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 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a mobile device” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 8 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), and claim 14 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing motion cues to a user during a training session,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“measure a baseline movement frequency of a limb of a user, using motion data from the limb;
determine a cue frequency based on the baseline movement frequency;
provide motion cues to the user during a training session, wherein the motion cues exhibit the cue frequency for the user to follow;
measure a training session motion frequency of the limb using motion data while providing the motion cues; and
provide a feedback signal to the user, the feedback signal indicative of a synchrony of the training session motion frequency to the cue frequency.”
Per claim 8:
“measure a baseline tremor frequency of an extended arm of a user, via data obtained from a wrist of the extended arm;
determine a cue frequency based on the baseline tremor frequency;
provide motion cues at the cue frequency to the user;
measure a motion frequency of the extended arm while providing the motion cues; and
provide a feedback signal indicative of a synchrony of the motion frequency to the cue frequency.”
Per claim 14:
“measuring, via monitoring a patient, an initial tremor frequency of a portion of the patient’s body exhibiting functional movement disorder;
determining a cue frequency based on the initial tremor frequency, the cue frequency being different than the initial tremor frequency;
providing motion cues to the patient at the cue frequency;
measuring a motion frequency of the portion of the patient’s body while providing the motion cues; and
providing a feedback signal to the patient, indicative of a degree of synchrony of the motion frequency to the cue frequency.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a mobile device,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a user interface,” “a sensor,” and “an accelerometer,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “providing motion cues to a user during a training session,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a mobile device,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a user interface,” “a sensor,” and “an accelerometer,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a mobile device,” as described in para. [0022] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0022] FIGS. 1A-1D illustrate examples of a user 101 performing functional tremor retrainment in accordance with a retrainment process performed by a mobile device 102. For example, mobile device 102 may comprise a smartphone, smartwatch, fitness tracker, or other wearable device. In the illustrated example, mobile device 102 may execute a mobile application providing tremor retrainment therapy (“retrainment app”).” This broadly describes a plurality of generic computer devices commercially available today.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a processor,” as described in para. [0061] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0061] In an example, a circuit can be implemented mechanically or electronically. For example, a circuit can comprise dedicated circuitry or logic that is specifically configured to perform one or more techniques such as discussed above, such as including a special-purpose processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). In an example, a circuit can comprise programmable logic (e.g., circuitry, as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that can be temporarily configured (e.g., by software) to perform the certain operations. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a circuit mechanically (e.g., in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry), or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) can be driven by cost and time considerations.” As such, the Applicant’s “a processor,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory,” as described in paras. [0072] and [0073] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0072] The storage device 416 can include a computer readable medium 422 on which is stored one or more sets of data structures or instructions 424 (e.g., software) embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The instructions 424 can also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 404, within static memory 406, or within the processor 402 during execution thereof by the machine 400. In an example, one or any combination of the processor 402, the main memory 404, the static memory 406, or the storage device 416 can constitute computer readable media.”
“[0073] While the computer readable medium 422 is illustrated as a single medium, the term “computer readable medium” can include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that configured to store the one or more instructions 424. The term “computer readable medium” can also be taken to include any tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present disclosure or that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying data structures utilized by or associated with such instructions. The term “computer readable medium” can accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic media. Specific examples of computer readable media can include non-volatile memory, including, by way of example, semiconductor memory devices (e.g., Electrically Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM)) and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks.” As such, the Applicant’s “a memory,” is also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed “a user interface,” as described in para. [0036] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0036] In such examples, the mobile device 102 may receive an input indicative of a treatment session. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a retrainment app executed by mobile device 102 may display a user interface on display 103 to enable a user to select their training session. For instance, as illustrated, a user may select a first session 110 or a second session 111. In further examples, additional sessions may be available. As another example, mobile device 102 may receive a date/time input (e.g., from the user, internal clock, time server, etc.) as an indicator of the treatment session. For instance, during a first period (e.g., a first week after beginning therapy), the retrainment app may perform sessions of a first type and during a second period of time (e.g., 1-2 months following the second period of time), the retrainment app may perform sessions of a second type. Of course, implementations are not limited to any particular treatment plan, session timing, phase length, etc.; the described technology may support any retrainment therapy parameters. Thus, the user interface on mobile device 102 may comprise a displayed graphical user interface allowing the wearer to view options, select settings and actions, view cue frequency prompts, view training session frequency (non) alignment to the cue frequency, etc. In some examples, the user interface may also allow the user to input information (whether freeform, by answering questions, adjusting rating scales, etc.) regarding their perception of the training session (e.g., its perceived difficulty, whether symptoms were perceived to have improved since the prior session, whether symptoms seemed to improve after the current session, how the session affected their mental state, etc.) In further examples, the user interface may also present the user with an option to provide non-tremor-frequency, non-training information such as descriptions of their overall stress, anxiety, manifestations of trauma, or other factors that can impact functional movement disorders. For example, in association with a given training session, a user may have the ability to enter information relating to their state of anxiety; current feelings of stress; depressive or trauma-related thoughts, emotional struggles, sleep, hyperawareness of symptoms, fear of certain activities, performance pressure, and/or injury recovery, through standardized responses to a series of questions presented to the user. This information can then be stored either on the mobile device 102 itself, or may be sent to the user's healthcare provider to be stored in their electronic medical records along with a training session summary.” As such, the Applicant’s “a user interface,” is also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a sensor,” and “an accelerometer,” as described in para. [0071] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0071] Example machine (e.g., computer system) 400 can include a processor 402 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 404 and a static memory 406, some or all of which can communicate with each other via a bus 408. The machine 400 can further include a display unit 410, an alphanumeric input device 412 (e.g., a keyboard), and a user interface (UI) navigation device 411 (e.g., a mouse). In an example, the display unit 810, input device 417 and UI navigation device 414 can be a touch screen display. The machine 400 can additionally include a storage device (e.g., drive unit) 416, a signal generation device 418 (e.g., a speaker), a network interface device 420, and one or more sensors 421, such as a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, compass, accelerometer, or other sensor.” As such, the Applicant’s “a sensor,” and “an accelerometer,” are also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is either generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 8 or 14. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “motion data.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the motion data”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claims 7, 9 and 18 recite the limitation “motion cues.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1, 8 and 14, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the motion cues”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitations of claim 1, 8 or 14. Therefore, claims 7, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 19 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its respective dependency to claim 18.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “cue frequency.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 14. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the cue frequency”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the baseline tremor.” The limitation is not introduced in claim 114, 18 or 19. As such, the limitation is lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715