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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the Election of Species of Subspecies 1A, 2E, 3C, 4C, 5B, 6A, and 7A in the reply filed on September 09, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Subspecies 1A, 2E, 4C, 5B, 6A, and 7A is acknowledged. The traversal of the Subspecies is on the grounds that the subspecies identified are not mutually exclusive and can coexist together in the same device and that the identified alternatives would not impose a serious search burden. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the “Requirement for Restriction/Election” the species are independent and distinct due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. In addition, a requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required, see MPEP 808.01(a). For example, in Species 5 corresponding to sensor types, a different text search would have to be performed to find each sensor type used in an analogous system. For these reasons, the Election of Species of Species 1,2, 4-7 is maintained.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 3C is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that a serious search burden has not been sufficiently established. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the “Requirement for Restriction/Election” the species are independent and distinct due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. In addition, a requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required, see MPEP 808.01(a).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on June 17, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR202211034851 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Figure 1: In block 102, “a cetection module” is misspelled.
Figure 3: In block 304, “biomarkers identification sub-modul” is misspelled. In block 306, “an abnormakl sensation detection” is misspelled and “external external parameters” is repeated.
Figure 7A: In block 710, “the electronic device that degraeds” is misspelled.
Figure 7B: “support vectore” is misspelled.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 8, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 3, “by biomarkers identification sub-module” is grammatically incorrect.
In re claim 5, “the one or more posture types of the user body specifically for hand represents” is grammatically incorrect.
In re claim 8, the limitation “generates vibrations of required frequency in a localized region on display of the electronic device” is grammatically incorrect.
In re claim 14, see In re claim 5 above.
In re claim 15, see In re claim 8 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitations are:
In re claim 1:
“detection module”
“prevention module”
“event modulation module”
In re claim 2:
“a recommendation module”
In re claim 3:
“a movement classification sub-module”
“biomarkers identification sub-module”
“abnormal sensation detection sub-module”
In re claim 7:
“vibration intensity determination sub-module”
In re claim 8:
“vibration position identification sub-module”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claim 8, the limitation “wherein the prevention module generates vibrations of required frequency in a localized region on display of the electronic device, using a vibration position identification sub-module, wherein the localized region is identified by computing length of swipe arc, made by touch of finger of the user body on the display of the electronic device, using length of finger computed from positional co-ordinates of first touch point and last touch point on the display” fails to comply with the written description requirement, specifically because the Applicant’s specification fails to provide support for how the device is able to vibrate only in a localized region on the display, such as what structural components allow only a region of a display to vibrate and how those components are able to sense touch or swipe length and then vibrate only along those lines.
In re claim 15, see In re claim 8 above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20 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.
In re claim 1:
The limitation “determining, by a detection module, a level of abnormal sensation” is unclear. It is unclear what an abnormal sensation means or how it is able to be determined, as an abnormal sensation can mean anything a user deems irregular and different people may find consider different things as abnormal. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “a level of abnormal sensation” will be interpreted to mean determining a user’s physiological signals and whether they are normal or higher or lower than normal, for example, detecting a high heart rate.
The limitation “performing… one or more functions for enhancing the user experience of the electronic device” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what different functions can be modified to enhance the user experience. Additionally, different user’s may find different functions that can enhance or degrade their experience, so it is unclear how the device is able to determine which experiences will help that user. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “performing… one or more functions for enhancing the user experience of the electronic device” will be interpreted to mean if an abnormal sensation is detected, the device can change how it is operating to try and reduce the level of abnormal sensation the user is detecting, for example, if the detected heart rate is high, the device can change the content provided in hopes to lower the user’s heart rate.
In re claim 4:
The limitation “extracting one or more features from predefined features, wherein the predefined features are features of the user body defined for devices including a gyroscope and an accelerometer for measuring one or more movements of the user body” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “pre-defined features” are referring to. Additionally, it is unclear whether a device “including a gyroscope and an accelerometer” are positively recited in the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation above will be interpreted to mean the wearable device includes a gyroscope and accelerometer that can collect data that can be analyzed so that features can be extracted from it.
In re claim 5:
The limitation “wherein the type A, type B, type C, and type D of the one or more posture types of the user body specifically for hand represents pressed hand posture, anti-gravity posture, user induced numbness, and vibrating hand syndrome respectively” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how type A is related to pressed hand posture, how type C is related to user related numbness, and how type D is related to vibrating hand syndrome as these are not postures and are instead related to movement or conditions a user may have or be experiencing. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitations above will be interpreted as using the wearable device to determine the position of the hand to determine if it is in a poor position that may cause numbness, vibrating hand syndrome, or pressed against something.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the device must detect at least one of the four types or if the device must detect all four types. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitations above will be interpreted as the device must be able to detect at least one of the four types, but does not have to be able to detect all four.
In re claim 8:
The limitation “wherein the prevention module generates vibrations of required frequency in a localized region on display of the electronic device, using a vibration position identification sub-module, wherein the localized region is identified by computing length of swipe arc, made by touch of finger of the user body on the display of the electronic device, using length of the finger computed from positional co-ordinates of first touch point and last touch point on the display” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the generated vibrations in a localized region on display of the electronic device correlates to where vibrations will be produced in the wearable device. It is also unclear whether vibrations are produced based on determining a user is experiencing an abnormal sensation or whether vibrations can be produced any time the user swipes on a region of the electronic device. Additionally, it is unclear how the vibrations are produced in only a region of the electronic device, as there would need to be separate vibrating mechanisms spread along the device so that only specific regions can vibrate which the Applicant’s instant specification does not disclose. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation above will be interpreted as an electronic device being able to vibrate along an entire screen region or just a part that a user’s finger touches that does not correlate to a wearable device.
In re claim 10,
The limitation “wherein the list of the one or more features of the electronic device includes at least but not limited to fingerprint authentication, face authentication, voice commands, iris authentication, text auto correction, haptic feedback for predictive text, customized keyboard, and auto size variation of keyboard” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the device requires at least one feature from the list or if the device requires at least every feature listed. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation above will be interpreted as an electronic device having at least one feature from the listed features.
In re claim 11, see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 5).
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 15).
In re claim 16, see above (In re claim 4).
In re claim 19, see above (In re claim 19).
In re claim 20, see above (In re claim 1).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p. 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, p. 50, January 7, 2019).
Step 1: Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to a method, system, and a non-transitory computer readable storage for enhancing a user’s experience of an electronic device by detecting a level of abnormal sensation in their body. Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the following claim limitations which are directed to (abstract ideas, specifically mental processes) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
In re claim 1:
“determining, by a detection module, a level of abnormal sensation in the user body” (fall under one of observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion and mathematical concepts, i.e. mathematical functions).
In re claim 11: see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 20: see above (In re claim 1).
These limitations are drawn to an abstract idea because they are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, mere steps that are capable of being mentally performed or with a pen and paper. For example, determining a level of abnormal sensation is a matter of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion recognized by courts as mental processes. Additionally, these limitations are drawn to an abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts, i.e. mathematical functions or calculations.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the following additional elements:
In re claim 1:
“generating, by a prevention module, vibrations of required frequency in a wearable device and in the electronic device; and (insignificant extra-solution activity)
performing, by an event modulation module, one or more functions for enhancing the user experience of the electronic device” (insignificant extra-solution activity)
In re claim 11: see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 20: see above (In re claim 1).
The above limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The limitations “generating… vibrations…” and “performing… one or more functions for enhancing the user experience” are directed to insignificant post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as generating the vibrations in the wearable device and electronic device and performing one or more functions for enhancing the user experience are able to be done independently and are not required based on determining the level of abnormal sensation. However, even if the limitations were dependent on determining a level of abnormal sensation, they would still be directed to insignificant post-solution activity as using the results found from determining the level of abnormal sensation, they are just outputting different results such as a vibration or changing a function on a device.
The judicial exception does not integrate the claims as a whole into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant post-solution activity. Thus, none of claims 1-20 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
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, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramadas et al. (US 2006/0224046) in view of George et al. (US 10,105,608).
In re claim 1, Ramadas discloses a method for enhancing user experience of an electronic device during abnormal sensation in a user body ([0015]: last sentence; [0016]), the method comprising:
determining, by a detection module, a level of abnormal sensation in the user body ([0016]: sensors are used to monitor a user’s physiological state such as heart rate; [0020]: the system detects the physiological data and can determine if it is outside of predetermined thresholds)
*generating, by a prevention module, vibrations of required frequency in the electronic device ([0007]: last sentence, Note: the electronic device can include a presentation device which can have a vibrator); and
*performing, by an event modulation module, one or more functions for enhancing the user experience of the electronic device ([0015]: last sentence).
Ramadas discloses using sensors that measure physiological information, such as heart rate or pulse. These sensors are conventionally worn to detect physiological information, however, Ramadas is silent to how the sensors are being used and thus lacks:
generating, by a prevention module, vibrations of required frequency in a wearable device and in the electronic device
*Regarding the limitations above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, generating vibrations in a wearable device and the electronic device and performing functions for enhancing the user experience of the electronic device are not required to be done based on determining a level of abnormal sensation in a user.
George teaches a system that collects and analyzes physical metrics from participants in a gaming environment (abstract). The participant metric devices are devices that can be worn during game play (col 3, ln 7-10) and can include sensors to detect physical metrics or biometrics such as heart rate, motion, and position (col 3, ln 21-30). The devices can include indicators that alert the users, which can include haptic signals such as vibration (col 4, ln 2-5, 14-16). The devices can be various wearable devices, such as watches or wristbands (col 4, ln 30-35). The metrics can be analyzed to determine a current state of the user (col 17, ln 22-30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Ramadas by detecting physical metrics of a user using a wearable device that has sensors to collect data and can vibrate to alert the user as taught by George, as it is known that wearable devices can be used in a gaming or entertainment setting to collect physiological signals to determine a user’s emotional state and can be used to vibrate to alert or provide feedback to a user.
In re claim 9, the proposed combination discloses (all mapping directed to Ramadas) wherein the one or more functions performed by the event modulation module include:
identifying a current window of the electronic device ([0007]: the electronic device can be used to create a user profile that determines a “time sequence of emotional states, stimulus contexts, and a temporal relationship between the emotional state and the stimulus context”);
extracting list of one or more features of the electronic device in the identified current window ([0017]: the device can determine what is happening during the time sequence of the emotional state and stimulus context, such as the difficulty of a programming task);
identifying one or more features of the electronic device that degrades the user experience during the abnormal sensation ([0020]: the device can determine a user is in a hyperactive state by looking at the physiological parameters while using the device to figure out that the content of the device is too intense);
determining available alternate one or more features of the electronic device ([0020]: the content provided can be changed to be less demanding); and
modulating the one or more features of the electronic device by disabling the identified one or more features of the electronic device that degrades the user experience ([0020]: if the device content is shown to be too violent or demanding, the device can change the content); and
enabling the available alternate one or more features ([0015]: last sentence).
In re claim 11, see above (In re claim 1)
In re claim 18, see above (In re claim 9)
In re claim 20, see above (In re claim 1) and the following limitation (all mapping directed to Ramadas):
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor individually or collectively, cause an electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising [0008, 0023]
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramadas et al. (US 2006/0224046) in view of George et al. (US 10,105,608) in view of Hyde et al. (US 2017/0164876).
In re claim 2, the proposed combination discloses (all mapping directed to Ramadas) wherein the method comprises:
providing one or more recommendations to a user, by a recommendation module, using an artificial intelligence ([0016]: “algorithm can utilize a mathematical model (neural networks…)”, “the algorithm 50 can request a change in the entertainment flow or content to better suit the emotional or perceived emotional state”) based on
past abnormal sensation history of the user body ([0015]: “artificial intelligence routines can be used to anticipate a user action based on stored historical actions taken under similar physiological conditions”), and
wherein the one or more recommendations include
measures to prevent the abnormal sensation in future and/or
recommendations based on the one or more functions performed by the event modulation module ([0016]: last sentence; Note: depending on the sensed physiologic responses, different functions of the electronic device can be changed).
The proposed combination lacks
providing one or more recommendations to a user, by a recommendation module, using an artificial intelligence based on
frequency of occurrence of the abnormal sensation,
one or more posture types of the user body,
duration of the abnormal sensation and
past abnormal sensation history of the user body, and
Hyde teaches a system for monitoring body movements and physiological parameters of a user to determine if the user is experiencing pain [0010, 0175]. The system can include a portion that is configured to be worn around a body part ([0182]: last sentence). Hyde teaches providing recommendations to the individual based on the individual’s movement or physiological parameters [0229]. Different factors of movement and physiological parameters can be looked at, such as frequency of occurrence of the abnormal sensation ([0134]: “number of repetitions of a movement”), one or more posture types ([0134]: “measure a disposition of a body portion relative to a second body portion”), and duration ([0134]: “duration of movement”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of the proposed combination by analyzing posture or motion data collected by the wearable device and giving a recommendation to the user based on how often and how long a position or motion is occurring and based on position type as taught by Hyde, as this would allow for position and motion data to be analyzed to determine when an abnormal sensation could be occurring and provide recommendations only when certain conditions of the position or motion indicate an abnormal sensation occurs instead of unnecessarily recommending changes in the function of the electronic device.
In re claim 3, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Ramadas) discloses wherein the detection module determines the level of abnormal sensation by:
identifying changes in one or more bio-markers with respect to time, by biomarkers identification sub-module [0005],
wherein the one or more bio-markers include blood volume, blood flow rate, and heart rate [0014]; and
determining the level of abnormal sensation in the user body, by an abnormal sensation detection sub-module, identified changes in the one or more bio-markers [0005].
The proposed combination lacks
classifying one or more movements of the user body in any one of one or more posture types of the user body, by a movement classification sub-module,
wherein the one or more posture types of the user body include type A, type B, type C, and type D;
wherein the one or more bio-markers include blood volume, blood flow rate, and heart rate, which are calculated from one or more key points identified on a noiseless optical signal; and
determining the level of abnormal sensation in the user body, by an abnormal sensation detection sub-module, using the classified one or more posture types, identified changes in the one or more bio-markers [0005], and external parameters associated with the abnormal sensation including at least but not limited to time duration of the one or more posture types.
Hyde teaches monitoring body position or movement of a body portion [0140], such as position of the determining bending or flexing a finger towards the wrist or determining the position of an arm relative to the torso [0140] and the duration that these positions are being held [0140]. Additionally, the physiological sensor can include an optical signal that can be configured to measure an optical characteristic of a body portion, such as heart rate [0205]. Then, algorithms could be used to reduce signal noise [0125].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Ramadas by classifying posture data and then using posture data and bio-marker data detected from an optical signal to determine abnormal sensation of a user as taught by Hyde, as using posture data and bio-marker data together would allow for the system to more accurately determine that the user is experiencing an abnormal sensation and something should be done to reduce the abnormality.
In re claim 4, the proposed combination lacks wherein the movement classification sub-module performs classification of the one or more movements of the user body by:
extracting one or more features from predefined features,
wherein the predefined features are features of the user body defined for devices including a gyroscope and an accelerometer for measuring one or more movements of the user body;
calculating values for the extracted one or more features from the predefined features; and
classifying the one or more movements in any one of the one or more posture types of the user body based on calculated values of extracted features for the respective one or more movements of the user body.
Hyde teaches using an accelerometer and gyroscope for measuring orientation data of a user and then extracting data from the sensors [0095]. Then, values could be measured from the orientation data such as measuring pitch, roll, and yaw [0076]. The orientation data can be used to determine how the device is attached to the body part [0078] and data can also be determined for the position of the body type, such as how a finger is flexed towards the wrist [0140].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Ramadas by using sensors such as gyroscopes and accelerometers to extract features from and calculate values to classify the orientation of a user’s body to determine how they are positioned or moving as taught by Hyde, as these are known sensor types that can collect posture and movement data and different features can be extracted from the data that is collected to determine movement.
In re claim 5, The proposed combination lacks wherein
the type A, type B, type C, and type D of the one or more posture types of the user body specifically for hand represents
pressed hand posture,
anti-gravity posture,
user induced numbness, and
vibrating hand syndrome respectively.
Hyde teaches using motion sensors and physiological sensors can be used to evaluate a user’s pain state which can include tingling [0175]. The motion sensor can detect hand, wrist, and finger position [0140].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Ramadas by using the motion sensors to detect pain state including tingling as taught by Hyde, as motion sensors can detect the position of the hand, wrist, and fingers which could be correlated to when the user experiences tingling, or numbness, in certain positions so the device knows when the user is in a more abnormal position.
In re claim 7, The proposed combination lacks wherein the prevention module generates vibrations of required frequency by:
determining vibration of required frequency, by a vibration intensity determination sub-module, using the level of abnormal sensation in the user body and one or more health parameters which include age, ambient temperature, and diabetic status of the user body; and
generating vibrations of required frequency in the wearable device and the electronic device.
Hyde teaches that end effectors can vibrate to reduce an individual’s pain state ([0259]: last sentence). The effectors work based on a motion regimen, which includes a motion threshold, the effectors can be activated or deactivated based on exceeding the motion threshold [0259]. The motion thresholds can be determined using a user’s personal history, such as their age [0260]. Both the electronic device and the wearable device can vibrate to alert the user if a pain state is detected ([0257]: “a vibration effector (e.g., vibration stimulator 3914) in a glove”; [0262]: “the external device… can provide at least one of haptic feedback (e.g., a vibration-based message)”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Ramadas by determining vibration intensity by using a user’s personal history to determine when a threshold is exceeded so that vibration is needed and then vibrating both a wearable device and electronic device as taught by Hyde, as different people may be more sensitive to vibration so using their personal health parameters would allow for producing vibrations customized to them exceeding a personal abnormal sensation threshold and vibrating both the electronic and wearable device would ensure that the user and potentially another person would be alerted to their abnormal sensation.
In re claim 12, see above (In re claim 2)
In re claim 13, see above (In re claim 3)
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 5)
In re claim 16, see above (In re claim 4)
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramadas et al. (US 2006/0224046) in view of George et al. (US 10,105,608) in view of Hyde et al. (US 2017/0164876) in view of Scholkmann (Scholkmann et al., “An Efficient Algorithm for Automatic Peak Detection in Noisy Periodic and Quasi-Periodic Signals”, 2012).
In re claim 6, The proposed combination lacks wherein the one or more key points on the noiseless optical signal are identified by:
receiving, from one or more sensors, a body reflected optical signal, wherein the one or more sensors include an optical sensor, a PPG sensor, and a camera sensor;
filtering noise from the received optical signal for generating a noiseless optical signal;
performing local maxima scalogram (LMS) matrix of the noiseless optical signal;
performing row wise summation of each and every LMS matrix;
removing all elements from original LMS matrix to perform LMS rescaling; and
performing peak detection analysis of the noiseless optical signal for identifying the one or more key points including starting point and a systolic peak,
wherein the peak detection analysis includes performing column-wise standard deviation for finding one or more indices having standard deviation equals to one.
Hyde teaches using an optical sensor or camera sensor ([0141]: “optical sensor can include… camera”; [0205]) to receive a body reflected optical signal ([0205]: “optical sensor is configured to measure at least one of transmitted or reflected light”). Then, an algorithm is used to reduce the noise of the signal [0125].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Ramadas by using an optical sensor to receive a body reflected optical signal that noise is filtered from as taught by Hyde as using these sensors and then reducing noise would allow for reducing inaccuracies in the signals [0111] which would help increase the accuracy of detecting a user is experiencing an abnormal sensation from the signals collected.
Scholkmann teaches detecting peaks in signals (pg 588, section 1. Introduction) by analyzing local maxima scalogram (pg 588, abstract). The signals analyzed can be related to blood pressure and detecting systole and diastole (pg 594, section 4.2). To detect peaks, first LMS is calculated, then row wise summation is performed, and then the LMS is rescaled, and then a peak can be detected (pg 591, fig 1). Both row wise standard deviation and column wise standard deviation of the LMS matrices can be determined (pg 590, second to last paragraph; pg 591, fig 2: (c) and (d)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of the proposed combination by analyzing the optical signals using a local maxima scalogram matrix to detect peaks in the signals as taught by Scholkmann, as performing an LMS matrix would allow for peaks in the signals to be detected so that the system can identify the time when posture or physiological changes occur so that it can show when the abnormal sensation occurred.
In re claim 17, see above (In re claim 6)
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramadas et al. (US 2006/0224046) in view of George et al. (US 10,105,608) in view of Hyde et al. (US 2017/0164876) in view of Sagou (US 2009/0066666).
In re clean 8, The proposed combination lacks wherein the prevention module generates vibrations of required frequency in a localized region on display of the electronic device, using a vibration position identification sub-module,
wherein the localized region is identified by computing length of swipe arc, made by touch of finger of the user body on the display of the electronic device, using length of the finger computed from positional co-ordinates of first touch point and last touch point on the display.
Sagou teaches a cell phone [0026] that has a display screen and a finger touch sensor [0029]. The cell phone also has a screen vibrating unit that can vibrate the entire screen or vibrate only the part touched by a user’s finger [0030]. The phone has a CPU that can track a position of a finger and then cause the screen to vibrate (fig 3; [0034]), it can also track whether a finger has slid and moved and can change where the screen is vibrating (fig 3: S6, A; [0035]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Ramadas by only vibrating part of the screen of the electronic device as taught by Sagou, as vibrating only a portion of the screen would allow for the device to save battery and be more energy efficient than having the entire screen vibrate.
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 7 and In re claim 8)
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramadas et al. (US 2006/0224046) in view of George et al. (US 10,105,608) in view of Sato (US 2020/0167456).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination lacks wherein the list of the one or more features of the electronic device includes at least but not limited to fingerprint authentication, face authentication, voice commands, iris authentication, text auto correction, haptic feedback for predictive text, customized keyboard, and auto size variation of keyboard.
Sato teaches an electronic device, such as a phone, that can use multiple forms of biometric authentication [0027]. The device has multiple authentication features such as fingerprint or iris authentication [0027]. The user is able to manually switch on or off the methods of authentication ([0028]; fig 2B). Both types of authentications can be on, but that increases power consumption [0029]. The device can automatically switch on or off the fingerprint or iris authentication depending on the situation [0041]. Iris authentication can be turned off if it is too bright [0043] and can turn off fingerprint authentication if a glove is determined to be worn [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of the proposed combination by having authentication features of the electronic device be able to be turned on or off automatically as taught by Sato, as having multiple features turned on at once increases the power consumption of the device which is not good for battery health and being able to determine situations where different features are not useful would allow the system to disable those features to reduce the devices power consumption.
In re claim 19, see above (In re claim 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rofougaran (US 2008/0318673) teaches a gaming object that can be worn during game play [0032]. The gaming object users user data in the form of biofeedback in response to an action of a user [0036]. The gaming system can enable or disable audio effects, voice commands, or set input levels based on the biofeedback data [0042, 0043].
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY N. PRUITT whose telephone number is (571)272-1955. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 7:30 AM -5 PM. F, 7:30-4.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
/HALEY N PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights