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 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. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category:
Claim 10 recites a computer readable storage medium storing an estimation program that causes a computer to carry out a process. An article of manufacture is one of the four categories of patent-eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, claim 10 satisfies step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 – Judicial Exception:
Under Step 2A, prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 10 recites a judicial exception in the form of a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following limitations that constitute mathematical evaluation:
calculating a center of gravity of each of segments of a body of a user;
calculating a center of gravity of a whole body of the user on the basis of the center of gravity of each of the segments;
calculating a height difference between the center of gravity of the whole body and a heart in a gravitational direction; and
estimating a load level on a circulatory system as a relative value with the height difference in a standing position as a reference on the basis of the height difference
All which constitute mathematical evaluations that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
This is consistent with the specification, which describes the claimed program in identical terms as consisting solely of these four processes, with no recited hardware specific implementations (see para. [0059]). The specification further confirms that the underlying calculation may be performed using known anthropometric methods assuming uniform segment densities and applying Bernoulli’s principle (see para. [0026]). Each of the foregoing limitations constitutes a mathematical evaluation that can be performed by a human using pen and paper, or by reference to known anthropometric tables. Accordingly, claim 10 recites a judicial exception under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Integration into a Practical Application:
Under step 2A, prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Evaluating the claim as a whole, the additional limitations beyond the judicial exception do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The only additional elements recited in claim 10 are the computer readable storage medium, the estimation program, and the computer. These limitations constitute no more than a generic computing environment upon which the abstract mathematical concept is implemented. The specification does not describe the computer readable storage medium or the computer as having any particular structure beyond that necessary to execute the four recited calculation processes (see paras. [0059] – [0060]). The claim stops estimating the load level on the circulatory system and recites no further action taken based on the circulatory system and recites no further action taken based on the estimated value, such as controlling a driving mechanism, generating an output signal, or otherwise modulating any system operation. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, no particular machine or transformation, and no other consideration that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 10 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B – Significantly More:
Because claim 10 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A, prong 2, it is necessary to evaluate under step 2B whether the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The sole additional elements, a computer readable storage medium, a computer, and an estimation program executed thereon are described in the specification only in generic, functional terms, without any indication that they represent anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional computing components used for their ordinary purpose of executing stored instructions (see paras. [0059] – [0060]). Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (DE 102011111974 A1 – hereafter “Engel”) in view of LaPointe (US 2014/0368011 A1 – hereafter “LaPointe”) in further view of Gillstrom et al. (WO 2022/130020 A1 – hereafter “Gillstrom”1,9-).
As per claims 1 and 9, Engel teaches a body section made up from a seat section configured to support a thigh of a user, an upper-body support section coupled to one end part of the seat section and configured to support an upper body of the user, and a lower-leg support section coupled to another end part of the seat section and configured to support a lower leg of the user (see abstract, see also description “a basic mechanism... is supported by a support function of the backrest [...] 17 ], Seat- [ 18 ] and leg support elements [ 19 ]”);
a driving mechanism capable of changing a position of the user, the driving mechanism being provided to the body section (see description, “The adjustment of the seat can in this case take place, for example, via an electric drive”);
and a controller configured to control the driving mechanism (see description, “ a programmable logic controller (PLC) could control this drive according to the vector function”),
the controller controlling the position of the user by driving the driving mechanism
so that a load level on a circulatory system based on a height difference between a center of gravity of a whole body of the user and a heart of the user becomes not less than a predetermined value with the load level in a standing position as a reference (see description, “achieves reproducible soles-loading levels through a customizable center-of-gravity displacement of the patient;” “ It is thus possible to realize a reproducible sequence of movements which can be achieved by successively increasing stress levels [ 4 ] up to an upright standing position”).
However, Engel does not teach that the load level is a load level on a circulatory system based on a height difference between a center of gravity of a whole body of the user and a heart of the user.
LaPointe teaches a furniture member (lift chair) wherein the user’s feet “will be positioned at or near the vertical level (i.e., the vertical distance off of the ground 584) of the user's heart” (see para. [0115]), disclosed in the context of promoting physiological wellbeing during a change in body posture, and further teaches maintaining a proper center of gravity of the occupant during verticalization of the chair (see paras. [0098], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Engel in view of LaPointe by using heart height as the physiological reference point for Engel’s center-of-gravity based staged posture control, in order to provide a more physiologically targeted proxy for the circulatory load that Engel’s controller is already configured to manage during verticalization, particularly in light of Engel’s own stated problem of circulatory collapse occurring during verticalization.
However, Engel in view of LaPointe does not teach calculating a load level from a height difference between two identified body reference points and using the calculated value as a closed-loop input to drive an actuator toward a target position.
Gillstrom teaches an apparatus and method wherein a plurality of body landmark heights are determined, including elbow and hip height (see paras. [0060] – [0062]), a control value is calculated as the difference between two such body landmark heights (see paras. [0074], [0077]), and the calculated value is transmitted to a central processor that drives a motor to the calculated target position, with position confirmed via closed-loop encoder feedback (see paras. [0103] – [0106]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Engel in view of LaPointe by incorporating the teachings of Gillstrom to calculate a control value as the height differential between two identified anatomical reference points and use the calculated value as a closed-loop actuator control input, in order to implement Engel’s center-of-gravity referenced load control using LaPointe’s identified heart height reference point as one of the two landmarks in the differential calculation, thereby enabling a controller that calculates a load level from the height difference between the user’s center of gravity and heart and drives the driving mechanism accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights