a set of movement vectors (See for example, col. 15, lines 42-44); iv. splitting each movement vectors into an horizontal and a vertical component, i.e., two-dimensional, to obtain a set of real-valued signals (See for example, col. 15, lines 44-48); V. applying a component separation step to the horizontal and vertical components of the real-valued signals to estimate independent components of movement in order to separate feature movements associated to a user from feature movements not associated to a user; vi. executing a source selection step to identify which independent components associated to user's feature movements corresponds to a seizure occurrence (via determining movement pattern signatures from the motion vectors. The movement pattern signatures measured are compared to movement pattern signatures of seizures. A signature maybe used for comparison with pattern signatures that are determined to fit a signature that results from a seizure, and if the signature of the pattern measured is close enough to (e.g., within a threshold value of the root mean square of the difference between) the signature of the seizure, an indication that a seizure occurred is generated (See for example, col. 15, lines 52-61). What this means is that if the signature of the pattern measured is not close enough the signature of the seizure, it meant no indication an occurrence of a seizure); vii. implementing a classification step (via thresholding) to the user's feature movements associated to a seizure occurrence in order to separate false positives from true positives See for example, col. 15, lines 57-61); viii. executing functionality, i.e., alert would be activated based on the occurrence of seizure, in case of a seizure occurrence is detected (See for example, col. 15, lines 61-62). Although Nathan does not expressly call for implementing a classification, , it would have been obvious, if not inherent, that the thresholding technique described in the above-identified passage accurately identifies true occurrence of seizures by excluding others if they don’t fall within the threshold. Nathan does not expressly call for applying a component separation to estimate independent components of movement. However, Jing, et al. (See for example, section 1, page 1236) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Jing, et al. into the system of Nathan, and to do so would at least allow separating all independent components of the seizure using a blind source separation algorithm, and the seizure sources can be selected by postprocessing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nathan with Jing, et al., et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, Method according to claim 1, wherein motion features signals relate to movement velocities at equidistant and/or feature-based points in the video signal (See for example, col. 3, lines 30-45; and col. 4, lines 23-58 of Nathan).
With regard to claim 3, as best understood, Method according to claims 1-or 2, wherein the motion detection step is implemented by an Optical Flow-based algorithm; preferably, the Optical Flow- based algorithm is a Farnebäck two-frame motion estimation method (See for example, col. 14, lines 1-10 of Nathan).
With regard to claim 6, as best understood, Method according to claim 1, wherein the component separation step is implemented by a blind-source separation algorithm, preferably by an Independent Component Analysis algorithm (See for example, section 1, page, 1236 of Jing, et al.).
With regard to claim 9, Method according to claim 1, wherein the classification step is implemented using thresholding or nearest neighbor algorithms or using a machine learning classifier (See for example, col. 15, lines 52-61 of Nathan).
With regard to claim 10, Method according to claim 1 wherein the step of executing a functionality further involves the steps of issuing an automated alarm and/or saving a video file of the occurrence and/or logging statistical quantitative or qualitative information about the occurrence (See for example, col. 15, lines 61-62 of Nathan).
With regard to claim 12, Nathan further discloses unobtrusive device for seizure detection (See for example, col. 3, lines 4-5) comprising: - an enclosure (100) (See for example, Fig. 1) adapted to enclose: a computational unit (200) comprising a control module (300) and a transmission module (400) (See for example, col. 2, lines 58-65; col. 3, lines 6-12 and 46-51);- a video camera unit (500) (See for example, Fig. 1 item 102a-n); a lighting unit comprising a regular, i.e., color, (601) and an infrared (602) lighting modules (See for example, col. 5, lines 46-51); characterized in that the computational unit (200) further comprises a processing module configured to execute the method according to claim 1 (See for example, col. 3, line 3 – col. 4, line 38).
With regard to claim 13, device according to claim 12, wherein the processing module is divided into at least two processing submodules being a first processing submodule within the enclosure (100) (See for example, Fig. 1 and the associated text) and at least a second processing submodule being an external device (See for example, the Abstract; col. 4, lines 11-12; and col. 5, lines 36-45 of Nathan).
With regard to claim 14, device according to claim 13, wherein the external device is a computer or a smartphone (See for example, col. 4, lines 11-15; and Fig. 1 of Nathan).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan in view Jing, et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Arcot Desai, et al. (US 11,481,578 B2).
With regard to claim 4, Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 12, and incorporated herein by reference. Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) does not expressly call for a dimensionally reduction step to reduce the number of real-valued signals obtained from splitting movement vectors into horizontal and vertical components. However, Arcot Desai, et al. (See for example, col. 6, lines 25-40) teaches this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Arcot Desai, et al. into the system of Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.), if for no other reason than to reduce the number of dimensions from a large number to a more manageable number. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) with Arcot Desai, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan in view of Jing, et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Aghaei, et al. (Epileptic Seizure Detection Based on Video and EEG Recordings).
With regard to claim 11, Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 12, and incorporated herein by reference. Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) does not expressly call for wherein the video signal is recorded at regular time intervals, between 5 seconds and 2 minutes. However, Aghaei, et al. (See for example, sections B and C: every 10 seconds of episode, pages 2-3) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Aghaei, et al. into the system of Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) in order to provide video of seizure recorded at 10 second time interval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) with Aghaei, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan in view of Jing, et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Min, et al. (US 9,927,225).
With regard to claim 15, Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 12, and incorporated herein by reference. Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) does not expressly call for wherein the video camera unit (500) is adapted to record night-time video signals; and the resolution of the video camera unit (500) is between 120 and 1080 vertical pixels and between 200 and 2000 horizontal pixels; and the frame rate of the video camera unit (500) is between 12 and 40 frames per second. However, Min, et al. (See for example, col. 4, lines 23-38 and col. 7, lines 39-47) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Min, et al. into the system of Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.), and to do so would at least provide a video camera that may record video signal at specific resolutions and frame rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) with Min, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan in view of Jing, et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Berg, et al. (US 10,271,019 B1).
With regard to 16, Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 12, and incorporated herein by reference. While Nathan’s seizure detecting system shown in Fig. 1Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) does not expressly call for wherein the enclosure (100) is a household object, particularly, the enclosure (100) is a light fixture such as a floor lamp or a desk lamp. However, (See for example, col. 9, lines 31-33) teaches this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Berg, et al. into the system of Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.), if for no other reason than to integrate the seizure detecting system with a lightbulb. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nathan (as modified by Jing, et al.) with Berg, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication Numbers: 2016/0302714 (See for example, paragraphs 0023-0053) and 2022/0269824 (See for example, paragraphs 0018-0045).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights