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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and under investigation.
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 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of “estimating the body motion information” without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims recite a device, and therefore, it is a product and falls within the statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claims 2, 4 and 6-8 recites a limitation of detecting an estimating the body motion information by using a body motion information output from multiple sensors. The estimation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “estimating the body motion information”, which is a computer processor. That is, other than reciting the “estimating the body motion information”, nothing in the claims preclude the estimation step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “estimating the body motion information” language, the claims encompass the user manually estimating an individual’s body motion. This limitation is a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claims recite the additional element of “sensors” used to output body motion information.
The “sensors”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., any sensor that can be used for biological sensing) and it amounts to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering by the sensor to output body motion information. The pre-solution activity of data gathering does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Step 2B
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification on page 7, line 7, does not provide any indication that the sensors are anything other than a generic, biological sensor. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The additional elements alone or in combination do to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 further limit the process of estimating the body motion information. Therefore, these claims further limit the abstract idea already indicated in claim 2 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claim 2 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parker et. al (US 6997882 B1, published 02/14/2006).
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses a biological information detector (“device and methodology for collecting and analyzing 6-DOF (6 degrees of freedom) data relevant to the subject's acceleration, velocity, position, and orientation” Col. 3, lines 64-67) comprising:
multiple sensors to measure body motion of a body (“three biaxial accelerometer modules” Col. 8, lines 49-51) and output body motion information (“the output accelerometer signals may be analog or digital representations of the acceleration” Col. 9, lines 26-29); and
a sensor between the multiple sensors to measure biological information of the body and output the biological information (“HR electrodes collect the data and third HR electrode acts as a reference”, shown below in annotated Fig. 4, Col. 11, lines 25-27);
a detector to detect the biological information based on (“device and method for collecting 6-DOF data in subjects, which by itself or in combination with physiological data, particularly heart rate, is used to derive information about the subject's energy expenditure” Col. 5, lines 64-67):
the biological information output from the sensor (Col. 5, lines 64-67) and
the body motion information output from the multiple sensors (“conversion of the 6-DOF data to information descriptive of subject and body-segment movements, positions, and orientations… calculating estimates of energy expenditure” Col. 14, lines 3-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Parker discloses the biological information detector of claim 1, wherein the detector includes circuitry (“processor is equipped with six 16-bit timer/counters and eight 10-bit single-ended A/D converters, which are also used in processing the outputs from various physiological sensors” Col. 10, lines 50-53) configured to:
estimate the body motion information at a position of the sensor based on the body motion information output from the multiple sensors (“the 6-DOF data are repeatedly corrected during the period of monitoring… problem formulation can also be changed to incorporate the measurements of all of the accelerometer modules, rather than a single accelerometer, and this would improve the quality of the parameter estimate” Col. 22, lines 41-42 & 47-50); and
detect the biological information based on the biological information output from the sensor and the body motion information at the position of the sensor (“device and method for collecting 6-DOF data in subjects, which by itself or in combination with physiological data, particularly heart rate, is used to derive information about the subject's energy expenditure…conversion of the 6-DOF data to information descriptive of subject and body-segment movements, positions, and orientations… calculating estimates of energy expenditure” Col. 5, lines 64-67 & Col. 14, lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 5, Parker discloses the biological information detector of claim 1, wherein the sensor and the multiple sensors are:
division of the same element; or
multiple elements formed into a single component (as shown above in annotated Fig. 4, the accelerometers and HR electrodes are multiple elements that form into the single component of the belt, reference number 302, Col. 2, Table 2).
Regarding claim 7, Parker discloses a biological information processing device comprising circuitry (“processor is equipped with six 16-bit timer/counters and eight 10-bit single-ended A/D converters, which are also used in processing the outputs from various physiological sensors” Col. 10, lines 50-53) configured to:
receive body motion information output from multiple sensors to measure body motion of a body at multiple positions (“three biaxial accelerometer modules…the technique of extracting information regarding respiratory function from an array of accelerometer modules separates acceleration of the anterior aspect of the pelvis from the posterior aspect” Fig. 7, Col. 8, lines 49-51 & Col. 26, lines 5-10);
receive biological information of the body output from the sensor to measure the biological information at a position between the multiple sensors (“HR electrodes collect the data and third HR electrode acts as a reference”, shown above in annotated Fig. 4, Col. 11, lines 25-27);
estimate the body motion information at the position of the sensor based on the body motion information measured by the multiple sensors (“the 6-DOF data are repeatedly corrected during the period of monitoring… problem formulation can also be changed to incorporate the measurements of all of the accelerometer modules, rather than a single accelerometer, and this would improve the quality of the parameter estimate” Col. 22, lines 41-42 & 47-50); and
detect the biological information based on the biological information measured by the sensor at the position and the body motion information estimated at the position (“device and method for collecting 6-DOF data in subjects, which by itself or in combination with physiological data, particularly heart rate, is used to derive information about the subject's energy expenditure” Col. 5, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 8, Parker discloses a method for processing biological information (“device and method for continuously measuring and storing 6-DOF data” Col. 5, lines 58-59), the method comprising:
measuring body motion of a body at multiple positions (“three biaxial accelerometer modules” Fig. 7, Col. 8, lines 49-51 & Col. 26, lines 5-10) and outputting body motion information (“the output accelerometer signals may be analog or digital representations of the acceleration” Col. 9, lines 26-29);
measuring biological information of the body at a position between the multiple positions (“HR electrodes collect the data and third HR electrode acts as a reference”, shown above in annotated Fig. 4, Col. 11, lines 25-27) and outputting the biological information (“display is useful for displaying information about the device, such as…data processed by the microprocessor, such as heart rate and/or energy expenditure” Col. 11, lines 30-33);
estimating the body motion information at the position, at which the biological information is measured, based on the body motion information measured at the multiple positions (“the 6-DOF data are repeatedly corrected during the period of monitoring… problem formulation can also be changed to incorporate the measurements of all of the accelerometer modules, rather than a single accelerometer, and this would improve the quality of the parameter estimate” Col. 22, lines 41-42 & 47-50); and
detecting the biological information based on the biological information measured at the position and the body motion information estimated at the position (“device and method for collecting 6-DOF data in subjects, which by itself or in combination with physiological data, particularly heart rate, is used to derive information about the subject's energy expenditure” Col. 5, lines 64-67).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Coleman et. al, (US 20190350484 A1, published 11/21/2019, hereinafter known as Coleman).
Regarding claim 3, Parker discloses the biological information detector of claim 2, wherein the multiple sensors (“HR electrodes collect the data and the third HR electrode acts as a reference…three biaxial accelerometer modules” Col. 11, lines 26-27 & 60-61) include two sensors to measure body motion of a body (accelerometers 210 and 206 as shown above in annotated Fig. 4),
the sensor is disposed between the two sensors (HR electrode 402 as shown above in annotated Fig. 4),
the sensor and the two sensors are arrayed in one direction (shown above in annotated Fig. 4, the accelerometers 210 and 206 and the HR electrode 204 are all arrayed along the same axis, Col. 11, lines 19-22).
Parker does not disclose wherein the sensor is adjacent to each of the two sensors and the sensor and the two sensors are arranged at predetermined interval with each other in the one direction.
However, Coleman teaches devices, systems and methods for monitoring electrophysiological function from anatomical structures (Abstract). The sensor unit can include a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure sensor, a motion sensor, glucose sensor, or a location sensor [0062]. The electrode array described has multiple sensors that are adjacent to two sensors, such as sensor 2 shown below in annotated Fig. 1D [0069]. An example implementation of the electrode array including an arrangement of 25 electrodes in a five by five square grid with a 2 cm center-to-center electrode distance, Fig. 1D, [0066].
PNG
media_image2.png
562
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the predetermined intervals between sensors of Coleman with the biological information detector of Parker because this allows for more uniformity and accuracy in the implementation of the system.
Regarding claim 3, the specification discloses the appropriate ranges that apply to the claimed invention in page 7, lines 22-26 of the applicant’s printed publication. However, the specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range(s) of sensor units is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range(s).
Because Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed range(s) of sensor units provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and the prior art recognizes stimulation duration is a result effective variable, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable range(s) of sensor units by normal optimization procedures known in the biological information processing arts.
Regarding claim 4, Parker discloses the biological information detector of claim 3.
Parker does not disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
estimate the body motion information at the position of the sensor based on:
a distance from the sensor to each of the two sensors; or
a ratio of the distance from the sensor to one of the two sensors and the distance from the sensor to another of the two sensors.
However, Coleman teaches in biological signals…the amplitude of the signal is proportional to the distance of the recording electrode to the source [0114]. The weighting coefficient for each of the surrounding electrodes is proportional to the reciprocal of its distance to the center electrode [0107].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the estimation technique of body motion information using distance between sensors of Coleman with the biological information detector of Parker because contours of constant phase provide a better approximation to the motion field compared to those of constant amplitude (Coleman, [0114]).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Shirane (US 20230000439 A1, published 01/05/2023).
Regarding claim 6, Parker discloses the biological information detector of claim 1, wherein the detector contains circuitry (“processor is equipped with six 16-bit timer/counters and eight 10-bit single-ended A/D converters, which are also used in processing the outputs from various physiological sensors” Col. 10, lines 50-53) and multiple body motion information sensors (“three biaxial accelerometer modules” Col. 8, lines 49-51).
Parker does not disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to detect a difference between the biological information output from the sensor and the body motion information output from each of the multiple sensors at a predetermined interval to correct the biological information output from the sensor.
However, Shirane teaches an information processing apparatus, a biological data measurement system, an information processing method, and a program that can improve the accuracy of acquired biological data (Abstract). The body motion noise is added to the detection biological signal detected from the person to be measured by the biological sensor [0058]. The system unit microcomputer performs processing including a step of predicting, on the basis of the reference signal that is the body motion information of the person to be measured detected by the reference signal sensor [0058].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noise and body motion calculations of Shirane with the biological information detector of Parker because proper detection and prediction of noise within the body motion signals allows for more control over signal processing of the detected biological signal (Shirane, [0017]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Allec et. al, (US 20170325698 A1, published 11/16/2017, hereinafter known as Allec).
Regarding claim 9, Parker discloses the biological information detector of claim 1.
Parker does not disclose an absorber or a convex-shaped medium between the multiple sensors.
However, Allec teaches systems and methods for determining one or more of a user's physiological signals (Abstract). One variation is depicted in FIG. 18A…the back surface of a wearable device may comprise a protrusion (reference number 1802) that comprises recesses (i.e., recessed regions) (reference number 1803) that are each located over an optical opening or window…cavities within which the light emitter(s) and/or light sensor(s) are located may themselves be located within a recess of a protrusion, shown below in annotated Fig. 18A, [0154].
PNG
media_image3.png
367
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the protrusion between the sensors of Allec with the biological information detector of Parker because the protrusions may have one or more curves or contours that apply pressure to the skin when the device is worn by the individual, allowing for biological information collection (Allec, [0151]).
Regarding claim 10, Parker discloses the biological information detector of claim 1.
Parker does not disclose a groove between the multiple sensors; and
an absorber in the groove.
However, Allec teaches a device having an underside or back surface comprising protrusions disposed within the optical path(s) of the light sensor(s) (i.e., an absorber) is depicted…back surface may comprise one or more optical openings or windows and a convex cover structure or protrusion disposed over each of the optical openings of the corresponding cavities…skin regions located under the protrusion be subject to increased levels of pressure as compared to the skin regions located under non-protruding portions of the back surface, as shown below in annotated Fig. 19A, [0155].
PNG
media_image4.png
239
320
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the implementation of a groove between the sensors and an absorber in the groove of Allec with the biological information detector of Parker because the light sensor can help detect further biological sign11als that could be useful for information and data collection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIONA M KOWALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/F.M.K./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights