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 Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-15, 18, and 22-26 are pending and under examination.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-15, 18, and 22-26 are rejected.
Claims 1, 13, and 22 are independent.
Claims 22-26 are new.
Claims 2, 5, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-21 are canceled.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 18 are objected to.
Office Action Outline
Rejections applied
Abbreviations
x
112/b Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
x
112/b "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
x
112/a Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
x
112 Other
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
x
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
x
101 JE(s)
112/a
35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line
Double Patenting
MM/DD/YYYY
date format
Priority
As detailed in the 02/26/2021 filing receipt, this application is a 371 of PCT/EP2019/065089, filed 06/11/2019, which claims priority to foreign application EP 18178237.6, filed 06/18/2018.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. See paper entered 12/02/2020.
Overview of Withdrawal/Revision of Objections/Interpretations/Rejections
In view of the amendment and remarks received 01/05/2026:
• The claim objection to claim 19 is withdrawn. Claim 19 has been canceled.
• The 112(f) interpretation is revised.
• The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn. Claim 19 has been canceled.
• The 101 rejection is maintained with revision and applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-15, and 22-26.
• The 103 rejections in the 08/08/2025 Office action are withdrawn, and a new 103 rejection is applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-15, and 22-26.
Rejections and/or objections not maintained from previous office actions are withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied. They constitute the complete set applied to the instant application.
Specification
Citing of the Specification in this Office Action refers to U.S. Pub. No.
US2021/0161431 A1, published 03 June 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the "a processor configured ..." element of claim 1, there are two sub-elements labeled "(ii)", such that the recitation of "(ii) calculate, based at least in part on the received..." should be corrected to "(iii) calculate, based at least in part on the received..."
Claim 8 recites "wherein the processor is further comprises:…", which should be corrected to "wherein the processor [[is ]]further comprises:…"
Claims 12 and 18 recites "...which the individual is to travel, and the recommended exertion." This phrase includes an unnecessary comma. Claims 12 and 18 should be amended to "...which the individual is to travel[[,]] and the recommended exertion."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
Applicant's remarks regarding the 112(f) interpretation (remarks, top of p.10) and the 01/05/2026 amendment are acknowledged.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Instant claim limitations interpreted as PROPERLY invoking 112(f):
The following claim limitation is interpreted as invoking 112(f):
A "terrain module," recited in claim 8, recites means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here a "module") and function (here "to determine one or more characteristics of the terrain in the area") without reciting steps or structure to prevent invoking. The specification does not disclose sufficient structure, material, or acts, but just desired results, despite specification [0100], and as such, is indefinite under 112(b) after properly invoking 112(f). MPEP 2181.III-IV pertain.
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.
Instant claim limitations interpreted as NOT invoking 112(f)
The following limitations are interpreted as not invoking 112(f) despite reciting means (or an equivalent, nonce term) and function and/or result, because the claim is interpreted as reciting sensors and interfaces which are simple and well-known, such that 112(f) is not invoked. MPEP 2181.I.C pertains. Those limitations and are as follows:
Air Pollution sensor (claim 1)
User interface (claims 1 and 22)
Exertion sensor (claims 4 and 22)
Vital sign sensor (claims 4, 14, and 22)
Individual physical characteristic sensor (claim 7)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 3-4, 6-9, 12, and 22-26 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.
112(b) rejection (corresponding to 112(f) above) for structure not clearly linked:
Claim limitation "a terrain module configured to determine one or more characteristics of the terrain" in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 8 recites means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "terrain module") and function and/or result (here "to determine one or more characteristics of the terrain ") without specifying steps or structure to prevent invoking, and it is not clear that the specification (especially at [0100]) discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts rather than just function and results for determining one or more characteristics, noting that any disclosure must be clearly linked to the invoking recitation and that the above citation to the specification does not clearly disclose structure sufficient to satisfy 112(b). While inputs and/or outputs are disclosed, there is not clear disclosure of analysis required to proceed from inputs to outputs. MPEP 2181 pertains, and MPEP 2187, FP 7.34.23 lists options for overcoming the rejection.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Other 112(b) rejections :
In claim 1, the relationship is unclear between the "system" and the process steps (i-ii). That is, between the recitation (in the preamble) of " A system for determining a recommended exertion rate of an individual when travelling through an area, wherein the recommended exertion rate is calculated to minimize inhalation of air pollution by the individual while maximizing exertion of the individual to achieve the individual's exertion goal" and the recitation (in the "processor configured to..." element) of "a processor configured to...receive...receive...calculate...a recommended exertion of the individual that minimizes inhalation of air pollution by the individual while maximizing exertion of the individual to achieve the individual's exertion goal," because it is not clear what structure corresponds to determining a recommended exertion. Storage and software may be implied, but they are not recited. It may help to overcome the rejection to: (a) delete the process step in the preamble and (b) amend to recite the structure of software and software storage components (disclosed at Specification [0228 and 0230]).
Similar to the above rejection, the following recitations, which imply storage and/or software, render the claims indefinite for lacking structure:
User interface configured to provide a sensory output (claim 1)
Processor configured to determine...a relationship (claim 3)
Processor adapted to calculate (claim 3)
Processor is further configured to ...receive...and... calculate (claim 4 and 7-9)
Terrain module configured to determine (claim 8)
Processor configured to...receive...receive...generate (claim 22)
Processor is further configured to ...receive (claims 23 and 24)
Possibly amending to recite structure of software and/or storage components (disclosed at Specification [0228 and 0230]) may help to overcome these 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim 4, 7-8, 14, and 22-26 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.
112(a) rejection (for invoking 112(f) without adequate description in the disclosure):
The limitation "a terrain module configured to determine one or more characteristics of the terrain" recited in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as identified above in the section "Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)" above. Specification paragraph [0038] was considered, however, the specification fails to disclose and describe sufficient structure of “a terrain module configured to determine one or more characteristics of the terrain.” The limitations are considered to recite a mean-plus-function limitation for which the structure needs to be described.
Other 112(a) rejections:
Claims 4, 7, 14, and 22 recite the term "signal" in recitations to generate a signal (claims 4 and 22); receive a signal (claims 4, 7, 14, and 22); and obtain a signal (claim 7). The Specification does not disclose or detail a "signal."
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by narrowing to clearly supported embodiments and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations. For examination purposes, a "signal" will be interpreted as any data or information.
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, 3, 4, 6-9, 12-15, 18, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 details the following framework to analyze Subject Matter Eligibility:
• Step 1: Are the claims directed to a category of statutory subject matter (a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? (see MPEP § 2106.03)
• Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon? (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)). Note, the MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) & 2106.04(b) further explains that abstract ideas and laws of nature are defined as:
• mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
• mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information);
• laws of nature and natural phenomena are naturally occurring principles and/or relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature.
• Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application? (see MPEP § 2106.04(d))
• Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept? (see MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12, and 22-26 are directed to 101 machines or manufacture, here systems. Claims 13-15 and 18 are directed to a 101 process, here a method. As such, claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-15, 18, and 22-26 are directed to a related system and method, which fall under categories of statutory subject matter. (See MPEP § 2106.03). (Step 1: Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims are found to recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes and mathematical concepts, as well as a law of nature, as follows:
Independent claims 1, 13, and 22 recite mental processes of: to calculate (and also generate in claim 22) a recommended exertion of the individual that minimizes inhalation of air pollution while maximizing the exertion goal (also considered a mathematical concept).
Claim 3 recite mental processes of: to determine, using the identified pollution level, a relationship between an amount of pollution inhaled by the individual and an exertion of the individual; and to calculate the recommended exertion of the individual based on the relationship (also considered a mathematical concept).
Claims 4, 14, and 22 recite mental processes of: to calculate (generate in claim 22) a recommended adjustment to the individual's exertion based on the recommended exertion and the current exertion (also considered a mathematical concept).
Claims 7 and 24 recite mental processes of: to calculate (generate in claim 24) the recommended exertion of the individual further based on the physical characteristics of the individual (also considered a mathematical concept).
Claim 8 recites mental processes of: to determine characteristic(s) of the terrain in the area through which the individual is to travel; and to calculate (generate in claim 23) the recommended exertion of the individual further based on the terrain characteristics (also considered a mathematical concept).
Claim 9 recites mental processes of: to calculate the recommended exertion of the individual further based on the intended route (also considered a mathematical concept).
Claim 3 recites a law of nature in the correlation between the naturally occurring inhalation of pollution by an individual and the exertion of the individual.
Step 2A Prong One Summary: The claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. When considering the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims, e.g., of mental processes for: e.g., calculating a recommended exertion of the individual; determining a relationship between an amount of pollution inhaled by the individual and an exertion of the individual; calculating an adjustment to the current exertion, etc., there is no detail or complexity recited in the limitations which would prevent performing the steps in the human mind or with pen and paper [see MPEP§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III)]. Additionally, the steps reciting calculations recite mathematical concepts in determining numerical measures based on calculations [see MPEP§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I)]. General descriptions of calculations are disclosed in the Specification, e.g., at [0006-0007], [0018-0019], [0077], [0144], [0149], [0151], [0195], etc. Further, the steps involving mathematical concepts are also characterized as mental processes, as the calculations include embodiments simple enough to be performed in the human mind. Regarding the use of a computer to perform the abstract ideas: When considering the such analysis performed mentally, or with paper and pencil, may take considerable time and effort, and although a general-purpose computer can perform these calculations at a rate and accuracy that can far exceed the mental performance of a skilled artisan, the nature of the activity is essentially the same, and therefore constitutes an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c) and (d).] Additionally, claim 3 recites a law of nature in the correlation of naturally occurring inhalation of pollution by an individual and the exertion of the individual [see MPEP 2106.04(b).] Therefore, the claims recite elements that constitute a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea of mental processes, mathematical concepts, and a law of nature. (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In Step 2A, Prong One above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs). Here at Step 2A, Prong Two, any remaining steps and/or elements not identified as JEs are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s), and are considered additional elements. Because the claims have been interpreted as being directed to judicial exceptions (abstract ideas in this instance) then Step 2A, Prong Two provides that the claims be examined further to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application [see MPEP § 2106.04(d)]. A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
54. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) lists the following five example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
(1) An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).
(3) Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b).
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c).
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The claims recite additional elements as follows:
Additional elements of data gathering, inputting, and outputting steps: Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 13-14, and 22-24 recite additional elements to receive, generate, output, obtain, or provide data. Data gathering steps are additional elements which perform functions of inputting, collecting, and outputting the data needed to carry out the abstract idea. These steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea or how it is performed, nor do they provide an improvement to technology (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I)).
Additional elements of computer components and sensors are recited as follows: a system in claims 1, 3-12, and 22-26; an air pollution sensor in claim 1, 13, and 22; a processor in claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 15, and 22-24; a user-interface in claims 1, 13, and 22; an exertion sensor in claims 4 and 22; a vital sign sensor in claims 4, 14, and 22; an individual physical characteristic sensor in claim 7; a terrain module in claim 8; and a non-transitory computer program product and medium of claim 15. The claims require only generic computer components and sensors, which do not improve computer technology, and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Additional elements of motors are recited as: a motored device in claims 12 and 26; a motor in claims 12, 18, and 26. The claims require only generic motors and motors devices, which do not improve motor technology, and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A Prong Two summary: The claims have been further analyzed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, and no additional elements have been found, alone or in combination, that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. At this point in examination, it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A Prong Two considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of: (1) an improvement, (2) a treatment, (3) a particular machine, or (4) a transformation is clear in the record.
Regarding an improvement to technology, the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including the Specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field, and the claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement.
Note concerning a possible transformation recited in claims 12, 18, and 26:
Referring to 101 analysis step 2A, Prong Two and the "consideration" regarding "transformation," method claim 18 recites certain embodiments in which a transformation is seen between the (calculated) recommended exertion of the individual (i.e., the result of the judicial exceptions (JEs) of data analysis) and the varying the level of assistance of a motor (which is informed by the result of the JEs in certain embodiments). However, because claim 18 recites "varying... a level of assistance based on one or more of the ...pollution level...and the recommended exertion," then not all embodiments of claim 18 include a transformation of the varying of assistance being informed by the output of the JEs (i.e., the calculated recommended exertion), in that the varying of assistance could be based solely on the identified pollution level, which is not identified as a result of the JEs, but is identified through a data gathering step. If a physical transformation informed by an identified JE is required in all embodiments, then 101 may be satisfied. MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(c) further explains regarding transformation and patent eligibility.
System claims 12 and 26 recite a similar issue to claim 18 discussed above, in which not all embodiments recite a transformation. Further, claims 12 and 26 present an additional issue in that there is not an active step of varying the level of assistance, only an intended use of the motor (motor adapted to vary).
Amending claims 12, 18, and 26 appropriately to include an active step of varying assistance which is informed by the calculated recommended exertion in all embodiments might be a step toward reciting a practical application of a transformation and possible withdrawal of the 101 for claims 12, 18, and 26.
(Step 2A, Prong Two: No).
Step 2B analysis:
Because the additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea or law of nature into a practical application, the claims are further examined under Step 2B, which evaluates whether the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself by providing an inventive concept. An inventive concept is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP § 2106.05).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Those additional elements are as follows:
Additional elements of data gathering, inputting, and outputting steps: The additional elements to receive, generate, output, obtain, or provide data of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 13-14, and 22-24 do not cause the claims to rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory [see MPEP§2106.05(d)(II)], as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as extra-solution activity.
Additional elements of computer components and sensors: The additional elements of a system in claims 1, 3-12, and 22-26; an air pollution sensor in claim 1, 13, and 22; a processor in claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 15, and 22-24; a user-interface in claims 1, 13, and 22; an exertion sensor in claims 4 and 22; a vital sign sensor in claims 4, 14, and 22; an individual physical characteristic sensor in claim 7; a terrain module in claim 8; and a non-transitory computer program product and medium of claim 15 do not cause the claims to rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such do not provide an inventive concept; these are conventional computer components and sensors.
The air pollution sensors and exertion and vital sign sensors are shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional by the following reference:
Ang (Big Data Research, vol. 4, pages 1-12 (2016); cited on the 01/18/2024 form PTO-892) presents a review of big sensor data systems used in urban environments (entire document) discusses air pollution monitoring methods, sensors, and devices (p.3-5); shows mobile healthcare applications with wearable sensors to measure different types of health conditions (e.g. temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, pulse oximetry, electrocardiogram) (p.5-6); spatially referenced mobile sensor data including GPS data (p.6, table 2); and remote monitoring of vital health parameters (p.7, col.1).
Additional element of assistive device: The motored device in claims 12 and 26, and a motor in claims 12, 18, and 26, are shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional by the following reference:
Fishman (Transport reviews, vol. 36(1), pages 72-91 (2016); cited on the 08/08/2025 form PTO-892) presents a review on e-bikes; and discusses motors (p.2-4, and entire document).
Further regarding the conventionality of additional elements, the MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d) presents several points relevant to conventional computers and data gathering steps in regard to Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, including:
Further regarding the conventionality of additional elements, the MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d) presents several points relevant to conventional computers and data gathering steps in regard to Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, including:
• A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, does not qualify as a particular machine (see 2106.05(b)(I)), as in the case of the processor, the user interface, the individual characteristic sensor, the terrain module, the computer, the computer readable medium, etc., recited throughout the claims which are interpreted to recite conventional computer components or databases for analysis and calculations.
• Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (see 2106.05(b)(III). The conventional computer components, air pollution sensor, exertion sensor, and vital sign sensor of the claims do not impose meaningful limitations on the claims.
• The courts have recognized "receiving or transmitting data over a network", "performing repetitive calculations", and "storing and retrieving information in memory", as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The elements to receive, generate, output, obtain, or provide data in the claims are recited in a generic manner.
All the limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-15, 18, and 22-26 have been analyzed with respect to Step 2B, and none of these claims provide a specific inventive concept, as they all fail to rise to the level of significantly more than the identified judicial exception, and thus do not transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application of the exceptions. Step2B: NO.
Therefore, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Applicant Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not yet persuasive.
Step 2A Prong One arguments:
The Applicant asserts (p.11-21):
• "The claims are not directed to a mental process...( p.11-14).
• "The claims are not directed to a mathematical concept."(p.14, and discussed throughout p.14-21)
• "How can it be that ...Examples 38 and 39 do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation and yet certain identified steps in the present claims allegedly do recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation? This cannot be reconciled. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception." (p.19)
• "If the fact patterns of claims under examination cannot be analogized to Examples 38, 39, and 41, then the examples are useless...Applicant's conclusion that "[t]here is no question that the present claims more closely align with Examples 38 and 39, and are vastly different than Example 41" remains a valid conclusion. Accordingly...each of the claims as a whole are not directed to a judicial exception." ( p.20-21)
The Step 2A Prong One arguments are not persuasive. When considering the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims limitations for, e.g., mental processes for calculating a recommended exertion of the individual; determining a relationship between an amount of pollution inhaled by the individual and an exertion of the individual; calculating an adjustment to the current exertion, there is no detail or complexity recited in the limitations which would prevent performing the steps in the human mind or with pen and paper [see MPEP§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III)]. Additionally, the claim elements reciting "calculated", "calculate", and/or "calculating" recite mathematical concepts in determining numerical measures based on calculations [see MPEP§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I)]. Further, the steps involving mathematical concepts are also characterized as mental processes, as the limitations reciting calculations include embodiments simple enough to be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Regarding Examples 38, 39, and 41, particular claims of these examples resulted in integration of the JEs into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two. At present, the recited JEs of the instant application are not yet integrated into a practical application; see Step 2A Prong Two discussion below.
Step 2A Prong Two arguments:
The Applicant asserts (p.21-22):
• "...the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, and... incorporate any judicial exception into a practical application..." (p.21)
• "...the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the protection of an individual by determining a recommended exertion rate of the individual when travelling through an area to minimize inhalation of air pollution while maximizing exertion of the individual to achieve the individual's exertion goal..." (p.21)
• "The specification recites a specific technological problem...namely the problem of pollution monitoring and exertion recommendation in view of the pollution level. The claims provide a provide a technological solution... namely the improved ability to monitor pollution and provide an exertion recommendation to a user, reflecting the improvement..." (p.21)
• "The claims also comprise a practical application because the invention applies and uses the alleged abstract idea in a particular technological environment. The claims recite a combination of elements encompassing a very specific method/system for measuring pollution and recommending an exertion level to an individual. The elements of the independent claims, for example, when viewed as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by sufficiently limiting the use of the alleged abstract idea to the very specific system and method for measuring pollution and recommending an exertion level to an individual." (p.22)
Regarding an improvement to technology or to a technical field (the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)), the record, including the Specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field, and the claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement. While the claims result in a measured pollution level and a recommendation for exertion, these are respectively the result of a generic data gathering step and the result of the abstract ideas for data analysis. It is not yet clear that the JEs are integrated into a practical application with a sufficient accompanying explanation.
A detailed explanation of a technical improvement may help to overcome a 101 rejection, (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and (d)(1), as well as MPEP 2106.05(a)). The explanation might include a concise statement of the improvement, including improvement over the previous state of the technology field; identification of the technology field; explanation of how the claims deliver the improvement and that reasonably all embodiments within the claim scope also will result in the asserted improvement, and extension of the explanation to persuasively demonstrate the nexus of integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. As further examples, arguments may clearly and adequately explain cause and effect leading to improvement or, for example when such cause and effect explanation is not possible, then may include evidence (e.g. experimental data) comparing a claimed result to conventional results. Also, arguments and evidence may be extrinsic to the original disclosure, including references available after the priority date, as long as it is clear that an argument applies to all embodiments of a properly supported claim. In the present invention, the 01/05/2026 arguments do not persuasively explain the improvement.
Regarding another path toward overcoming the 101, a transformation is nearly shown in several claims, and the following note is reiterated from the Step 2A Prong Two section in the instant 101 rejection:
Method claim 18 recites certain embodiments in which a transformation is seenbetween the (calculated) recommended exertion of the individual (i.e., the result of the judicial exceptions (JEs) of data analysis) and the varying the level of assistance of a motor (which is informed by the result of the JEs in certain embodiments). However, because claim 18 recites "varying... a level of assistance based on one or more of the ...pollution level...and the recommended exertion," then not all embodiments of claim 18 include a transformation of the varying of assistance being informed by the output of the JEs (i.e., the calculated recommended exertion), in that the varying of assistance could be based solely on the identified pollution level, which is not identified as a result of the JEs, but is identified through a data gathering step.
System claims 12 and 26 recite a similar issue to claim 18 discussed above, in which not all embodiments recite a transformation. Further, claims 12 and 26 present an additional issue in that there is not an active step of varying the level of assistance, only an intended use of the motor (motor adapted to vary).
Amending claims 12, 18, and 26 appropriately to include an active step of varying assistance which is informed by the calculated recommended exertion in all embodiments might be a step toward reciting a practical application of a transformation and possible withdrawal of the 101 for claims 12, 18, and 26.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-15, 18, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney, (IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 20(2), pages 704-715 (April 2018); cited on the 01/18/2024 form PTO-892), in view of Nakamura, (In 2012 IEEE/IPSJ 12th International Symposium on Applications and the Internet, pages 83-90, IEEE (2012); cited on the 01/18/2024 form PTO-892), in view of Hu, (In Proceedings of the MLSDA 2014 2nd workshop on machine learning for sensory data analysis, pages 48-55 (2014); cited on the 01/18/2024 form PTO-892), in view of Bigazzi, (International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, vol. 11(3), pages 221-229 (2017), cited on the 08/08/2025 form PTO-892); in view of Hancock, (US 2016/0039496; 11 February 2016; cited on the 01/18/2024 form PTO-892).
Independent claim 1 recites a system comprising an air pollution sensor to identify a pollution level of an area where an individual will travel; and a processor to receive an exertion goal, receive the pollution level, and calculate a recommended exertion of the individual, based on the exertion goal and the pollution level, that minimizes inhalation of air pollution while maximining exertion to achieve the individual's exertion goal; and a user interface to provide a sensory output indicating the recommended exertion.
Independent claim 13 recites a method consisting of similar steps to determine a recommended exertion as recited in claim 1.
Independent claim 22 recites a system comprising similar steps to provide a recommended exertion as recited in claim 1. Independent claim 22 further comprises steps for an exertion sensor comprising a vital sign sensor; and for generating and providing a recommended adjustment to current exertion via the user interface.
Dependent claim 3 further recites the processor is configured to determine a relationship between an amount of pollution inhaled by the individual and an exertion of the individual, and to calculate the recommended exertion of the individual based on the relationship. Dependent claim 4 further recites an exertion sensor comprising a vital sign sensor to generate a signal indicating a current exertion of the individual; and the processor is configured to receive the signal, calculate a recommended exertion adjustment based on both the recommended and current exertion and the exertion goal. Dependent claim 6 further recites the sensory output indicative of the recommended exertion comprises a visual, tactile, or audible output.
Dependent claim 7 (and similarly in claim 24) further recites an individual physical characteristic sensor to obtain a signal comprising physical characteristics of the individual, and the processor is configured to receive the physical characteristics signal and calculate the recommended exertion based on the physical characteristics. Dependent claim 8 (and similar in dependent claim 23) further recites a terrain module to determine characteristic(s) of the terrain, comprising incline/decline, roughness, obstacles, in the travel area, wherein the processor is configured to receive terrain characteristics and calculate the recommended exertion of the individual further based on the terrain characteristics. Dependent claim 9 further recites the processor receives an intended route of the individual, and calculates the recommended exertion of the individual further based on the intended route.
Dependent claims 12, 18, and 26 further recite a motored device for individual travel through the area with a motor adapted to vary a level of assistance based on the pollution level and/or the recommended exertion (and includes the exertion goal only in claim 26). Dependent claim 14 further recites receiving from the vital sign sensor a signal of the current exertion of the individual; and calculating a recommended adjustment to the individual's exertion to try to achieve the exertion goal based on the recommended and current exertion. Dependent claim 15 further recites a non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer readable medium comprising code that when executed, implements the method of claim 13. Dependent claim 25 recites the physical characteristics comprise an individual fitness level, age, gender, height, weight, or pollution sensitivity.
Sweeney shows the instrumentation and modification of an off-the-shelf electric bike, with a cyber-physical control system (i.e., a computer system and program) to manage the interaction between the cyclist and the electric motor, in order to mitigate the effects of urban pollution on a cyclist (p.704, col.2). Sweeney shows experiments measuring cyclist normalized ventilation rates (i.e., exertion rates) at different levels of m* (p.711, col.1), [m* is a reference value for m; and m is the proportion of power provided by the cyclist to move the rear wheel, see p.707, col.1]; and shows the ventilation rate data for the final 3 minutes of each experiment was used to determine the cyclist’s ventilation rate at metabolic steady state for a particular value of m∗ (i.e., a recommended exertion of the individual); this data was then used to calculate the normalized ventilation rate at metabolic steady state (i.e., calculate recommended exertion). The normalized measurements clearly illustrate a consistent qualitative relationship between m∗ and the ventilation rate (ventilation rate increases with m∗) (p.711, col.1). Sweeney shows control of ventilation at different m* (i.e., reducing exertion and varying assistance level) (p.713, figs. 10, 11, and 13). Sweeney shows ventilation rates were measured using a COSMED Spiropalm 6MWT spirometer (p.710. col.2). Sweeney states the proposed system can be used to reduce the inhalation of air pollutants by cyclists in areas of high urban air pollution (p.709, col.2). (Showing a system for calculating recommended exertion of claim 1 and 13; a relationship between inhalation and exertion of claim 3; calculating an adjustment to exertion and vital sign sensor of claim 4, 14, and 22; reducing exertion and varying assistance level of claim 12, 18, and 26; and a computer program product of claim 15).
Sweeney teaches a cyber-physical control system to manage the interaction between the cyclist and the electric motor (of an e-bike) which reduces pollution inhalation while cycling (entire document); and shows calculations involving maximum ventilation rate (esp. at p.713, figures 10, 11, 13, and table VII); the maximum ventilation rate can be considered maximizing the exertion of claims 1, 4, 12-14, and 22.
While Sweeney shows a section on Pollution Estimation, and discusses low cost sensors used in ubiquitous low-cost sensing, which may be integrated into the bike’s control system (showing pollution levels of future areas to travel of claims 1, 13, and 23), and were used in Denmark as part of the Copenhagen Wheel Trial (p.709, col.1), Sweeney does not explicitly show:
• an air pollution sensor of claims 1, 13, and 22 (taught by Hu, as well as Nakamura)
• the exertion goal of claims 1, 4, 12-14, 22, and 26 (taught by Hancock)
• receiving and generating of signals of claims 4, 7, 14, and 22 (taught by Hancock)
• recommended exertion based on the pollution level of claims 1, 13, and 22 (taught by Bigazzi)
• pollution inhaled and relationship between inhaled pollution and exertion of claim 3 (taught by Hu)
• the sensory output system of claims 1, 6, 13, and 22 (taught by Nakamura)
• determining individual characteristics, terrain characteristics, intended route, pollution levels along intended route, or goals of claims 7-9 and 23-25 (taught by Hancock)
• a terrain module to determine and receive terrain characteristics of claim 8 and 23 (taught by Hancock)
• the individual characteristics of age, gender, weight of claim 25 (taught by Hancock)
Nakamura shows bicycles equipped with NO2 sensors to gather and share information on air pollution (p.86, col.1), and an application (the third application) designed to notify cyclists about air pollution, which uses a push button and LED lamp on the experimental sensor terminal to indicate the air pollution conditions in the direction of forward movement (p.86) (showing the air pollution sensor, measuring pollution through the travel area of claim 1, 3, 13, and 22; and visual sensory output of claims 1, 6, 13, and 22).
Hu shows a mobile application that estimates personal air pollution dosage (i.e., inhalation of pollution) using human energy expenditure and other personal data from wearable activity sensor devices (p.2, col.1) (showing inhalation of pollution of claim 1 and 13, and relationship between inhaled pollution and exertion of claim 3).
Bigazzi shows a study on determining the pedestrian and bicycle steady-state travel speeds that minimize air pollution inhalation dose per unit distance. The minimum dose-speed (MDS) is a numerical measure calculated from pollutant concentration in breathing zone air, ventilation rate, and travel speed (bridging p.221-222, and entire document), and as such the MDS, which is a recommended speed for minimum pollution dosage, is a recommended exertion, as it is calculated from an identified pollution level which takes into account the individual’s resulting inhalation when travelling (showing a recommended exertion based on the pollution level of claims 1 and 13).
Hancock shows individual characteristics [0039, 0079]; terrain characteristics [0040, 0077]; intended route [0041, 0080]; individual goals and performance goals (i.e., exertion goals) [0043-0044, 0083]. Hancock shows a table storing information about a particular route (i.e., a terrain module); information includes route incline/decline information [0071 and Fig.3D]. Hancock shows embodiments may further analyze the bicycle information or the rider information in conjunction with the route information. In doing so, embodiments may, for example, determine at what cadence the rider generates the maximum power, and may also determine what grade of road the rider is able to generate the maximum power [0086]. Hancock also shows receiving signals from a plurality of sensors [0110] which may include a wide variety of sensors, including an air quality sensor (Hancock [0115]). (Showing determining individual characteristics, terrain characteristics, intended route, pollution levels along intended route, or goals of claims 7-9 and 23-25; the exertion goal of claims 1, 4, 12-14, 22, and 26; the receiving and generating of signals of claims 4, 7, 14, and 22; the terrain module to determine and receive terrain characteristics of claim 8 and 23; and the individual characteristics of age, gender, weight of claim 25.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for managing ventilation rates by varying the assistive power of e-bikes of Sweeney, with the pollution sensors and sensory output system of Nakamura, with application for estimating personal inhalation of air pollution of Hu, with the calculations determining a recommended speed for minimum pollution dosage while biking of Bigazzi, with the exertion goals and terrain information of Hancock, to come to a system and method for determining and maximizing a recommended exertion rate and minimize pollution inhalation while travelling, because Sweeney shows using their system, the air ventilation rate of the cyclist can be indirectly controlled, and that e-bikes can effectively be exploited to mitigate the effects of pollution on cyclists (p.714, col.1), providing guidance toward reducing pollution inhalation while using assistive, interactive e-bikes; while Nakamura shows precise observation results are due to the high-precision but portable NO2 sensor device technology (p.87, col.1). Hu states that users with or without activity sensors, can all benefit from the application predicting personal air pollution dose based on human energy expenditure rate data and air pollution concentration data acquired from wearable sensors (p.7, col.1), while Bigazzi discloses their MDS (minimum-dose speed) equations and results strongly support the existence of a finite MDS for pedestrians and bicyclists (p.226, col.1). Additionally, Hancock provides motivation to combine by showing embodiments of their invention may use location information, terrain information, rider preferences, biometric information, and bicycle information to improve a rider experience [0009]; and that in some embodiments, two or more of location information, biometric information, rider preferences, terrain information and bicycle information may be analyzed together to achieve anticipatory shifting of a transmission to meet the riders intended use [0011]. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining, as Sweeney, Nakamura, and Bigazzi are drawn to related teachings of research involving bicycles and air pollution; Hu focuses on human activity and exposure to air pollution; and Hancock teaches assistive bikes with network connectivity to access a wide range of data, with a wide variety of sensors, including an air quality sensor (Hancock [0115]). As such, the combination would have been obvious.
Response to Applicant Arguments - 35 USC § 103:
The Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts (p.23):
• "Sweeney in view of one or more of Nakamura, Hu, and Bigazzi, and Hancock fails to suggest or render obvious "a processor configured to ... calculate, based at least in part on the received identified air pollution level and the received exertion goal, a recommended exertion of the individual that minimizes inhalation of air pollution by the individual while maximizing exertion of the individual to achieve the individual's exertion goal." (p.23)
• There is no disclosure or suggestion in Sweeney in view of one or more of Nakamura, Hu, and Bigazzi, and Hancock of simultaneously minimizing inhalation of air pollution by the individual - based on sensor readings
of air pollution of a future travel point - while maximizing exertion of the individual to achieve the individual's exertion goal.(p.23)
The arguments are not persuasive as Sweeney (p. 711, col. 1) shows calculating exertion rates; Nakamura (p.86, col.2) shows identifying pollution along a route; and Hancock shows individual characteristics [0039, 0079]; terrain characteristics [0040, 0077]; intended route [0041, 0080]; and individual goals [0043, 0083]; and Hancock further shows embodiments may further analyze the bicycle information or the rider information in conjunction with the route information. In doing so, embodiments may, for example, determine at what cadence the rider generates the maximum power (i.e., maximizing exertion goal), and may also determine what grade of road the rider is able to generate the maximum power [0086] (showing determining individual characteristics, terrain characteristics, intended route, pollution levels along intended route, and individual goals). Additionally, Hancock also shows receiving signals from a plurality of sensors [0110] which may include a wide variety of sensors, including an air quality sensor (Hancock [0115]), further adding motivation to combine. Sweeney teaches a cyber-physical control system to manage the interaction between the cyclist and the electric motor (of an e-bike) which reduces pollution inhalation while cycling (entire document); and shows calculations involving maximum ventilation rate (esp. at p.713, figures 10, 11, 13, and table VII); the maximum ventilation rate can be considered maximizing the exertion goal.
Applicant asserts (p.23-27):
• "...one of skill in the art modifying Sweeney in view of each of Nakamura, Hu, and Bigazzi (and then with Hancock for some of the dependent claims) would have had to been prescient to arrive at the claimed invention." (p.23)
• "It is easy to argue motivations in isolation, but that is not how a 103 obviousness argument is composed. Rather, there must be a motivation as to why one of skill in the art would have modified the Sweeney reference with the other three references together to arrive at the claimed invention, somehow being prescient enough to combine these four (five, when counting Hancock) completely different and unrelated motivations."
• "the provided motivations to combine Sweeney in view of each of Nakamura, Hu, and Bigazzi (and then with Hancock for some of the dependent claims) are insufficient and don't provide the requirements for a motivation to modify/combine." (p.25)
The 103 arguments are not persuasive.
Motivation to combine Sweeney in view of each of Nakamura, Hu, and Bigazzi, and further with Hancock, includes: " because Sweeney et al. shows using their system, the air ventilation rate of the cyclist can be indirectly controlled, and that e-bikes can effectively be exploited to mitigate the effects of pollution on cyclists (p.714, col.1), providing guidance toward reducing pollution inhalation while using assistive, interactive e-bikes; while Nakamura et al. shows precise observation results are due to the high-precision but portable NO2 sensor device technology (p .87, col.1 ). Hu et al. states that users with or without activity sensors, can all benefit from the application predicting personal air pollution dose based on human energy expenditure rate data and air pollution concentration data acquired from wearable sensors (p. 7, col. I), while Bigazzi discloses their MDS (minimum-dose speed) equations and results strongly support the existence of a finite MDS for pedestrians and bicyclists (p.226, col.1). Hancock teaches the controller may consider other information, such as other rider information, terrain information, route information or bicycle information for determining the route, including identifying different routes that allow the user to not exceed a maximum heart rate or keep the heart rate within a specified range, identifying different routes that might cause the rider to exceed a maximum heart rate or that will result in a wide variation in heart rate, identifying routes based on the experiences and ratings of other riders having similar goals, preferences, or interests as the rider, identifying routes based on the bicycle, or some other criteria.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining, as Sweeney, Nakamura, and Bigazzi are drawn to related teachings of research involving bicycles and air pollution; Hu focuses on human activity and exposure to air pollution; and Hancock teaches assistive bikes with network connectivity to access a wide range of data, with a wide variety of sensors, including an air quality sensor (Hancock [0115]). It is considered that a PHOSITA would have recognized and understood how to combine the related references, and as such, the combination would have been obvious.
Note about relevant prior art not used in the 103 rejection:
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
• Bodaghi, A., 2016. A novel pervasive computing method to enhance efficiency of walking activity. Health and Technology, vol. 6(4), pages 269-276. (Cited on the 08/08/2025 form PTO-892.)
• Wisbey, Systems, methods and devices for providing an exertion recommendation based on performance capacity. U.S. Patent Application Pub No. US 2017/0216672 A1, published 03 August 2017. (Cited on the 08/08/2025 form PTO-892.)
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Meredith A Vassell whose telephone number is (571)272-1771. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 4:30.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571)272-9047. 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.
/M.A.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights