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 .
Amendment Entered
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed on August 11th, 2026. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 11, 16, 17, 26, 29, and 30 as well as the cancellation of claims 5, 20, and 28.
Claims 1-4, 6-19, 21-27, and 29-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the specification are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 17-19, 21-27, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At page 16, Applicant argues that the acquisition of signals from physical sensors cannot be performed in the human mind and that the sensor input was treated as part of the abstract idea itself. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The acquisition of signals from physical sensors (receiving of the sensor input and inputs from a respiratory sensor) was addressed under Step 2A Prong Two on pages 16-17 of the Office action mailed 06/26/2026 as merely adding insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering steps) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Pages 15-16 of the previous office action clearly identified the limitations that are considered abstract. Furthermore, with respect to the claimed structures interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) of claim 30, “it is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility”. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). It is further noted that the exercise sensor and respiratory sensor are not positively recited in the claims, but rather the claims positively recite the structure that receives the signals from the sensors. Examiner suggests amending the claims to positively recite the sensors as part of the user equipment.
At page 17, Applicant argues that the claims integrate the claims into a practical application because the claims recite a specific, ordered arrangement that provided an improvement in the operation of the sending feedback delivered to the user. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The sensor input is not used as a trigger for a claimed control step but rather results in re-selecting a different breathing pattern which is part of the abstract idea. The improvement cannot be found in the abstract idea itself. “[I]t is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) Il. The claims recite steps for an analysis of data. The claims do not integrate the analysis into a practical application. Rather, the alleged improvement lies solely within the processing steps performed by the processor. “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method/steps on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology." Id. Examiner suggests amending claims 17, 26, and 30 to recite “determining that the current breathing pattern exceeds a normal breathing pattern threshold; and in response to determining that the current breathing pattern exceeds the normal breathing pattern threshold, activating at least one additional sensor comprising an additional respiratory sensor configured to obtain a redundant or more accurate measurement of the current breathing pattern” to provide sensor input as a trigger for a control step of activating an additional sensor similar to claim 1.
At page 17, Applicant argues that the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional and that Qi and Aliverti do not assert that the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the exercise sensor and respiratory sensor are not positively recited in the claims, rather the claims positively recite the structure that receives the signals from the sensors. The additional elements/claimed combination of additional elements (processor, user equipment, receiving, monitoring, and providing) is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by - the non-patent literature of record; T. Daiana da Costa, M. de Fatima Fernandes Vara, C. Santos Cristino, T. Zoraski Zanella, G. Nunes Nogueira Neto, and P. Nohama, ‘Breathing Monitoring and Pattern Recognition with Wearable Sensors’, Wearable Devices - the Big Wave of Innovation. IntechOpen, Dec. 04, 2019. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.85460; E. Mitchell, S. Coyle, N. E. O'Connor, D. Diamond and T. Ward, "Breathing Feedback System with Wearable Textile Sensors," 2010 International Conference on Body Sensor Networks, Singapore, 2010, pp. 56-61, doi: 10.1109/BSN.2010.31; W. Qi and A. Aliverti, "A Multimodal Wearable System for Continuous and Real-Time Breathing Pattern Monitoring During Daily Activity," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2199-2207, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2963048; Endalew Getnet Tsega, V.K. Katiyar, Pratibha Gupta. Breathing Patterns of Healthy Human Response to Different Levels of Physical Activity. Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology. Vol. 7, No. 1, 2019, pp 1-4. http://pubs.sciepub.com/jbet/7/1/1; Chou (US 20080243020 A1) discloses in para. [0034] conventional physiological sensor for respiration detection and limb movement detection; Upadhya (US 20200069252 A1), in para. [0022, 0023] discloses a variety of sensors and operations performed by a processor that would be readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 26, 28, and 30 (claims 2-4, 6-16, 18-19, 21-25, 27, and 29 by virtue of dependency) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 26, 28, and 30 (claims 2-4, 6-16, 18-19, 21-25, 27, and 29 by virtue of dependency) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. However, additional rejections are added.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, 21, 22, 23, and 29) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. At page 18, Applicant argues that terms of degree are permissible where the specification provides a standard for measuring that degree and that the specification provides necessary standards throughout. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner did not reject the claims for reciting terms of degree but rather that the insufficient antecedent basis for the step of determining. It is unclear how the target breathing pattern is determined when it is not previously determined, but rather selected.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At page 18, Applicant argues that claim 2 governs how the current exercise type is identified and that claim 3 governs the basis on which the target breathing pattern is determined or selected. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The information regarding body user movements is already provided in claim 1 line 12 “receiving ... user body movement information” and determining the type of the current exercise based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor is already recited in claim 1 lines 4-5. Claim 1 recites “receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor; determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” and “receiving, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information indicating which of the first part or the second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing” in lines 3-5 & 12-13. Therefore, claim 1 already governs both how the current exercise type is identified and the basis on which the target breathing pattern is selected. Therefore, claims 2-3 do not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Additional rejections are added in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
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, 6-16, 21-23, and 29 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.
The term “more accurate” in claim 1 line 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more accurate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation “activating at least one additional sensor comprising an additional respiratory sensor configured to obtain a redundant or more accurate measurement of the current breathing pattern” is rendered indefinite. The limitation is suggested to recite “activating at least one additional sensor comprising an additional respiratory sensor configured to obtain a redundant .
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first breathing pattern associated with the current exercise" in lines 30-31. It is unclear if the current exercise is referring to the first part of the current exercise, the second part of the current exercise, or both the first part and the second part of the current exercise. The limitation is suggested to recite “the first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise”.
Claims 2-4 and 6-16 are rejected by virtue of dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim 6 line 3 and claim 7 line 3 recites the limitation “wherein determining the target breathing pattern”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is suggested to recite “wherein selecting the target breathing pattern from the plurality of stored breathing patterns”.
Claim 9 lines 2-3 recites the limitation “determining another target breathing pattern for the user ... a normal breathing pattern threshold”. It is unclear how another target breathing pattern is determined when a first target breathing pattern is not previously determined. Furthermore, it is unclear if the normal breathing pattern threshold is the same or different as the normal breathing pattern threshold recited in claim 1. The limitation is suggested to recite “selecting another target breathing pattern for the user ... the normal breathing pattern threshold”.
Claim 12 lines 2-3 recites the limitation “activating an additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold”. It is unclear if the additional sensor is supposed to refer to the at least one sensor or in addition to the at least one sensor recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if the normal breathing pattern threshold is the same or different as the normal breathing pattern threshold recited in claim 1. The limitation is suggested to recite “activating another at least one additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding the normal breathing pattern threshold”.
Claim 23 line 3 recites the limitation “determining another target breathing pattern for the user”. It is unclear how another target breathing pattern is determined when a first target breathing pattern is not previously determined. The limitation is suggested to recite “selecting another target breathing pattern for the user”.
Claim 21 line 5, Claim 22 lines 5-6 and Claim 29 lines 6-7 recites the limitation “determine the target breathing pattern”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the target breathing pattern is determined when it is not previously determined, but rather selected. The limitation is suggested to recite “select the target breathing pattern ...”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the exercise sensor provides information regarding user body movements, wherein determining the type of the current exercise is based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor”. Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the target breathing pattern is based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor indicating how the user is moving during the exercise”.
Independent Claim 1, from which claims 2-3 depend, recites “receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor; determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” and “receiving, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information indicating which of the first part or the second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing” in lines 3-5 & 12-13. The information regarding body user movements is already provided in claim 1 line 12 and determining the type of the current exercise based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor is already recited in claim 1 lines 4-5. Claim 1 further recites “selecting, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns” and that the current type of exercise is determined based on input from an exercise sensor. The target breathing pattern selected in claim 1 is already based on how the user is moving during the exercise as it is associated with the current type of exercise being performed by the user. Therefore, claims 2-3 do not further limit the subject matter of independent claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “receive information regarding user body movements from the exercise sensor; and determine the type of the current exercise based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor.”
Independent Claim 17, from which claim 18 depends recited “receive, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information indicating which of the first part or the second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing” in lines 14-16 and “determine a type of current exercise performed by a user based on the received sensor input” in lines 6-7. The information regarding body user movements is already provided in claim 7 lines 14-16 and determining the type of the current exercise based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor is already recited in claim 17 lines 6-7. Therefore, claim 18 does not further limit the subject matter of independent claim 7.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “wherein the sensor input provides information regarding user body movements; wherein determining the type of the current exercise is based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor.”
Independent Claim 26, from which claim 27 depends recites “receiving, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information indicating which of the first part or the second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing” in lines 14-16 and “determine a type of current exercise performed by a user based on the received sensor input” in lines 6-7. The information regarding body user movements is already provided in claim 26 lines 13-14 and determining the type of the current exercise based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor is already recited in claim 26 lines 6-7. Therefore, claim 27 does not further limit the subject matter of independent claim 26.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 17-19, 21-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claims 17, 26, and 30 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claims 17, 26, and 30, the claims recite a series of structural elements, including a user equipment/non-transitory processor-readable medium. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
determine a type of current exercise performed by a user based on the received sensor input;
select, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns, each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns being associated with a different type of exercise, the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise including a first breathing pattern associated with a first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern, different from the first breathing pattern, associated with a second part of the current exercise;
determine differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user, including by determining differences between the first breathing pattern and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first part of the current exercise and between the second breathing pattern and the current breathing pattern of the user during the second part of the current exercise;
dynamically update the target breathing pattern in response to detecting, from the sensor input, a change in the type of current exercise during an exercise session, the dynamic updating comprising re-selecting a different one of the plurality of stored breathing patterns
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claims 17, 26, and 30 recites receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor, receiving, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information, monitoring a current breathing pattern of the user while performing the current exercise based on inputs from a respiratory sensor, and providing information to the user through the user interface regarding determined differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The receiving, monitoring, and providing information does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method/steps does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the received input/monitoring/provided information, nor does the method/steps use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Regarding claims 17, 26, and 30, the device recited in the claim is a generic device configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited exercise sensor and respiration sensor are generic sensors configured to perform insignificant pre-solutional data gathering activity, the processor is configured to perform insignificant extra-solution activity and to perform the Abstract Idea, and the user interface is configured to perform insignificant extra-solution activity. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
user equipment;
a processor;
non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions;
receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor;
receiving, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information;
monitoring a current breathing pattern of the user while performing the current exercise based on inputs from a respiratory sensor;
providing information to the user through the user interface regarding determined differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user.
The receiving, monitoring, and providing steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the receiving, monitoring, and providing steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering and data-outputting steps necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and data outputting and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the receiving, monitoring, and providing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 17, 26, and 30, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components (as evidenced by - the non-patent literature of record; T. Daiana da Costa, M. de Fatima Fernandes Vara, C. Santos Cristino, T. Zoraski Zanella, G. Nunes Nogueira Neto, and P. Nohama, ‘Breathing Monitoring and Pattern Recognition with Wearable Sensors’, Wearable Devices - the Big Wave of Innovation. IntechOpen, Dec. 04, 2019. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.85460; E. Mitchell, S. Coyle, N. E. O'Connor, D. Diamond and T. Ward, "Breathing Feedback System with Wearable Textile Sensors," 2010 International Conference on Body Sensor Networks, Singapore, 2010, pp. 56-61, doi: 10.1109/BSN.2010.31; W. Qi and A. Aliverti, "A Multimodal Wearable System for Continuous and Real-Time Breathing Pattern Monitoring During Daily Activity," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2199-2207, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2963048; Endalew Getnet Tsega, V.K. Katiyar, Pratibha Gupta. Breathing Patterns of Healthy Human Response to Different Levels of Physical Activity. Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology. Vol. 7, No. 1, 2019, pp 1-4. http://pubs.sciepub.com/jbet/7/1/1; Chou (US 20080243020 A1) discloses in para. [0034] conventional physiological sensor for respiration detection and limb movement detection; Upadhya (US 20200069252 A1), in para. [0022, 0023] discloses a variety of sensors and operations performed by a processor that would be readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art) configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited exercise sensor and respiration sensor are generic sensors configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, the processor is configured to perform insignificant extra-solution activity and to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 18-19, 21-25, 27, and 29 are directed to more abstract ideas/Mental Processes (concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)), which does not add anything significantly more. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, and 6-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17, 19, 21-26, and 29-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record:
Wu (US 20160007911 A1) teaches an exercise sensor (10, fig. 1) to detect at least one of instant physiological status information 11 of a user 18, selecting and receiving the selection command to select one of a plurality of subjects to generate the default breathing waveform (para. [0022]), an instant breathing detection module 16 (fig. 1) to detect instant breathing status information 17 of the user 18, comparing the target breathing waveform and the instant breathing waveform generated according to the instant breathing status information 17 to further generate a breathing condition indication signal 19 (para. [0035]) and indicating the difference between the target breathing condition and the current breathing condition (para. [0036]). Wu does not teach “wherein the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise includes a first breathing pattern associated with a first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern, different from the first breathing pattern, associated with a second part of the current exercise”; “receiving, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information indicating which of the first part or the second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing”; “determining that the current breathing pattern exceeds a normal breathing pattern threshold; and in response to determining that the current breathing pattern exceeds the normal breathing pattern threshold, activating at least one additional sensor comprising an additional respiratory sensor configured to obtain a redundant measurement of the current breathing pattern”; and “dynamically updating the target breathing pattern in response to detecting, from the sensor input, a change in the type of current exercise during an exercise session, the dynamic updating comprising re-selecting a different one of the plurality of stored breathing patterns, wherein dynamically updating the target breathing pattern comprises replacing the first target breathing pattern associated with the current exercise with a different target breathing pattern associated with the changed type of exercise while the exercise session is ongoing”.
Krans (US 20180338709 A1) teaches detecting activity, using the information about the activity to improve the interpretation of the data, such as through selective engagement of one of the plurality of algorithms 48 based on the determined activity, and selecting an algorithm 48 appropriate for consideration of rhythm for that activity and breathing rate determination (e.g., the optimal breathing rate and rhythm may be different for each activity, and even for sub-types of the activity, such as sprinting versus long-distance running). Krans does not teach “wherein the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise includes a first breathing pattern associated with a first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern, different from the first breathing pattern, associated with a second part of the current exercise”.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest: “wherein the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise includes a first breathing pattern associated with a first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern, different from the first breathing pattern, associated with a second part of the current exercise”; “receiving, from the exercise sensor, user body movement information indicating which of the first part or the second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing”; “determining that the current breathing pattern exceeds a normal breathing pattern threshold; and in response to determining that the current breathing pattern exceeds the normal breathing pattern threshold, activating at least one additional sensor comprising an additional respiratory sensor configured to obtain a redundant measurement of the current breathing pattern” and “dynamically updating the target breathing pattern in response to detecting, from the sensor input, a change in the type of current exercise during an exercise session, the dynamic updating comprising re-selecting a different one of the plurality of stored breathing patterns, wherein dynamically updating the target breathing pattern comprises replacing the first target breathing pattern associated with the current exercise with a different target breathing pattern associated with the changed type of exercise while the exercise session is ongoing”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/AURELIE H TU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights