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 .
Acknowledgments
The amendments to the Specification, filed 01/14/26, amend the paragraph “beginning on page 8, line 8 of the Substitute Specification filed on November 03, 2022”. However, it is noted that the subject amendment appears to be intended to amend the paragraph beginning on page 10, line 3 of the Substitute Specification filed on November 03, 2022, and will be construed as such.
Response to Arguments
The previous double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in light of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 12/11/25.
The previous objections to the drawings and to claim 9 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings, filed 12/11/25, and amendments to claim 9, filed 01/14/26. However, new claim objections have been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as discussed in detail below.
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claim, filed 01/14/26. The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot, as claim 8 has been canceled. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
It is noted that previous claim 8, which has been incorporated into claim 1, was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite as to how the MHRR, or maximum of the heart rate reserve under different training intensity, is calculated/obtained (see Non-Final Rejection, filed 08/14/25, pp. 5-6). Applicant argues that the values for MHRR (wherein the claimed “MHHR” is assumed to be intended to read “MHRR”) are preset values built into the cloud database (Remarks, filed 12/11/25, pp. 9-10). However, this is not supported by the Specification.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Specification
The amendment filed 01/14/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “MHRR is the maximum value under respective training intensities”. This limitation is broader than the previously recited limitation defining MHRR as “the maximum of the heart rate reserve under different training intensity” because MHRR is now broadly defined as “the maximum value”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “MHHR” recited in claim 1, ln. 25 & 26 should likely read “MH[[H]]RR”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 7, and 9 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.
Claim 1 recites in part “the metabolic equivalent of task is calculated by a following equation: MET=VO2max×MHHR÷3.5÷60, wherein MET is the metabolic equivalent of task, VO2max is the maximal oxygen uptake, and MHHR is a maximum value under respective training intensities.” It is indefinite as to what “MHHR” is the maximum value of, and further, how MHHR is calculated/obtained, and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Claims 2-4, 7, and 9 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
No prior art is currently provided for claims 1-4, 7, and 9 in light of the indefiniteness above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2016/0256742 A1 – This invention is directed to evaluating exercise (e.g., an exercise intensity of the user) and recommending exercise intensity to the user, wherein an exercise intensity of the user is measured and may include an amount of exercise of the user, exercise calorie consumption of the user which may have a unit of MET, exercise oxygen consumption of the user, and exercise heart rate of the user which may be a heart rate reserve that is the difference between resting heart rate and maximum heart rate.
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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights