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 § 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 1-4, 6-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherkat et al. (hereafter Sherkat)(US PgPub 2021/0125722).
Regarding claim 1, Sherkat discloses a system (Figure 1) comprising: a sensing system configured to monitor an individual, the sensing system including at least one camera and at least one microphone, wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture any combination of video and images of an individual being monitored and at the least one microphone is configured to capture audio signals generated by the individual (Figure 1, Element 132, Figure 2, Elements 250, 260 and Paragraphs 0062 and 0089 where a patient is monitored using a camera capturing images/video and a microphone capturing audio signals generated by the patient); an edge computing system connected to the sensing system and configured to receive one or more sensed signals associated with the sensing system monitoring the individual, wherein the sensed signals include the video or images, and the audio signals (Figure 1, Element 130, Figure 4A and Paragraphs 0060-0064 and 0068-0074 where an edge computing system receives sensed signals associated with the patient); and a remote computing system connected to the edge computing system via a network, the remote computing system configured to: receive the sensed signals from the edge computing system; process the sensed signals using at least one artificial intelligence (AI)-based system; and provide assistance to the individual being monitored based on the processing (Figure 1, Element 110, Figure 4B and Paragraphs 0060, 0061, 0067, 0069, 0075-0077, 0083 and 0084 where the core network/cloud health analytic services run machine learning/AI algorithms on the sensed signals associated with the patient to determine a proper response/assistance from a doctor, caregiver and/or patient).
Regarding claim 2, Sherkat discloses wherein the assistance provided is any combination of: providing reminders to assist the individual with carrying out their daily activities of life; and generating an alert to a human caregiver in case of an emergency associated with the individual (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0060, 0061, 0067, 0069, 0075-0077, 0083 and 0084 where alarms, reminders and the like are provided based on the sensed signals associated with the patient. A caregiver/doctor also monitors the patient and provides aid when needed).
Regarding claim 3, Sherkat discloses a two-way communication channel, wherein a human caregiver or a family member associated with the individual can interact with the individual using the communication channel (Figure 4C and Paragraph 0083 where the patient communicates with a doctor/caregiver via video chat).
Regarding claim 4, Sherkat discloses wherein the two-way communication channel is any combination of a voice communication channel, a video communication channel, and a text communication channel (Figure 4C and Paragraph 0083 where the patient communicates with a doctor/caregiver via video chat).
Regarding claim 6, Sherkat discloses wherein the processing includes monitoring the individual's sleep patterns (Paragraphs 0085-0086 where patient sleep quality is monitored).
Regarding claim 7, Sherkat discloses wherein the processing includes generating one or more sleep scores based on the monitoring (Paragraphs 0085-0086 where patient sleep quality is monitored).
Regarding claim 8, Sherkat discloses wherein a human caregiver can interact with the AI-based system and configure the AI-based system with one or more required tasks or request one or more updates associated with monitoring the individual, wherein the interaction is implemented using natural language processing (NLP) (Figure 4C and Paragraphs 0060, 0069, 0070, 0077, 0083 where the machine learning/AI models are trained by an end user using language processing).
Regarding claim 9, Sherkat discloses generating an alert if an emergency is detected responsive to the processing (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0060, 0061, 0067, 0069, 0075-0077, 0083 and 0084 where alarms, reminders and the like are provided based on the sensed signals associated with the patient. A caregiver/doctor also monitors the patient and provides aid when needed).
Regarding claim 10, Sherkat discloses wherein a human caregiver or the AI-based system can interact with the individual to address the emergency (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0060, 0061, 0067, 0069, 0075-0077, 0083 and 0084 where alarms, reminders and the like are provided based on the sensed signals associated with the patient. A caregiver/doctor also monitors the patient and provides aid when needed).
Method claims 11-14 and 16-20 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding system claimed in claims 1-4 and 6-10, respectively. Therefore method claims 11-14 and 16-20 correspond to system claims 1-4 and 6-10 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 21, Sherkat discloses wherein the edge computing system includes at least one speaker to send one or more audio signals to the individual (Paragraph 0071 where the edge system includes audio and video interfaces).
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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherkat et al. (hereafter Sherkat)(US PgPub 2021/0125722) and in view of Verma (US PgPub 2018/0253954).
Regarding claim 5, Sherkat does not specifically disclose wherein the processing includes fall monitoring associated with the individual. In the same field of endeavor, Verma discloses an AI patient monitoring system that detects a patient fall using video and/or audio (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0027 and 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fall detection of Verma to the patient monitoring system of Sherkat, motivation being to detect patient falls and contact emergency aid if necessary which increases overall patient safety.
Method claim 15 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding system claimed in claim 5. Therefore method claim 15 corresponds to system claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights