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 further 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: “an acquisition unit” “a conversion unit” “an evaluation unit” “an output unit” an updating unit” in claims 1, 3, 5.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Main [US 20220087617 A1].
As per claim 1, Main teaches a subject evaluation device (Main Fig 1A)
that evaluates a state of a subject (Main ¶0060 “In some embodiments, a weight support device 110 … management device 170 to highlight the state and status of the individual being monitored.”), comprising:
one or more sensors that measure the state of the subject (Main Fig 1A, 1B items 110, 115);
an acquisition unit (Main Fig 1 items 140, 130, 170 for computations) that acquires subject information indicating at least any of a physical condition and behavior of the subject (Main ¶0068-¶0069 “the machine vision engine 144 analyzes the two-dimensional visual representation of the person and derives a physical profile…at least one physical attribute of an individual and may include attributes such as measurements of certain body features, for example, height, weight, shoulder-width, hip-width or waist-width....”), and
feature information indicating a feature of the sensor via the sensor (Main ¶0121 “a sensor reading such as a pressure reading … the matrix 510, illustrates that each grid position that corresponds to a sensing point”, sensor reading and grid positions correspond to the claimed feature);
a conversion unit (Main Fig 1A item 140 /142) that converts the acquired subject information into an evaluation target image on a two-dimensional plane based on the feature information on the sensor (Main Figs 5A, 5B, ¶0062 “An example of an array of sensor measurements is shown in FIG. 5A. The sensor mapping engine 140 may generate a visual representation of the array of sensor measurements. For example, the sensor mapping engine 140 may generate a two-dimensional image representation of a person…”, Fig 6C ¶0126 “The pressure data may be raw pressure data and include a time series of matrix readings similar to the matrix 510.”);
a reference database (Main Fig 1 item 155) that stores an association between a past evaluation target image that has been preliminarily converted and reference information associated with the past evaluation target image (Main ¶0068 “may match the physical profile to a physical profile previously stored in the data store 155…”, ¶0082 “The data store 155 may store sensor data (e.g., pressure data) captured by the weight support device 110…” ¶0143 “The CNNs may be trained on a combination of 2D matrices of pressure values and 3D motion-captured body data to generate the side labels 664”. Fig 10, ¶0194 feedback loops 1055 also using previous evaluation images in the CNN. These sections shows data of historical images are stored);
an evaluation unit that refers to the reference database and generates an evaluation result for the evaluation target image (Main Fig 6C, Fig 8, Figs 9, using CNN for evaluation and providing outcome regarding fall risk, for example); and
an output unit that outputs the evaluation result (Main Fig 8B item 852, ¶0138 “notification 652 may be displayed in a graphical user interface (e.g., the interface 165)”).
As per claim 2, Min further anticipates wherein the association is constructed by machine learning using the past evaluation target image and the reference information as learning data (Main Fig 6C, ¶0136-¶0137 “a machine learning model (e.g., a CNN) to determine the pressure injury outcome 650. … the machine learning model may be trained on a combination of historical input data and known pressure injury outcomes (e.g., historical patient data).”, Fig 10, ¶0194 feedback loops 1055 also using previous evaluation images in the CNN).
As per claim 3, Min further anticipates further comprising an updating unit that reflects a relationship between the past evaluation target image and the reference information in the association when the relationship is newly acquired (Main fig 6C ¶ 0142-¶0143 “a movement extraction model 670 to generate the body movements 672 of the person. … a CNN can be trained to generate body position labels such as side labels 664, joint locations 668, and body movements 672 over time together using the time series of pressure readings 627” the item 670 hence reflects relationship of movement of patient as compared to past images and data).
As per claims 4-5 have limitations similar to claims 1, 3 and are rejected for same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights