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: identification unit in claims 1 and 5; detection unit in claims 1-4 and 6; output control unit in claim 7.
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.
The structure described in figure 6:601 of the specification paragraph[0053] for the identification unit is described as a hardware processor.
The structure described in figure 6:602 of the specification paragraph[0055] for the detection unit is described as a sensor that is part of the server device.
The structure described in figure 6:603 the specification paragraph[0051] for the output control unit is described as a transmitter.
Therefore, Examiner finds the claims are reasonably supported by the structure described in the specification pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) (or 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, pre-AIA ) whether 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked or not.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 recites “A program causing a computer to perform:” wherein claim 10 is a computer program per se that is ineligible and not patentable, and it is not directed to any of the statutory categories that include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
2. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A — Prong One (Judicial Exception)
1. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user. The claim recites identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step, which constitutes a mental process—i.e., data analysis, pattern recognition, and making determinations/inferences based on a model. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical/analytical concepts); MPEP § 2106.04.
2. The claim limitations reflecting the judicial exception include, inter alia: “identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step.” These steps recite evaluation and correlation of data—activities that can be characterized as mental processes analysis of data.
Step 2A — Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
3. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of an information processing device, the identification unit, the detection unit, sensor or any other technology. The claim language merely recites identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user, without specifying particular signal processing techniques, sensor arrangements, sampling/processing parameters, hardware configuration, or other limitations that would meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a technical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligible where claims recite specific improvement to computer functionality).
4. The only physical elements recited (an information processing device, the identification unit, the detection unit, sensor) are recited at a high level of generality and serve as the field of use for the claimed abstract idea. The “identifying a movement type of a user” is data gathering; the remainder of the claim results in an informational determination (that the detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step). There is no recited transformation of an article or specific machine integral to the claimed steps beyond generic computer/monitoring implementation. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (claims eligible when directed to a process that effects a physical transformation); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that merely collect, analyze, and display information held abstract).
Step 2B — “Significantly More” Analysis
5. The additional elements of the claim— identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step to determine correspondence—are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities for monitoring systems and signal-analysis implementations absent specific non-conventional detail. As recited, these elements amount to using generic data acquisition and data analysis techniques implemented by conventional processors and do not supply an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–56.
6. The ordered combination of steps— identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step —reflects a conventional information-processing workflow (collect/analyze/attribute/report) and does not recite an unconventional arrangement that effects a technological improvement. Absent claim limitations or evidence demonstrating that the recited “information processing device” is unconventional or yields a concrete technical improvement, the claim does not provide “significantly more.” See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual showing required to rebut a finding of well understood, routine, conventional).
Conclusion
7. For the reasons stated above, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical/mental process of event correlation and attribution) and the additional recited elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A — Prong One (Judicial Exception)
1. Claim 9 is directed to the abstract idea of identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user. The claim recites identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step, which constitutes a mental process—i.e., data analysis, pattern recognition, and making determinations/inferences based on a model. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical/analytical concepts); MPEP § 2106.04.
2. The claim limitations reflecting the judicial exception include, inter alia: “identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step.” These steps recite evaluation and correlation of data—activities that can be characterized as mental processes analysis of data.
Step 2A — Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
3. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of an information processing device, the identification unit, the detection unit, sensor or any other technology. The claim language merely recites identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user, without specifying particular signal processing techniques, sensor arrangements, sampling/processing parameters, hardware configuration, or other limitations that would meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a technical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligible where claims recite specific improvement to computer functionality).
4. The only physical elements recited (an information processing device, the identification unit, the detection unit, sensor) are recited at a high level of generality and serve as the field of use for the claimed abstract idea. The “identifying a movement type of a user” is data gathering; the remainder of the claim results in an informational determination (that the detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step). There is no recited transformation of an article or specific machine integral to the claimed steps beyond generic computer/monitoring implementation. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (claims eligible when directed to a process that effects a physical transformation); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that merely collect, analyze, and display information held abstract).
Step 2B — “Significantly More” Analysis
5. The additional elements of the claim— identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step to determine correspondence—are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities for monitoring systems and signal-analysis implementations absent specific non-conventional detail. As recited, these elements amount to using generic data acquisition and data analysis techniques implemented by conventional processors and do not supply an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–56.
6. The ordered combination of steps— identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step —reflects a conventional information-processing workflow (collect/analyze/attribute/report) and does not recite an unconventional arrangement that effects a technological improvement. Absent claim limitations or evidence demonstrating that the recited “information processing device” is unconventional or yields a concrete technical improvement, the claim does not provide “significantly more.” See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual showing required to rebut a finding of well understood, routine, conventional).
Conclusion
7. For the reasons stated above, Claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical/mental process of event correlation and attribution) and the additional recited elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A — Prong One (Judicial Exception)
1. Claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea of identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user. The claim recites identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step, which constitutes a mental process—i.e., data analysis, pattern recognition, and making determinations/inferences based on a model. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical/analytical concepts); MPEP § 2106.04.
2. The claim limitations reflecting the judicial exception include, inter alia: “identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step.” These steps recite evaluation and correlation of data—activities that can be characterized as mental processes analysis of data.
Step 2A — Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
3. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of an information processing device, the identification unit, the detection unit, sensor or any other technology. The claim language merely recites identifying a movement type of a user; and detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user, without specifying particular signal processing techniques, sensor arrangements, sampling/processing parameters, hardware configuration, or other limitations that would meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a technical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligible where claims recite specific improvement to computer functionality).
4. The only physical elements recited (an information processing device, the identification unit, the detection unit, sensor) are recited at a high level of generality and serve as the field of use for the claimed abstract idea. The “identifying a movement type of a user” is data gathering; the remainder of the claim results in an informational determination (that the detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step). There is no recited transformation of an article or specific machine integral to the claimed steps beyond generic computer/monitoring implementation. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (claims eligible when directed to a process that effects a physical transformation); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that merely collect, analyze, and display information held abstract).
Step 2B — “Significantly More” Analysis
5. The additional elements of the claim— identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step to determine correspondence—are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities for monitoring systems and signal-analysis implementations absent specific non-conventional detail. As recited, these elements amount to using generic data acquisition and data analysis techniques implemented by conventional processors and do not supply an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–56.
6. The ordered combination of steps— identifying a movement type of a user”; and “detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step —reflects a conventional information-processing workflow (collect/analyze/attribute/report) and does not recite an unconventional arrangement that effects a technological improvement. Absent claim limitations or evidence demonstrating that the recited “information processing device” is unconventional or yields a concrete technical improvement, the claim does not provide “significantly more.” See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual showing required to rebut a finding of well understood, routine, conventional).
Conclusion
7. For the reasons stated above, Claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical/mental process of event correlation and attribution) and the additional recited elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minauchi et al. (JP2022124807A) hereafter Minauchi.
Regarding claim 1, Minauchi discloses an information processing device comprising:
an identification unit configured to identify a movement type of a user (par[0028], [0029], [0030]: The information processing device 102 includes a control unit 201, a storage unit 202 stores information such as determination information 300. In the example of FIG. 3, the judgment information 300 registers judgment conditions for the measured values of the sensor 101 for judging the action state of the worker in association with the action state. For example, the determination information 300 in FIG. 3 includes walking, running, walking on stairs, carrying luggage, and raising a hand as action states. Further, in the judgment information 300 of FIG. 3, judgment conditions for judging the action state are registered for the acceleration sensor and the atmospheric pressure sensor.); and
a detection unit configured to detect an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified by the identification unit via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user (par[0049], [0050] and fig 7B; par[0051]: in the process of S504, the control unit 201 acquires, from the range information 600, the normal range corresponding to the behavioral state specified in S502, for example. For example, when the action state is determined to be walking in S502, the control unit 201 may acquire the normal range: A1 to A2 from the range information 600. Subsequently, in S505, the control unit 201 executes abnormality detection using the acquired behavioral state and the corresponding normal range. For example, the control unit 201 may determine that the sensor 101 is normal when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed falls within the normal range. On the other hand, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed includes a value outside the normal range. FIG. 7B illustrates sensor measurement values when the target person 110 is about to fall and loses balance, and the sensor 101 measurement values fluctuate greatly. As a result, in FIG. 7B, the measured value of the sensor 101 fluctuates beyond the normal range, that is, the measured value of the sensor 101 includes values outside the normal range. In one example, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the abnormality determination period includes a value outside the normal range).
Regarding claim 2, Minauchi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the abnormal situation based on the determination criterion with a sensitivity for detecting the abnormal situation, which is determined in advance for the movement type and expected to involve occurrence of erroneous detection, being equal to or lower than a threshold (par[0018], [0033], par[0049], [0050] and fig 7B; par[0051]: in the process of S504, the control unit 201 acquires, from the range information 600, the normal range corresponding to the behavioral state specified in S502, for example. For example, when the action state is determined to be walking in S502, the control unit 201 may acquire the normal range: A1 to A2 from the range information 600. Subsequently, in S505, the control unit 201 executes abnormality detection using the acquired behavioral state and the corresponding normal range. For example, the control unit 201 may determine that the sensor 101 is normal when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed falls within the normal range. On the other hand, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed includes a value outside the normal range. FIG. 7B illustrates sensor measurement values when the target person 110 is about to fall and loses balance, and the sensor 101 measurement values fluctuate greatly. As a result, in FIG. 7B, the measured value of the sensor 101 fluctuates beyond the normal range, that is, the measured value of the sensor 101 includes values outside the normal range. In one example, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the abnormality determination period includes a value outside the normal range).
Regarding claim 3, Minauchi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the abnormal situation based on the determination criterion with a sensitivity for detecting the abnormal situation, which is determined in advance for the movement type identified by the identification unit and expected to involve occurrence of erroneous detection, being lower than a case where the occurrence of erroneous detection is not expected (Minauchi par[0018, [0033], par[0049], [0051]: FIG. 4A shows measured values of acceleration measured while the subject 110 is walking. FIG. 4(b) shows measured values of acceleration measured while the subject 110 is running. For example, the walking behavioral state is a slow motion compared to the running behavioral state. For this reason, for example, when comparing the interval of the cycle of variation in acceleration, there is a tendency that the cycle is longer in walking than in running. Further, for example, in the case of walking, the speed of movement is slower than in running, so the amount of change in acceleration tends to be smaller. Therefore, for example, it is possible to distinguish between the walking behavior state and the running behavior state of the subject 110 using the first threshold set for the walking behavior state in the determination information 300. in the process of S504, the control unit 201 acquires, from the range information 600, the normal range corresponding to the behavioral state specified in S502, for example. For example, when the action state is determined to be walking in S502, the control unit 201 may acquire the normal range: A1 to A2 from the range information 600. Subsequently, in S505, the control unit 201 executes abnormality detection using the acquired behavioral state and the corresponding normal range. For example, the control unit 201 may determine that the sensor 101 is normal when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed falls within the normal range. On the other hand, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed includes a value outside the normal range. FIG. 7B illustrates sensor measurement values when the target person 110 is about to fall and loses balance, and the sensor 101 measurement values fluctuate greatly. As a result, in FIG. 7B, the measured value of the sensor 101 fluctuates beyond the normal range, that is, the measured value of the sensor 101 includes values outside the normal range. In one example, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the abnormality determination period includes a value outside the normal range).
Regarding claim 4, Minauchi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the abnormal situation based on the determination criterion with a sensitivity for detecting the abnormal situation, which is determined in advance for the movement type identified by the identification unit and expected to involve serious damage to the user, being equal to or higher than a threshold (Minauchi par[0018, [0033], par[0049], [0051]: FIG. 4A shows measured values of acceleration measured while the subject 110 is walking. FIG. 4(b) shows measured values of acceleration measured while the subject 110 is running. For example, the walking behavioral state is a slow motion compared to the running behavioral state. For this reason, for example, when comparing the interval of the cycle of variation in acceleration, there is a tendency that the cycle is longer in walking than in running. Further, for example, in the case of walking, the speed of movement is slower than in running, so the amount of change in acceleration tends to be smaller. Therefore, for example, it is possible to distinguish between the walking behavior state and the running behavior state of the subject 110 using the first threshold set for the walking behavior state in the determination information 300. in the process of S504, the control unit 201 acquires, from the range information 600, the normal range corresponding to the behavioral state specified in S502, for example. For example, when the action state is determined to be walking in S502, the control unit 201 may acquire the normal range: A1 to A2 from the range information 600. Subsequently, in S505, the control unit 201 executes abnormality detection using the acquired behavioral state and the corresponding normal range. For example, the control unit 201 may determine that the sensor 101 is normal when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed falls within the normal range. On the other hand, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed includes a value outside the normal range. FIG. 7B illustrates sensor measurement values when the target person 110 is about to fall and loses balance, and the sensor 101 measurement values fluctuate greatly. As a result, in FIG. 7B, the measured value of the sensor 101 fluctuates beyond the normal range, that is, the measured value of the sensor 101 includes values outside the normal range. In one example, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the abnormality determination period includes a value outside the normal range).
Regarding claim 7, Minauchi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an output control unit configured to output information of a warning to a predetermined output destination corresponding to the abnormal situation detected by the detection unit (Minauchi par[0053]: In S506, the control unit 201 notifies the abnormality. Alternatively, the control unit 201 of the information processing device 102 transmits a notification of the abnormality to another terminal such as a smartphone held by the subject 110, or to another computer used by an administrator who manages the subject 110 or a person nearby).
Regarding claim 9, Minauchi discloses an information processing method executed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising:
an identification step of identifying a movement type of a user (par[0028], [0029], [0030]: The information processing device 102 includes a control unit 201, a storage unit 202 stores information such as determination information 300. In the example of FIG. 3, the judgment information 300 registers judgment conditions for the measured values of the sensor 101 for judging the action state of the worker in association with the action state. For example, the determination information 300 in FIG. 3 includes walking, running, walking on stairs, carrying luggage, and raising a hand as action states. Further, in the judgment information 300 of FIG. 3, judgment conditions for judging the action state are registered for the acceleration sensor and the atmospheric pressure sensor.); and
a detection step of detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user (par[0049], [0050] and fig 7B; par[0051]: in the process of S504, the control unit 201 acquires, from the range information 600, the normal range corresponding to the behavioral state specified in S502, for example. For example, when the action state is determined to be walking in S502, the control unit 201 may acquire the normal range: A1 to A2 from the range information 600. Subsequently, in S505, the control unit 201 executes abnormality detection using the acquired behavioral state and the corresponding normal range. For example, the control unit 201 may determine that the sensor 101 is normal when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed falls within the normal range. On the other hand, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed includes a value outside the normal range. FIG. 7B illustrates sensor measurement values when the target person 110 is about to fall and loses balance, and the sensor 101 measurement values fluctuate greatly. As a result, in FIG. 7B, the measured value of the sensor 101 fluctuates beyond the normal range, that is, the measured value of the sensor 101 includes values outside the normal range. In one example, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the abnormality determination period includes a value outside the normal range).
Regarding claim 10, Minauchi discloses a program causing a computer to perform:
an identification step of identifying a movement type of a user (par[0028], [0029], [0030]: The information processing device 102 includes a control unit 201, a storage unit 202 stores information such as determination information 300. In the example of FIG. 3, the judgment information 300 registers judgment conditions for the measured values of the sensor 101 for judging the action state of the worker in association with the action state. For example, the determination information 300 in FIG. 3 includes walking, running, walking on stairs, carrying luggage, and raising a hand as action states. Further, in the judgment information 300 of FIG. 3, judgment conditions for judging the action state are registered for the acceleration sensor and the atmospheric pressure sensor.), and
a detection step of detecting an abnormal situation of the user using a determination criterion based on the movement type identified in the identification step via a sensor provided to the user or provided in periphery of the user (par[0049], [0050] and fig 7B; par[0051]: in the process of S504, the control unit 201 acquires, from the range information 600, the normal range corresponding to the behavioral state specified in S502, for example. For example, when the action state is determined to be walking in S502, the control unit 201 may acquire the normal range: A1 to A2 from the range information 600. Subsequently, in S505, the control unit 201 executes abnormality detection using the acquired behavioral state and the corresponding normal range. For example, the control unit 201 may determine that the sensor 101 is normal when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed falls within the normal range. On the other hand, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the period for which abnormality detection is performed includes a value outside the normal range. FIG. 7B illustrates sensor measurement values when the target person 110 is about to fall and loses balance, and the sensor 101 measurement values fluctuate greatly. As a result, in FIG. 7B, the measured value of the sensor 101 fluctuates beyond the normal range, that is, the measured value of the sensor 101 includes values outside the normal range. In one example, the control unit 201 may determine that there is an abnormality when the measured value of the sensor 101 during the abnormality determination period includes a value outside the normal range).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
1. Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minauchi et al. (JP2022124807A) hereafter Minauchi in view of Min et al. (KR20160110847A) hereafter Min.
Regarding claim 5, Minauchi discloses the identification unit identifies the moving body as the movement type (par[0028], [0029], [0030]: The information processing device 102 includes a control unit 201, a storage unit 202 stores information such as determination information 300. In the example of FIG. 3, the judgment information 300 registers judgment conditions for the measured values of the sensor 101 for judging the action state of the worker in association with the action state. For example, the determination information 300 in FIG. 3 includes walking, running, walking on stairs, carrying luggage, and raising a hand as action states. Further, in the judgment information 300 of FIG. 3, judgment conditions for judging the action state are registered for the acceleration sensor and the atmospheric pressure sensor.).
Minauchi does not explicitly disclose the information processing device wherein when communication is performed between a device provided to the user and a device provided to a moving body.
Min discloses the information processing device wherein when communication is performed between a device provided to the user (fig 1:300; par[0033], [0034]: FIG. 6, the mobile communication terminal 300 according to the present invention includes a terminal wireless communication unit 310, a mobile communication module 340, a health check application 330, a health check database 350, and a terminal controller ( 320). The terminal wireless communication unit 310 performs wireless communication with the wearable device 100 through a first communication network. Here, the terminal wireless communication unit 310 receives an EEG signal, a heart rate signal, and a body temperature signal transmitted from the wearable device 100 through the first communication network) and a device provided to a moving body (fig 1:100; par[0043]: the user may wear the wearable device 100 every morning to wake up and measure the brain wave, heart rate and body temperature. In general, morning weathering is a time when a person starts maneuvering in a state where the heartbeat is stable physically or puts a strain on the cardiovascular system through a change of posture while lying down, and mental activity is just activated. It is time to reduce the variable to measure body temperature).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Minauchi and the Min references since both pertain to the field of antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the information processing device of Minauchi with the moving body feature as disclosed by Min to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing an enhanced safety and real-time situational awareness for the user that allows for immediate data exchange that traditional infrastructure or line-of-sight awareness cannot provide.
Regarding claim 6, Minauchi does not explicitly disclose the information processing device wherein when the movement type identified by the identification unit is a predetermined moving body, the detection unit detects the abnormal situation via a sensor provided to the moving body.
Min discloses the information processing device wherein when the movement type identified by the identification unit is a predetermined moving body (par[0036], [0039], [0040]: The health check application 330 is installed in the mobile communication terminal 300 and operates based on the operating system of the mobile communication terminal. Here, the health check application 330 according to the present invention checks the user's health abnormality based on an EEG signal, a heart rate signal, and a body temperature signal transmitted from the wearable device and received through the terminal communication unit. Meanwhile, the health check application 330 may determine that the user's brain wave based on the brain wave signal is 20% or more out of the registered reference brain wave as a symptom of health abnormality. In addition, the health check application 330 may determine that the user is based on the heart rate signal when the heart rate is more than 20% more than the reference heart rate, health signs. The health check application 330 may determine that the user's body temperature based on the body temperature signal is more than 2 ℃ or more than the pre-registered reference body temperature, for example, 36.5 ℃, as a sign of health abnormalities), the detection unit detects the abnormal situation via a sensor provided to the moving body (par[0036], [0039], [0040]: The health check application 330 is installed in the mobile communication terminal 300 and operates based on the operating system of the mobile communication terminal. Here, the health check application 330 according to the present invention checks the user's health abnormality based on an EEG signal, a heart rate signal, and a body temperature signal transmitted from the wearable device and received through the terminal communication unit. Meanwhile, the health check application 330 may determine that the user's brain wave based on the brain wave signal is 20% or more out of the registered reference brain wave as a symptom of health abnormality. In addition, the health check application 330 may determine that the user is based on the heart rate signal when the heart rate is more than 20% more than the reference heart rate, health signs. The health check application 330 may determine that the user's body temperature based on the body temperature signal is more than 2 ℃ or more than the pre-registered reference body temperature, for example, 36.5 ℃, as a sign of health abnormalities).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Minauchi and the Min references since both pertain to the field of antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the information processing device of Minauchi with the moving body feature as disclosed by Min to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing an enhanced safety and real-time situational awareness for the user that allows for immediate data exchange that traditional infrastructure or line-of-sight awareness cannot provide.
Regarding claim 8, Minauchi does not explicitly disclose the information processing device wherein the output control unit outputs the information of the warning to the output destination corresponding to a type of the abnormal situation detected by the detection unit.
Min discloses the information processing device wherein the output control unit outputs the information of the warning to the output destination corresponding to a type of the abnormal situation detected by the detection unit (par[0036], [0037], [0039], [0040]: The health check application 330 is installed in the mobile communication terminal 300 and operates based on the operating system of the mobile communication terminal. Here, the health check application 330 according to the present invention checks the user's health abnormality based on an EEG signal, a heart rate signal, and a body temperature signal transmitted from the wearable device and received through the terminal communication unit. The health check application 330 may transmit a health abnormality alarm to a pre-registered external device through the mobile communication module 340 when it is determined that the user has an abnormality in health. Here, the registered external device may include a server managed by an institution such as a guardian or a relative's mobile phone, a community worker, a public health center, a doctor, or a mobile phone of an administrator of the organization. Meanwhile, the health check application 330 may determine that the user's brain wave based on the brain wave signal is 20% or more out of the registered reference brain wave as a symptom of health abnormality. In addition, the health check application 330 may determine that the user is based on the heart rate signal when the heart rate is more than 20% more than the reference heart rate, health signs. In addition, the health check application 330 may determine that the user's body temperature based on the body temperature signal is more than 2 ℃ or more than the pre-registered reference body temperature, for example, 36.5 ℃, as a sign of health abnormalities.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Minauchi and the Min references since both pertain to the field of antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the information processing device of Minauchi with the warning feature as disclosed by Min to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing a targeted, efficient, and automated incident response with an optimized resource allocation and faster triage, automation and self-healing capabilities and enhanced security.
Conclusion
US2020/0038708A1 to Cheu discloses a system to optimize diaphragmatic breathing is disclosed. The system has a first sensor to measure breathing movement of a user's abdomen and output a signal related to the movement of the user's abdomen, a second sensor to measure breathing movement of the user's chest and output a signal related to the movement of the user's chest; and a control device communicatively coupled with the first sensor and the second sensor.
US2019/0046039A1 to Ramesh discloses a remote health monitoring system, method and device is disclosed. The systems utilize one or more sensors, data aggregation and transmission units, mobile computing devices, processing, analytics and storage (PAS) units, and a framework based on a novel location- and power-aware communication systems and analytics to notify and manage patient health. Methods to transmit data to a PAS unit through the patients' smart phone that is connected to internet, abnormality detection in the data, advanced analytical diagnostics and communication system between the health service provider (HSP) and patient are also provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE BENLAGSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5165. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-5165.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. 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.
/AMINE BENLAGSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights