DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 08/05/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160081630 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Aoshima”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Aoshima teaches an electronic device/ A method for selecting an algorithm in an electronic device including a biometric detection value acquirer to acquire a biometric detection value for calculation of biometric information of a wearer and a processor/ A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program executable by a processor of an electronic device, the electronic device including a biometric detection value acquirer to acquire a biometric detection value for calculation of biometric information of a wearer and the processor (abstract) comprising:
a biometric detection value acquirer (10/110; paragraph [0089]; Figure 4) to acquire a biometric detection value for calculation of biometric information of a wearer of the electronic device (paragraphs [0089], [0097]-[0098]; Figure 4); and
a processor (100; paragraph [0096]; Figure 4),
wherein the processor
estimates a change trend of information related to an action detail of the wearer (paragraphs [0101]-[0104]), and
based on the estimated change trend of information related to an action detail, selects an algorithm to calculate the biometric information from the biometric detection value (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]).
Regarding claims 2, 10, 16, Aoshima teaches wherein
the processor
estimates an action detail of the wearer (paragraph [0086]),
based on the estimated action detail, estimates a change trend of the biometric information as a change trend of information related to the action detail (paragraphs [0101]-[0104]), and
based on the estimated change trend of the biometric information, selects an algorithm to calculate the biometric information from the biometric detection value (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]).
Regarding claim 3, 11, 17, Aoshima teaches wherein
the processor,
in a case where an algorithm for low-level trend has been selected as the algorithm (paragraphs [0101]-[0104]),
when the estimated action detail is exercise start, estimates an upward trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for upward trend as the algorithm (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Aoshima teaches wherein
the processor,
in a case where an algorithm for high-level trend has been selected as the algorithm (paragraphs [0101]-[0104]),
when the estimated action detail is exercise end, estimates a downward trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for downward trend as the algorithm (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]), and
when, based on the estimated action detail, determining that exercise intensity increases, estimates an upward trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for upward trend as the algorithm (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]).
Regarding claim 8, Aoshima teaches further comprising an exercise detector to acquire an exercise detection value relating to an exercise state of the wearer,
wherein the processor,
based on an exercise detection value acquired by the exercise detector, estimates a change trend of information related to an action detail of the wearer (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5, 12-13, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoshima as applied to claims 2, 10, 16 above, and further in view of US 20160206248 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sartor”).
Regarding claim 4, 12, 18, Aoshima does not explicitly teach in a case where an algorithm for upward trend has been selected as the algorithm (paragraphs [0101]-[0104]),
when the estimated action detail is exercise end, estimates a downward trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for downward trend as the algorithm (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]).
However, Aoshima does not explicitly teach when the biometric information is greater than or equal to a high-level standard value and variation of the biometric information is less than or equal to a standard variation value, estimates a high-level trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for high-level trend as the algorithm.
However, Sartor teaches when the biometric information is greater than or equal to a high-level standard value and variation of the biometric information is less than or equal to a standard variation value, estimates a high-level trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for high-level trend as the algorithm (paragraphs [0059]-[0061]; [0139]; Figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Aoshima, to have a comparison of heart rate to a resting/reference heart rate, as taught by Sartor, because doing so provides a reference point when determining upward and downward trends.
Regarding claims 5, 13, 19, Aoshima teaches wherein the processor,
in a case where an algorithm for downward trend has been selected as the algorithm (paragraphs [0101]-[0104]),
when the estimated action detail is exercise start, estimates an upward trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for upward trend as the algorithm (paragraph [0194], [0259]-[0260]).
Aoshima does not explicitly teach when the biometric information is less than or equal to a low-level standard value and variation of the biometric information is less than or equal to a standard variation value, estimates a low-level trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for low-level trend as the algorithm.
However, Sartor teaches when the biometric information is less than or equal to a low-level standard value and variation of the biometric information is less than or equal to a standard variation value, estimates a low-level trend as a change trend of information related to the action detail and selects an algorithm for low-level trend as the algorithm (paragraphs [0059]-[0061]; [0139]; Figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Aoshima, to have a comparison of heart rate to a resting/reference heart rate, as taught by Sartor, because doing so provides a reference point when determining upward and downward trends.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoshima as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20170279907 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kita”).
Regarding claim 7, Aoshima teaches an exercise detector to acquire an exercise detection value relating to an exercise state of the wearer.
Aoshima does not explicitly teach an action history storage to store a past action detail of the wearer as an action history,
wherein the processor,
based on an exercise detection value acquired by the exercise detector and an action history stored in the action history storage, estimates an action detail of the wearer, and
causes the action history storage to store the estimated action detail.
However, Kita teaches an action history storage to store a past action detail of the wearer as an action history (paragraphs [0063]-[0064]; Figure 2),
wherein the processor,
based on an exercise detection value acquired by the exercise detector and an action history stored in the action history storage, estimates an action detail of the wearer (paragraphs [0063]-[0064]; Figure 2), and
causes the action history storage to store the estimated action detail (paragraphs [0063]-[0064]; Figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Aoshima, to store history of user, as taught by Kita, because doing so provides a reference point when determining upward and downward trends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights