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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 1.a “Controller determines whether in first motion state for more than a predetermined time period (Claims 39-44)”where claims 35-38 and 45-54 are generic and claims 39-44 read thereon; Species 2.a “Controller obtains contextual data (claims 35, 46, 48, and 53- 54)”, where claims 36-45, 47, and 49-52 are generic and claims 35, 46, 48, and 53-54 read thereon; and Species 3.c “second motion state comprises and input from a user (claim 51)”, where claims 35-50 and 52-54 are generic and claim 51 reads thereon in the reply filed on 25AUG2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Therefore, claims 35-54 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18NOV2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 35:
The claim recites “repeatedly perform” in line 11. This is not grammatically correct and should instead be “repeatedly performs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings have been received on 18NOV2022. These drawings have been objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 for the following reasons: the reference labels are not plain and legible for Figs. 3.
The drawings are objected to because
Regarding Figure 8:
Part “S103” is missing the “no” label on the return to S102 arrow.
Regarding Figure 10:
Part “S303” is missing the “no” label on the return to S302 arrow.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following as described in the specification.
Regarding Figure 1:
sensing units 400 as described in ¶0029 is missing from the figure.
Regarding Figure 3:
Regulator 137 is not found in the specification. Page 35 of the specification recites regulator 147.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Regarding Figure 1:
Reference characters "600" and "10" have both been used to designate the patient.
Regarding Figure 3:
Reference characters "167" and "103" appear to be pointing to the same location.
Regarding Figure 13:
Reference characters "500", “400”, and "217" appear to be pointing to the same location.
Regarding Figure 18:
Reference characters "243”, and "247" appear to be pointing to the same location.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Regarding Figure 3:
GPS is 161 is described in the specification as location device.
Haptic motor 157 is not found in the specification. The specification says part 157 is a haptic feedback unit.
Wearable connector 101. The specification has no mentions of wearable connector from figure 3 and says part 101 is an interface.
IMU 111 is not described in the specification until figure 4.\
Part 147 is labeled in the specification as regulator 147 and light emitting diode 147 (see page 35) but the figure says LED indicator.
Regarding Figure 5
TOF sensor 308 is not found in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Part 300
Part 300 is labeled as both the electronic device 300 and a mobile phone 300 (See pages 40 & 54). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 201
Part201 is labeled as both the pocket 201 and a pocket layer 201 (See page 62). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 200
Part 200 is labeled as various items such as: Garment 200; wearable article 200 (See pages 29, & 43-57); daywear 200 (See page 58); clothing 200 (See page 58); athletic garment 200 (See page 58); athletic clothing (See page 59); work clothing (See page 59); etc. Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Wearable article
Wearable article is labeled as both part 200 and part 100. Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 100
Part 100 is labeled as Electronics module 100; wearable article 100 (See pages 32, 53 & 67); & electronic device 100 (See page 40). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Interface
Interface is labeled as part 101, 302 (See pages 41-43), and serial programmable interface (SPI) 173 (See page 37). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 203
Part 203 is labeled as associated conductors 203(See page 29); communication pathways 203 (See page 30); and conductive pathways 203 (See page 31; 61; 64). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 139
Part 139 is named as both ADC front end 139 and analog front end 139 (See page 54). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 147
Part 147 is named as both regulator 147 and light emitting diode 147 (See page 35). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 139
Part 139 is named as analog front end 139 (See page 54). This should be ADC front end. Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 111
Part 111 is named as both IMU 111 and motion sensor 111 (See pages 47; 54; 56). Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Part 131
Part 131 is labeled as both USBC input and controller on page 35. Terminology should be consistent for each part number.
Prog header 155
Prog header 155 as seen in the figures is described in page 35 of the specification with no clarification on what PROG is short for. The acronym is undefined.
TOF sensor 308
TOF sensor 308 as seen in figure 5 is not found in the specification and further is not clear regarding what the TOF acronym stands for.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
“electronics module” in Claim 53;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Claim limitation “electronics module”, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Pages 1-2 of the specification states: “electronics modules for wearable articles such as garments are known to communicate with user electronic devices over wireless communication protocols such as Bluetooth @ and Bluetooth @ Low Energy. These electronics modules are typically removably attached to the wearable article, interface with internal electronics of the wearable article, and comprise a Bluetooth @ antenna for communicating with the user electronic device. The electronics module includes drive and sensing electronics comprising components and associated circuitry, to provide the required functionality.”. No other specific device is named other than page 10 mentioning this module with no further description of it. The examiner is therefore interpreting the electronics module as the sensing system as a whole.
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 § 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 35-53 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.
Regarding Claims 35 & 53:
The claims recite “ A controller for a wearable article” in line 1 of claim 35, and “An electronics module comprising a controller” in line 1 of claim 53. The remainder of the claim limitations for both claims 35 & 53 recite limitations which appear to be method limitations. Claims 35 & 53 recite product and process limitations in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(p). For purpose of examination, each of claims 35 and 53 is interpreted as being directed to a controller (claim 35) or to an electronics module comprising a controller (claim 53) configured to perform the recited method steps.
Claims 36-52 are additionally rejected for depending upon rejected claim 35.
Regarding claims 36-52:
The claims recite “ A controller” in line 1 of claims 36-52. The remainder of the claim limitations for all claims 36-52 recite limitations which appear to be method limitations. Claims 36-52 recite product and process limitations in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(p). For purpose of examination, each of claims 36-52 is interpreted as being directed to a controller configured to perform the recited method steps.
Regarding Claim 52:
Claim 52 recites “the controller is operable to use the measurement performed in the first measurement mode to configure an algorithm which receives, as input, one or more measurements from the sensor”. It is unclear how a measurement is used to create a data collection algorithm while already collecting such data. The claim is unclear on how the claims preceding this claim 52 have been collecting measurements if the algorithm has not been established prior. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting “the controller is operable to use the measurement performed in the first measurement mode to configure an algorithm which receives, as input, one or more measurements from the sensor” as creating a personalized collection algorithm after calibrating the device to a user.
Regarding Claim 53:
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the wearable article" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 35-40, 43, 45-46, 48-51, & 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The claims recite the motion states of the wearer, which is claiming a human organism as the claims are dependent on the user.
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 35-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite:
Claim 54 is to a method.
Claims 35 & 53 are to a system.
Therefore, claims 35-54 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 35, 53, & 54 the limitations of “obtains contextual data indicative of whether a wearer of the wearable article is in a first motion state or a second motion state representative of a higher degree of activity of the wearer than the first motion state”; “determines from the contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state”; “determining from contextual data to enter a second measurement mode, the contextual data comprising an input received from a user via an external device,” are mental processes. The limitations as drafted, covers performance of the limitations that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. For example, determining motion states based on data collected and user input encompasses nothing more than a user plotting a heart-rate chart on a piece of paper. Similarly, performing measurements based on detected motion states amounts to a clinician recording data during certain activities of a patient such as in sport science studies. If claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding claims 35, 53, & 54 the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea: “controller”, “wearable article”; “external device”; and “sensor” which are recited at a high level of generality and are generic computer components amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity in that they are merely objects on which the functional limitations operate [MPEP 2106.05(b)]; Limitations “enters a first measurement mode and a second measurement mode based on contextual data received via an external device”; “in response to the wearer being in the first motion state, the controller performs a measurement using a sensor of the wearable article”; “wherein in the second measurement mode, the controller repeatedly perform measurements using the sensor regardless of the motion state of the wearer” amount to no more than pre-solution activity using generic components.
Step 2B
The additional elements of claims 35, 53, & 54, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations “enters a first measurement mode and a second measurement mode based on contextual data received via an external device”; “in response to the wearer being in the first motion state, the controller performs a measurement using a sensor of the wearable article”; “wherein in the second measurement mode, the controller repeatedly perform measurements using the sensor regardless of the motion state of the wearer” amount to no more than pre-solution activity using generic components. The “controller”, “wearable article”; “external device”; and “sensor along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer using generic physical parts. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well- understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 36-52 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 35. The dependent claim limitations are directed to: further defining the limits of data gathering steps (Claims 36, 38-41, 45-46, & 48-51); data storage conditions (Claim 37); Defining thresholds for data collection (Claims 41-44); power management (Claim 47); and calibration (Claim 52), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 35-54 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 35-38, & 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahmed et al. (WO Publication 2015134654).
Regarding claim 35, Ahmed discloses continuous physiological monitoring & interpretations (Ahmed Abstract) and further discloses a controller for a wearable article (Ahmed ¶0219 “The processor 2310, which may include one or more microprocessors or other types of controllers, can perform a series of instructions that manipulate data.”), the controller enters a first measurement mode and a second measurement mode based on contextual data received (Ahmed ¶0132 “For example, upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion (e.g., exercising), one or more light emitters may be activated to emit light at a first wavelength. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest), non-light based sensors may be activated.”) via an external device (Ahmed ¶0222 “The interface devices 2316 may receive input, provide output, or both. For example, output devices may render information for external presentation. Input devices may accept information from external sources. Examples of interface devices include, but are not limited to, keyboards, mouse devices, trackballs, microphones, touch screens, printing devices, display screens, speakers, network interface cards, and the like. The interface devices 2316 allow the computer system 2300 to exchange information and communicate with external entities, such as users and other systems.”), wherein in the first measurement mode, the controller: obtains contextual data indicative of whether a wearer of the wearable article is in a first motion state or a second motion state representative of a higher degree of activity of the wearer than the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0132 “For example, upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion (e.g., exercising), one or more light emitters may be activated to emit light at a first wavelength. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest), non-light based sensors may be activated.”); determines from the contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0132 “second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest)”); and in response to the wearer being in the first motion state, the controller performs a measurement using a sensor of the wearable article; and wherein in the second measurement mode, the controller repeatedly perform measurements using the sensor regardless of the motion state of the wearer (Ahmed ¶0124 “upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion, the processing module may activate the light emitters at a first higher duty cycle and sample the reflected light using light detectors sampling at a first higher sampling rate. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion, the processing module may activate the light emitters at a second lower duty cycle and sample the reflected light using light detectors sampling at a second lower sampling rate. That is, the duty cycle of the light emitters and the corresponding sampling rate of the light detectors may be adjusted in a graduated or continuous manner based on the motion status or level of motion of the user. This adjustment ensures that heart rate data is detected at a sufficiently high frequency during motion to reliably detect all of the heart beats of the user.”).
Regarding claim 36, Ahmed further discloses wherein in the first measurement mode, the controller only performs the measurement using the sensor when the contextual data indicates that the wearer is in the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0067 “ In other embodiments, the button may be disposed and configured such that it may be pressed manually at the discretion of a user to begin storing information or otherwise to mark the start or end of an activity period.”; ¶0073).
Regarding claim 37, Ahmed further discloses wherein in response to the wearer being in the first motion state, the controller directs a memory of the wearable article to store the data (Ahmed ¶0006 “The processor may be further configured to operate the heart rate monitoring system to obtain continuous heart rate data using one of the two or more different modes and to store the continuous heart rate data in the memory.”).
Regarding claim 38, Ahmed further discloses wherein in response to the wearer being in the first motion state, the controller performs a plurality of measurements using the sensor over a first predetermined time period. (Ahmed ¶0142 “ the intensity score is calculated based on the user's heart rate reserve (HR ) as detected continuously throughout the desired time period, for example, throughout the entire day.”; ¶0124).
Regarding claim 45, Ahmed further discloses wherein in the first measurement mode, the controller determines whether the wearable article is being worn, and in response to determining that the wearable article is being worn and the wearer is in the first motion state, the controller performs the measurement using the sensor (Ahmed ¶0073 “In some embodiments, the wearable system may further be configured such that a button underneath the system may be pressed against the user's wrist, thus triggering the system to begin one or more of collecting data, calculating metrics and communicating the information to a network. In some embodiments, the sensor used for, e.g., measuring heart rate or GSR or any combination of these, may be used to indicate whether the user is wearing the wearable system or not”; ¶0075).
Regarding claim 46, Ahmed further discloses wherein in response to determining that the wearable article is being worn, the controller obtains the contextual data so as to determine whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0124 The processing module may process the motion data to determine a motion status of the user which indicates the level of motion of the user, for example, exercise, light motion (e.g., walking), no motion or rest, sleep, and the like. The processing module may adjust the duty cycle of one or more light emitters and the corresponding sampling rate of the one or more light detectors based on the motion status.”, where the device is programmed to shut off when not being worn as described in ¶0073 and therefore must be worn by the user to collect data.).
Regarding claim 47, Ahmed further discloses wherein in response to determining that the wearable article is being worn, the controller transitions from a first power mode to a second power mode that consumes more power than the first power mode (Ahmed ¶0073 “ In some embodiments, power to the one or more LEDs may be cut off as soon as this situation is detected, and reset once the user has put the wearable system back on their wrist.” Showing that the system powers on when being worn).
Regarding claim 48, Ahmed further discloses wherein when in the second power mode, the controller obtains the contextual data so as to determine whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0075 “In some embodiments, an application associated with data from an exemplary wearable system (e.g., a mobile communication device application) may include a user input component for enabling additional contextual data, e.g., emotional (e.g., the user's feelings), perceived intensity, and the like. When the data is uploaded from the wearable system directly or indirectly to a website, the website may record a user's "Vibes" alongside their duration of exercise and sleep.”).
Regarding claim 49, Ahmed further discloses wherein the contextual data indicative of whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state or the second motion state comprises motion data for the wearer, and the controller determines whether the wearer is in the first or second motion state from the motion data (Ahmed ¶0124 “the processing module may receive data on the motion of the user using, for example, an accelerometer. The processing module may process the motion data to determine a motion status of the user which indicates the level of motion of the user, for example, exercise, light motion (e.g., walking), no motion or rest, sleep, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 50, Ahmed further discloses wherein the contextual data indicative of whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state or the second motion state comprises location data for the wearer, and the controller determines whether the wearer is in the first or second motion state from the location data (Ahmed ¶0235 “The condition may include, without limitation, an accuracy of heart rate detection determined using a statistical analysis to provide a confidence level in the accuracy, a power consumption, a battery charge level, a user activity, a location of the sensor or motion of the sensor, an environmental or contextual condition (e.g., ambient light conditions), a physiological condition, an active condition, an inactive condition, and so on. This may include detecting a change in the condition, responsively selecting a different one of the two or more different modes, and storing additional continuous heart rate data obtained using at least one of the two or more different modes.”).
Regarding claim 51, Ahmed further discloses wherein the contextual data indicative of whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state or the second motion state comprises an input from a user indicating that the wearer is in the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0182 “ In some cases, the feedback panel 1538 may prompt the user to confirm whether he/she indeed performed that activity in a user field 1548. This user input may be displayed and/or used to improve an understanding of the user's health and exercise routines.”).
Regarding claim 52, Ahmed further discloses wherein the controller is operable to use the measurement performed in the first measurement mode to configure an algorithm which receives, as input, one or more measurements from the sensor (Ahmed ¶0154 “The training data set is used to train a machine learning system to predict the cardiovascular intensities experienced by the individuals based on the heart rate and other personal data. The trained system models a regression in which the coefficient estimates correspond to the weights or coefficients of the weighting scheme. In the training phase, user input on perceived exertion and the intensity scores are compared. The learning algorithm also alters the weighs based on the improving or declining health of a user as well as their qualitative feedback. This yields a unique algorithm that incorporates physiology, qualitative feedback, and quantitative data.”).
Regarding claim 53, Ahmed discloses continuous physiological monitoring & interpretations (Ahmed Abstract) and further discloses an electronics module (Ahmed ¶0086 “an electronic circuit board comprising a plurality of electronic components configured for analyzing data corresponding to the reflected light to automatically and continually determine a heart rate of the user”) comprising a controller (Ahmed ¶0219 “The processor 2310, which may include one or more microprocessors or other types of controllers, can perform a series of instructions that manipulate data.”), the controller enters a first measurement mode and a second measurement mode based on contextual data received (Ahmed ¶0132 “For example, upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion (e.g., exercising), one or more light emitters may be activated to emit light at a first wavelength. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest), non-light based sensors may be activated.”) via an external device (Ahmed ¶0222 “The interface devices 2316 may receive input, provide output, or both. For example, output devices may render information for external presentation. Input devices may accept information from external sources. Examples of interface devices include, but are not limited to, keyboards, mouse devices, trackballs, microphones, touch screens, printing devices, display screens, speakers, network interface cards, and the like. The interface devices 2316 allow the computer system 2300 to exchange information and communicate with external entities, such as users and other systems.”), wherein in the first measurement mode, the controller: obtains contextual data indicative of whether a wearer of the wearable article is in a first motion state or a second motion state representative of a higher degree of activity of the wearer than the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0132 “For example, upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion (e.g., exercising), one or more light emitters may be activated to emit light at a first wavelength. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest), non-light based sensors may be activated.”); determines from the contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0132 “second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest)”); and in response to the wearer being in the first motion state, the controller performs a measurement using a sensor of the wearable article; and wherein in the second measurement mode, the controller repeatedly performs measurements using the sensor regardless of the motion state of the wearer (Ahmed ¶0124 “upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion, the processing module may activate the light emitters at a first higher duty cycle and sample the reflected light using light detectors sampling at a first higher sampling rate. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion, the processing module may activate the light emitters at a second lower duty cycle and sample the reflected light using light detectors sampling at a second lower sampling rate. That is, the duty cycle of the light emitters and the corresponding sampling rate of the light detectors may be adjusted in a graduated or continuous manner based on the motion status or level of motion of the user. This adjustment ensures that heart rate data is detected at a sufficiently high frequency during motion to reliably detect all of the heart beats of the user.”).
Regarding claim 54, Ahmed discloses continuous physiological monitoring & interpretations (Ahmed Abstract) and further discloses a method performed by a controller for a wearable article (Ahmed ¶0219 “The processor 2310, which may include one or more microprocessors or other types of controllers, can perform a series of instructions that manipulate data.”), the method comprising: entering a first measurement mode, and in the first measurement mode: obtaining contextual data indicative of whether a wearer of the wearable article is in a first motion state or a second motion state representative of a higher degree of activity of the wearer than the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0132 “For example, upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion (e.g., exercising), one or more light emitters may be activated to emit light at a first wavelength. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest), non-light based sensors may be activated.”); determining from the contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article is in the first motion state (Ahmed ¶0132 “second lower level of motion (e.g., at rest)”); and in response to the wearer being in the first motion state, performing a measurement using a sensor of the wearable article, the method further comprising: determining from contextual data to enter a second measurement mode, the contextual data comprising an input received from a user via an external device, and in the second measurement mode, repeatedly performing measurements using the sensor of the wearable article regardless of the motion state of the wearer (Ahmed ¶0124 “upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a first higher level of motion, the processing module may activate the light emitters at a first higher duty cycle and sample the reflected light using light detectors sampling at a first higher sampling rate. Upon determining that the motion status indicates that the user is at a second lower level of motion, the processing module may activate the light emitters at a second lower duty cycle and sample the reflected light using light detectors sampling at a second lower sampling rate. That is, the duty cycle of the light emitters and the corresponding sampling rate of the light detectors may be adjusted in a graduated or continuous manner based on the motion status or level of motion of the user. This adjustment ensures that heart rate data is detected at a sufficiently high frequency during motion to reliably detect all of the heart beats of the user.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (WO Publication 2015134654) in view of Grassere et al. (WO Publication 2018060291).
Regarding claim 39, claim 35 is obvious over Ahmed et al. as described above in regards to 102. Ahmed does not further disclose wherein the controller determines from the contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article has been in the first motion state for more than a first predetermined time period; and in response to the wearer being in the first motion state for more than the first predetermined time period, performs the measurement using the sensor of the wearable article.
Grassere in a similar field of endeavor of vital sign monitoring teaches determining from contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article has been in the first motion state for more than a first predetermined time period; and in response to the wearer being in the first motion state for more than the first predetermined time period, performs the measurement using the sensor of the wearable article (Grassere Page 11 “If the motion information is larger than the motion threshold value, the processor may decide to not switch to the active state and start a restart timer which provides a time delay (step 212), e.g. 5-30 seconds, before a new measurement cycle is triggered (including the buffering of new motion data, determining motion information and the checking whether the motion information is below or above a certain threshold as described above with reference to steps 202-208)”).
Before the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to combined the monitoring techniques of Ahmed with instructions wherein the controller determines from the contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article has been in the first motion state for more than a first predetermined time period; and in response to the wearer being in the first motion state for more than the first predetermined time period, performs the measurement using the sensor of the wearable article, as taught by Grassere, for the purpose of saving battery life (Ahmed ¶0130).
Regarding claim 40, claims 35 & 39 are obvious over Ahmed et al. combined with Grassere. Ahmed does not further disclose wherein in response to the wearer being in the first motion state for more than the first predetermined time period, the controller performs a plurality of measurements using the sensor.
Grassere further teaches wherein in response to the wearer being in the first motion state for more than the first predetermined time period, the controller performs a plurality of measurements using the sensor (Grassere Page 11 “If the motion information is larger than the motion threshold value, the processor may decide to not switch to the active state and start a restart timer which provides a time delay (step 212), e.g. 5-30 seconds, before a new measurement cycle is triggered (including the buffering of new motion data, determining motion information and the checking whether the motion information is below or above a certain threshold as described above with reference to steps 202-208)”).
Before the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to combined the monitoring techniques of Ahmed with instructions wherein the controller determines from the contextual data whether the wearer of the wearable article has been in the first motion state for more than a first predetermined time period; and in response to the wearer being in the first motion state for more than the first predetermined time period, performs the measurement using the sensor of the wearable article, as taught by Grassere, for the purpose of saving battery life (Ahmed ¶0130).
Regarding claim 41, claims 35 & 39-40 are obvious over Ahmed et al. combined with Grassere. Ahmed further discloses wherein the controller performs measurements using the sensor until an exit condition is reached (Ahmed ¶0073 “ In some embodiments, the sensor used for, e.g., measuring heart rate or GSR or any combination of these, may be used to indicate whether the user is wearing the wearable system or not. In some embodiments, power to the one or more LEDs may be cut off as soon as this situation is detected, and reset once the user has put the wearable system back on their wrist.”).
Regarding claim 42, claims 35 & 39-41 are obvious over Ahmed et al. combined with Grassere. Ahmed does not further disclose wherein the exit condition is determined to be reached if more than a second predetermined time period has elapsed. Grassere further teaches wherein the exit condition is determined to be reached if more than a second predetermined time period has elapsed (Grassere Page 12 “ For example, when a first reject has been determined, then the delay timer may be set to a one-minute time delay before a new measurement cycle is trigged. If the processor determines that the reject is the second consecutive reject (step 226), the processor may set the delay timer to a third delay period that is longer when compared to second delay period, e.g. a delay of two minutes instead of one minute (step 227) . If the reject is the third consecutive reject (or more) yet another delay period may be set that may be different from the first and second delay period.”).
Before the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to combined the monitoring techniques of Ahmed with instructions wherein the exit condition is determined to be reached if more than a second predetermined time period has elapsed, as taught by Grassere, for the purpose of saving battery life (Ahmed ¶0130).
Regarding claim 43, claims 35 & 39-42 are obvious over Ahmed et al. combined with Grassere. Ahmed does disclose wherein the exit condition is determined to be reached if the controller determines from contextual data that the wearer has transitioned from the first motion state to the second motion state. Grassere further teaches wherein the exit condition is determined to be reached if the controller determines from contextual data that the wearer has transitioned from the first motion state to the second motion state (Grassere Page 8 “The opto-electronic sensor is only activated if the user is not moving or at least moving with an intensity that does not significantly affect the optical response signal. This way, the energy consumption of the measuring device can be reduced while at the same time the risk that the measured optical response signal is affected by motion noise can be significantly reduced.”).
Before the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to combined the monitoring techniques of Ahmed with instructions wherein the exit condition is determined to be reached if the controller determines from contextual data that the wearer has transitioned from the first motion state to the second motion state, as taught by Grassere, for the purpose of saving battery life (Ahmed ¶0130) and avoiding bad quality data.
Regarding claim 44, claims 35 & 39-43 are obvious over Ahmed et al. combined with Grassere. Ahmed further discloses wherein the exit condition is determined to be reached if the controller determines that one or more of the measurements performed using the sensor do not satisfy a quality metric (Ahmed ¶0073 “ In some embodiments, the sensor used for, e.g., measuring heart rate or GSR or any combination of these, may be used to indicate whether the user is wearing the wearable system or not. In some embodiments, power to the one or more LEDs may be cut off as soon as this situation is detected, and reset once the user has put the wearable system back on their wrist.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN FEDORKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:30.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MEGAN T FEDORKY/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796