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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/30/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive or are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues, “Applicant believes the evaluation for determining whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea must involving evaluation for whether the claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. As noted above, the invention defined in claim 1 provides an improvement over the functioning of the prior art smart wearable device in issuing notification for inappropriate exercise operations…the invention improves the drawback of the prior art by first determining whether a user is exercising or resting based on acceleration measurements, and then applying various logical flows to determine whether the user is tired respectively during exercise and when resting, such that tiredness of the user thus determined is more in line with actual situation…”
Examiner respectfully states that even if the claimed invention provides an improvement, the claimed invention still does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection since claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are still directed to abstract ideas and are therefore not patent eligible.
Specifically, the limitations
“I) outputting a first notification indicating that the user is tired when the determination made in step H) is affirmative,
L) … outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements”
are directed to insignificant post solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
32. In other words, the above recited limitations merely process information and then output the results of the above identified abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited outputting is neither particular enough to meaningfully limit the recited exception nor does it have more than a nominal relationship to the exception. In other words, the breadth of the recited outputting is such that it substantially encompasses all applications of the recited exception (such as moving information around to display a notification related to the tiredness of the user).
33. There is nothing in the claims which show how outputting the above recited limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
34. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Claim Interpretation
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In re claim 1:
“a heart rate measuring unit of the detecting device for measuring heart rate of the user”
“a processing unit of the detecting device for calculating a ratio…”
“a positioning unit of the detecting device for obtaining a plurality of speed measurements”
In re claim 9:
“a heart rate measuring unit configured to measure heart rate of the user at successive time instances”
“a positioning unit configured to detect where the user is located at successive time instances”
“a display unit”
“ a processing unit”
“an acceleration measuring unit”.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to a method implemented by a detecting device wearable on a user who is doing exercise by moving through a plurality of positions to determine tiredness of the user, and a detecting device wearable on a user who is doing exercise by moving through a plurality of positions for determining tiredness of the user, respectively. Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 9 recite the following claim limitations:
the method comprising steps of:
… calculating a ratio of a resulting value of the heart rate measurement minus a resting heart rate of the user to a resulting value of a maximum heart rate of the user minus the resting heart rate to serve as a reference ratio (mental process – person can calculate a ratio using data);
C) selecting one of the exercise modes to which the exercise that the user is doing belongs based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on a last one of the heart rate measurements (mental process – person can guess what exercise a user is doing);
…E) calculating an average of the speed measurements to serve as an average speed (mental process and mathematical equation – person can use pen and paper to calculate an average of the user’s speed);
F) dividing a number of those of the speed measurements that are greater or smaller than the average speed at least by a variation ratio by a total number of the speed measurements to obtain an abnormal speed ratio (mental process and mathematical equation – person can use pen and paper to divide the speed measurements that were greater or smaller than the average speed by a variation ratio by a total number of speed measurements to obtain an abnormal speed ratio);
G) determining
whether the average speed is greater than a predetermined speed and
whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than a predetermined ratio (mental process – person can detect if average speed is greater than a predetermined speed and if an abnormal speed ratio is smaller than a predetermined ratio);
H) when the determination on whether the average speed is greater than the predetermined speed and the determination on whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than the predetermined ratio are both affirmative, determining whether the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements is greater than the reference ratio that was calculated based on a previous one of the heart rate measurements at least by the variation threshold of said one of the exercise modes (mathematical relationships – person can determine the relationships between the reference ration based on the last heart rate measurements and the reference ratio based on a previous heart rate measurement compared with the variation threshold),
…wherein the method further comprises, before step C), steps of:
…K) determining whether all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold (mental process – person can determine if values are smaller than a predetermined value threshold);
L) when it is determined that all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold, determining tiredness of the user (mental process – person can determine tiredness)…
M) when it is determined that not all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold, executing steps C) to I) (mental process – person can determine that values are not smaller than a threshold and perform another set of steps to determine fatigue).
Claim 9 also recites, “further configured to calculate a plurality of speed measurements of the user based on the positions” (mental process and mathematical equations – person can calculate a user’s speed based on their position).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, i.e., using pen and paper (i.e. mental processes), as well as limitations that are mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculations (i.e. mathematical concepts).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
a detecting device…
wherein the detecting device stores a plurality of exercise modes respectively defined by a plurality of first ranges of heart-rate-related ratios, each of the exercise modes having a variation threshold and a predetermined exercise time period,
the method comprising steps of:
A) operating a heart rate measuring unit of the detecting device for measuring heart rate of the user at successive time instances so as to result in a plurality of heart rate measurements;
B)…operating a processing unit of the detecting device…;
…D) operating a positioning unit of the detecting device for obtaining a plurality of speed measurements of the user, for moving through the plurality of positions, that were successively measured in a past time period having a length equal to the predetermined exercise time period of said one of the exercise modes;
…wherein the previous one of the heart rate measurements was measured earlier than the last one of the heart rate measurements by the predetermined exercise time period of said one of the exercise modes; and
I) outputting a first notification indicating that the user is tired when the determination made in step H) is affirmative,
wherein the method further comprises, before step C), steps of:
J) obtaining a plurality of acceleration measurements of the user, for moving through the plurality of positions, in a predefined time period;
L) … outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements
Claim 9 also recites the following additional elements:
“a heart rate measuring unit”,
“a positioning unit configured to detect where the user is located at successive time instances so as to obtain the plurality of positions”,
“a display unit”; and
“a processing unit electrically connected to
said heart rate measuring unit,
said positioning unit, and
said display unit”.
The following limitations:
a detecting device…
wherein the detecting device stores a plurality of exercise modes respectively defined by a plurality of first ranges of heart-rate-related ratios, each of the exercise modes having a variation threshold and a predetermined exercise time period,
the method comprising steps of:
A) operating a heart rate measuring unit of the detecting device for measuring heart rate of the user at successive time instances so as to result in a plurality of heart rate measurements;
B)…operating a processing unit of the detecting device…;
…D) operating a positioning unit of the detecting device for obtaining a plurality of speed measurements of the user, for moving through the plurality of positions, that were successively measured in a past time period having a length equal to the predetermined exercise time period of said one of the exercise modes;
…wherein the previous one of the heart rate measurements was measured earlier than the last one of the heart rate measurements by the predetermined exercise time period of said one of the exercise modes; and
wherein the method further comprises, before step C), steps of:
J) obtaining a plurality of acceleration measurements of the user, for moving through the plurality of positions, in a predefined time period;
“a heart rate measuring unit”,
“a positioning unit configured to detect where the user is located at successive time instances so as to obtain the plurality of positions”,
“a display unit”; and
“a processing unit electrically connected to
said heart rate measuring unit,
said positioning unit, and
said display unit”,
are interpreted as insignificant extra solution activities. Specifically, the above recited limitations are directed towards pre-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) since they’re used to obtain additional information about the user so that a notification can be outputted indicating that the user is tired (i.e. mere data gathering).
Additionally, the “detecting device” is merely directed towards a generic computer element that outputs a notification indicating that the user is tired. There is no actual treatment being applied to the patient nor is there anything in the claims which show how outputting the above recited limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the limitations
“I) outputting a first notification indicating that the user is tired when the determination made in step H) is affirmative,
L) … outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements”
Examiner asserts that these limitations are directed to additional elements, specifically insignificant post solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
32. The above recited limitations merely process information and then output the results of the above identified abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited outputting is neither particular enough to meaningfully limit the recited exception nor does it have more than a nominal relationship to the exception. In other words, the breadth of the recited “output” is such that it substantially encompasses all applications of the recited exception (such as moving information around to display a notification related to the tiredness of the user).
33. There is nothing in the claims which show how outputting the above recited limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
34. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or a technological solution to a technological problem.
In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the limitation “a processing unit electrically connected…” is a generically recited computer element which does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.
Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the abstract ideas are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, regarding the detecting device, Applicant’s specification discloses:
“the detecting device includes a heart rate measuring unit 1, an acceleration measuring unit 2, a positioning unit 3, a display unit 4 and a processing unit 5. The detecting device may be, but not limited to, a wearable device worn by the user” [0038],
“The acceleration measuring unit 2 may be, but not limited to, an accelerometer” [0040]
“For example, the positioning unit 3 includes a global positioning system (GPS) sensor for obtaining the position of the user, and a computing device (e.g., a processor, a mobile processor, a microprocessor, a microcontroller, etc.) for calculating the speed measurements” [0041], and
“The display unit 4 is configured to output a notification. In this embodiment, the display unit 4 is, but not limited to, a display screen” [0042].
Regarding the detecting device which includes a heart rate measuring unit 1, an acceleration measuring unit 2, a positioning unit 3, a display unit 4 and a processing unit 5, see the below references that disclose similar structure:
Utter II (US 2015/0186609) discloses an analogous wearable [0002] detecting device (fig. 1: 100; [0035]) including
a heart rate measuring unit [0026],
an acceleration measuring unit [0037],
a positioning unit [0050, 0047],
a display unit [0036],
a processing unit [0037], and
wherein heart rate and speed of movement are used to detect fatigue of a user [0030].
Alphonse et al. (US 2019/0183430) discloses a detecting device [0006] including
a heart rate measuring unit [0011],
an acceleration measuring unit [0011],
a positioning unit [0041],
a display unit [0166],
a processing unit [0011], and
wherein heart rate and acceleration are used to detect fatigue of a user [0012].
Thus, the limitations directed to the detecting device including a heart rate measuring unit , an acceleration measuring unit, a positioning unit, a display unit, and a processing unit are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the references above.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and applying the exception in a general way, as well as establishing an environment for which data is gathered.
Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Thus, none of the claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), MPEP §2106.04(d)(2),and MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaaki (JP 2018033565) in view of Theytaz et al. (US 2017/0228996) in view of von Prellwitz et al. (US 2018/0001181).
In re claim 1, Masaaki discloses a method [0007-0008] implemented by a detecting device [0061] wearable on a user [0061] who is doing exercise by moving through a plurality of positions ([0095]: user exercising would involve them moving through a plurality of positions) to determine tiredness of the user [0007], wherein the detecting device stores a plurality of exercise modes ([0007]: load of exercise are exercise modes; [0049]: multiple loads calculated over time; [0098]) respectively defined by a plurality of first ranges of heart–rate-related [0007] values, each of the exercise modes having a variation threshold ([0010-0012]: variation threshold is when the load exceeds any one of an appropriate range, target value, or upper limit) and a predetermined exercise time period ([0033]: time required to reach upper limit value for the exercise load),
the method comprising steps of:
A) operating a heart rate measuring unit [0023, 0087] of the detecting device [0062] for measuring heart rate of the user at successive time instances so as to result in a plurality of heart rate measurements [0054];
B) for each of the heart rate measurements, operating a processing unit ([0091]: wearable device includes processing unit 250; [0054]: portion of processing unit which calculates ratio) of the detecting device for calculating a ratio of a resulting value of the heart rate measurement minus a resting heart rate of the user to a resulting value of a maximum heart rate of the user minus the resting heart rate to serve as a reference ratio ([0054]: ratio i.e. exercise intensity is calculated from heart rate measurement (HR) minus a resting heart rate (HRrest) / a maximum heart rate (HRmax) minus resting heart rate);
C) selecting one of the exercise modes to which the exercise that the user is doing belongs ([0028]: the exercise modes i.e. the load is based on the load of the exercise that is being performed; [0030]) based on the reference value that was calculated based on a last one of the heart rate measurements ([0054-0055]: user’s last heart rate is used to calculate exercise load which is based on the user’s exercise as shown in equation (2));
D) operating a positioning unit ([0091]: portion of processing unit 250) of the detecting device [0091] for obtaining a plurality of speed measurements of the user ([0135]: speed is displayed during the exercise; [0093]), for moving through the plurality of positions ([0135]: exercise such as running requires a plurality of positions and speed measurements are calculated while a user performs the exercise), that were successively measured in a past time period having a length equal to the predetermined exercise time period of said one of the exercise modes ([0135]: past time period is a prior time period when speed was calculated during one of the exercises and would have inherently occurred for a predetermined exercise time period and would have a current exercise load);
…..determining whether the reference value that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements is greater than the reference value that was calculated based on a previous one of the heart rate measurements at least by the variation threshold of said one of the exercise modes ([0159-0160]: daily progression of TRIMP is measured i.e. current reference ratio is compared with the previous reference ratio based on the exercise modes and used to compare the variation threshold i.e. checking for a greater degree of fatigue),
wherein the previous one of the heart rate measurements was measured earlier than the last one of the heart rate measurements by the predetermined exercise time period of said one of the exercise modes ([0160]: daily progression of TRIMP means one of the heart rate measurements occurred earlier than the other one, and is based on the exercise load which takes into account a predetermined exercise time period of the exercise modes [0026, 0057-0059]); and
I) outputting a first notification indicating that the user is tired when the determination made in step H) is affirmative [0013-0014],
wherein the method further comprises, before step C), steps of:
J) obtaining a plurality of acceleration measurements of the user in a predefined time period ([0093]: body movement sensor includes an acceleration sensor 55 which changes in response to body movement and results in a plurality of acceleration measurements in a predefined time period i.e. when body movement is measured);
K) determining whether all heart rate fluctuation (HRV) measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than a predetermined heart rate fluctuation (HRV) threshold ([0153-0157]: when heart rate fluctuation is smaller than before i.e. the predetermined HRV threshold, then fatigue is not recovered and performance declines);
L) when it is determined that all the heart rate fluctuation (HRV) measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined heart rate fluctuation (HRV) threshold (see above),
determining tiredness of the user ([0156]: smaller HRV is an indication of fatigue i.e. tiredness of the patient) and
outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user based on the reference ratio (see in re claim 1 above) that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements ([0175-0176]: state of HRV is displayed on display unit 321; [0152]: HRV is calculated depending on heart rate and load information); and
M) when it is determined that not all the heart rate fluctuation (HRV) measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined heart rate fluctuation (HRV) threshold, executing steps C) to I ([0154]: if the HRV is not lower than the predetermined HRV threshold, then no fatigue is detected based on magnitude of heart rate fluctuation)).
Masaaki fails to disclose
a plurality of first ranges of heart–rate-related ratios…,
C) selecting one of the exercise modes to which the exercise that the user is doing belongs based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on a last one of the heart rate measurements…,
E) calculating an average of the speed measurements to serve as an average speed;
F) dividing a number of those of the speed measurements that are greater or smaller than the average speed at least by a variation ratio by a total number of the speed measurements to obtain an abnormal speed ratio;
G) determining whether the average speed is greater than a predetermined speed and whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than a predetermined ratio;
H) when the determination on whether the average speed is greater than the predetermined speed and the determination on whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than the predetermined ratio are both affirmative…..
determining whether the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements is greater than the reference ratio that was calculated based on a previous one of the heart rate measurements at least by the variation threshold of said one of the exercise modes…
wherein the method further comprises, before step C), steps of:
K) determining whether all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold;
L) when it is determined that all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold,
determining tiredness of the user and
outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements; and
M) when it is determined that not all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold, executing steps C) to I).
Theytaz teaches a method and system for detecting an athlete’s movement [0010], and is analogous in detecting fatigue level [0010], and teaches
a plurality of first ranges of heart–rate-related ratios ([0014]: plurality of heart-rate related ratios are all of the ratios, iterating elements i.e. heart rate to speed ratio is calculated multiple times)
a reference ratio that was calculated based on a heart rate measurement ([0014]: predetermined threshold of the heart rate to speed ratio)
E) calculating an average of the speed measurements to serve as an average speed ([0053]: step cycle time mean is an average speed time since it determines how fast a user is moving; [0051]);
F) dividing a number of those of the speed measurements that are greater or smaller than the average speed at least by a variation ratio by a total number of the speed measurements to obtain an abnormal speed ratio ([0052-0053]: standard deviation is calculated by dividing speed measurements by the mean of the speed measurements to obtain an abnormal speed ratio i.e. when then ratio of the standard deviation to the mean indicates fatigue);
G) determining whether the average speed is greater than a predetermined speed ([0054]: step cycle time are measured with a threshold and different variations can be made such as using the average speed i.e. average step cycle time) and whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than a predetermined ratio ([0052]: when the variability is zero);
H) when the determination on whether the average speed is greater than the predetermined speed ([0054]: higher speed compared with the threshold indicates higher levels of fatigue) and the determination on whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than the predetermined ratio are both affirmative ([0052]: when the variability is zero, the person is not fatigued)…..
determining whether the reference ratio that was calculated based on a last heart rate measurements is greater than the reference ratio that was calculated based on a previous one heart rate measurement at least by a variation threshold of said exercise ([0046-0047]: determines whether a reference ratio of the heart rate to speed is greater than a threshold based on previous heart rate measurements and iterates until the user experiences fatigue; [0042]: variation threshold i.e. different slope of a terrain can adjust heart rate which is detected as indicating fatigue).
Theytaz further teaches that the user will often run at various speeds and that a correlation can be made based on speed and heart rate [0042], and that this ratio can be used as an early indicator of fatigue [0042], and that the user can stop activity once the threshold is reached [0047].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method of determining tiredness of a user taught by Masaaki, to provide a plurality of first ranges of heart–rate-related, a reference ratio that was calculated based on a heart rate measurement, E) calculating an average of the speed measurements to serve as an average speed; F) dividing a number of those of the speed measurements that are greater or smaller than the average speed at least by a variation ratio by a total number of the speed measurements to obtain an abnormal speed ratio; G) determining whether the average speed is greater than a predetermined speed and whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than a predetermined ratio; H) when the determination on whether the average speed is greater than the predetermined speed and the determination on whether the abnormal speed ratio is smaller than the predetermined ratio are both affirmative, determining whether the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements is greater than the reference ratio that was calculated based on a previous one of the heart rate measurements at least by the variation threshold of said one of the exercise modes, as taught by Theytaz, because there is a correlation between speed and heart rate that can be used as an early indicator of fatigue, and that the user can stop activity once a threshold of the ratio between heart rate and speed is exceeded.
Regarding the limitations, “wherein the method further comprises, before step C), steps of:
K) determining whether all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold;
L) when it is determined that all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold,
determining tiredness of the user and
outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements; and
M) when it is determined that not all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold, executing steps C) to I)”,
von Prellwitz teaches an analogous exercise monitoring method [0002] that detects a fatigue state of a subject ([0089]: fatigue is muscular failure detected from data points such as acceleration and heart rate), and wherein the method comprises
K) determining whether an acceleration measurement [0051] in a predefined time period ([0089]: time period where acceleration is measured) is smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold [0089];
L) when it is determined that the acceleration measurement in the predefined time period is smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold (see above),
determining tiredness of the user ([0089]: acceleration being below a threshold indicates a user is facing fatigue from muscular failure) and
outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user ([0089]: acceleration diminishing causes a decreased resistance in regards to an exercise, which is interpreted as a second notification related to the tiredness of the user); and
M) when it is determined that the acceleration measurement in the predefined time period is smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold, ([0089-0090]: instead of acceleration being diminished, heart rate compared to a heart rate threshold can be used to control resistance of a user due to them facing fatigue or not), heart rate is used to determine tiredness of a user ([0090]: if a user’s heart rate is below a threshold, then it’s determined that they’re not facing fatigue and resistance of an exercise is increased whereas if a user’s heart rate is above a threshold, then it’s determined that they are facing fatigue and resistance of an exercise is decreased).
von Prellwitz further teaches that both acceleration and heart rate act as a proxy for fatigue [0089], therefore, they can be used to adjust a resistance level of an exercise [0089], so that the user can have an automated [0083] and personalized workout [0083] based on their own resistance curves that are continuously adjusted during an exercise [0083].
The proposed combination would be for the method yielded by the proposed combination of Masaaki and Theytaz to use acceleration instead of heart rate fluctuation (HRV) while performing the steps of J-M before step C, since they can both be used to determine fatigue in a user, and since the Masaaki already teaches measuring acceleration (see above).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for determining fatigue yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the method further comprises, before step C), steps of: K) determining whether all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold; L) when it is determined that all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold, determining tiredness of the user and outputting a second notification related to the tiredness of the user based on the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements; and M) when it is determined that not all the acceleration measurements in the predefined time period are smaller than the predetermined acceleration threshold, executing steps C) to I), as taught by the acceleration and heart rate in von Prellwitz being used to determine fatigue, because both acceleration and heart rate act as a proxy for fatigue, and can be used to adjust a resistance level of an exercise so a user can have an automated and personalized workout based on their own resistance curves that are continuously adjusted during an exercise.
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping is directed to Masaaki unless stated otherwise) the detecting device further storing a plurality of tiredness levels [0108] respectively defined by a plurality of second ranges of heart–rate-related ratios ([0154]: heart rate fluctuation calculated over times i.e. a plurality of second ranges of heart-rate related values; [0161]; can be ratios as discussed in re claim 1 above by Theytaz), wherein step L) includes:
determining which one of the second ranges of heart-rate-related ratios the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements falls into ([0160-0162]: HRV is divided into different stages; [0153]: HRV is based on heart rate and would include the last heart rate measurement); and
determining that the user is at one of the tiredness levels that corresponds to one of the second ranges of heart-rate-related ratios [0154-0155, 0160-0164], into which the reference ratio that was calculated based on the last one of the heart rate measurements falls ([0154-0155]: HRV is used to determine degree of fatigue and would include the last heart rate measurement).
In re claim 5, the propose combination fails to explicitly yield wherein the predetermined acceleration threshold is 20 cm/s2.
However, at the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide wherein the predetermined acceleration threshold is 20 cm/s2. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed temperature provided in the acquisition unit (c) is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider an acceleration threshold around 20cm/s2 because that is typically the acceleration threshold of a user running, and the acceleration threshold couldn’t be too low because then indication of fatigue wouldn’t be accurate, and it also can’t be too high because then the user could be harmed if they’re not notified of the indication of fatigue in a timely manner.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “wherein the predetermined acceleration threshold is 20 cm/s2”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the predetermined acceleration threshold is 20 cm/s2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 6, fails to explicitly discloses wherein the variation ratio is 20%.
Additionally, at the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide variation ratio is 20. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed temperature provided in the acquisition unit (c) is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a variation ratio that would not be too low to harm the patient if fatigue was not detected early enough, and it also could not be too high because then the indication of fatigue would not be accurate.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “wherein the variation ratio is 20%”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the variation ratio is 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 8, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the variation threshold of each of the exercise modes is 10%.
Theytaz teaches that a variation threshold for each of the exercise modes is 10% ([0066]; [0014]: each iteration of exercise is considered as an exercise mode). Theytaz further teaches that the variation threshold is determined based on the heart rate at the end of an intensive period [0066].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for determining fatigue yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the variation threshold of each of the exercise modes is 10%, as taught by Theytaz, because it’s obvious that each of the exercise modes should have a variation threshold that isn’t too high before the user is alerted that they’re experiencing fatigue, therefor setting the variation threshold to 10% of the heart rate after the end of an intensive period ensures that the variation threshold is not too low.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “wherein the variation threshold of each of the exercise modes is 10%”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the variation threshold of each of the exercise modes is 10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 9, Masaaki discloses a detecting device [0030, 0007] wearable on a user (see in re claim 1 above) who is doing exercise by moving through a plurality of positions (see in re claim 1 above) for determining tiredness of the user [0007-0008, 0030], comprising:
a heart rate measuring unit configured to measure heart rate of the user at successive time instances so as to result in a plurality of heart rate measurements (see in re claim 1 above);
a positioning unit [0100, 0115]
configured to detect where the user is located at successive time instances so as to obtain the plurality of positions (the limitation “configured to detect where the user is located at successive time instances so as to obtain a plurality of positions” is functional and therefore since this is directed to an apparatus, this limitation is not required by the claim and it is only required that the structure is capable of being configured to do the recited limitation, see MPEP 2114), and
further configured to calculate a plurality of speed measurements of the user based on the plurality of positions (the limitation “configured to calculate a plurality of speed measurements of the user based on the positions” is functional and therefore since this is directed to an apparatus, this limitation is not required by the claim and it is only required that the structure is capable of being configured to do the recited limitation, see MPEP 2114);
a display unit [0075]; and
a processing unit ([0100-0101,0091]: combination of processing unity 250 and processing unit 310 make up the recited processing unit) electrically connected to
said heart rate measuring unit ([0091-0092]: pulse wave sensor unit 40 which detects pulse information is electrically coupled to processing unity 250),
said positioning unit [0100, 0115], and
said display unit ([0075, 0091]: display unit is electrically connected to the processing unity 250).
Regarding the limitations,
“storing a plurality of exercise modes respectively defined by a plurality of first ranges of heart–rate-related ratios, each of the exercise modes having a variation threshold and a predetermined exercise time period,
said processing unit being configured to implement a tiredness-determining procedure that includes steps of
a) obtaining the heart rate measurements of the user from said heart rate measuring unit,
b) for each of the heart rate measurements, calculating a ratio of a resulting value of the heart rate measurement minus a resting heart rate of the user to a resulting value of a maximum heart rate of the user minus the resting heart rate to serve as a reference ratio,
c) selecting one of the e