DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 30th, 2026 and May 22nd, 2026 has been entered. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 17, 26, and 30.
Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 30th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At page 11, Applicant argues that the steps of “selecting, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns, wherein each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise” 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” are not performable in the human mind because they require access to a plurality of breathing patterns stored in computer memory, a sensor-driven classification of physical activity based on real-time data streams, and continuous, real-time reselection during an ongoing exercise. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It seems as if the Applicant is arguing more than what is actually being claimed. The current claims do not have any limitations drawn to performing any decisions, procedures, or steps in real-time (emphasis added). Furthermore, the steps of selecting and dynamically updating could be reasonably performed in the human mind, as humans can perform dynamic analysis/updating/selecting. In light of the specification, a lookup table may provide information used to determine the target breathing pattern that corresponds to current temperature, pressure, and/or humidity conditions, see para. [0071, 0078, 0083]. It is certainly possible for a clinician to look out a print out of a lookup table and select a target breathing pattern based on a current type of exercise that is being performed and it is certainly possible for a clinician to observe and determine a change in a current type of exercise that a subject is performing and re-select a target breathing pattern from the lookup table dynamically/ in real-time. There is no level of complexity claimed that would preclude a person from practically completing this process in the mind. Furthermore, 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.
At page 12, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a specific technical frame work, require coordinated operation of multiple components, and recites a close-loop sensor-driven control system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1-30 is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention amounts to simply implementing the judicial exception/abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for determining, selecting, determining, and dynamically updating, merely invoke a computer as a tool. Furthermore, the data-gathering step (receiving, monitoring) and the data-output step (providing) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide feedback regarding differences between the target breathing pattern and the user’s current breathing pattern. The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. "Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more." MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for determining, selecting, monitoring, determining, and dynamically updating. The claims do not apply the information to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step. Furthermore, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the improvement is in system functionality) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. The claims are not directed to an improvement of computer functionality but rather are focused on a process of providing information regarding breathing patterns that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. The processor, sensors, and non-transitory processor-readable medium perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
At page 13, Applicant argues that the particular combination of “selecting, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns, wherein each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise” 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” is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of selecting and dynamically updating are directed to an abstract idea (a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). It is noted that section 2106.05(b) I. of the MPEP recites “it is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine and section 2106.05(b) III. of the MPEP recites “use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more”. 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 processing of data. The claims do not integrate the processing 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 on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology." Id. Furthermore, target breathing patterns associated with different types of exercise are well known – as evidenced by – 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.
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 30th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive to the extent they apply to the rejections set forth herein.
At page 15, Applicant argues that Wu does not describe maintaining a plurality of stored breathing patterns, each associated with a different type of exercise, and selecting among them based on an identified type of exercise and that Wu’s generation of a single default waveform is not the same as the claimed selection among multiple pre-stored patterns. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu does disclose that the processing device receives a selection command to select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms, the default breathing waveform corresponds to different subjects such as sleeping, sporting or exercising, and that pre-stored algorithms correspond to different breathing methods such as, but not limited to Tai-Chi, Kung-Fu or Yoga (claims 15 and 29, para. [0022-0024]). The single default breathing waveform that is retrieved is based on selecting one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms. Wu does recognize generating a target breathing waveform according to instant physiological status information 11, that breathing patterns can be related to different breathing methods such as, but not limited to Tai-Chi, Kung-Fu or Yoga, and receiving a selection command to select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms (para. [0022-0024], claims 15 & 29). Wu does not particularly detail the steps of “determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” and that “each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise”. However, Krans (US 20180338709 A1) directed to wearable devices that recognize and track activity is relied upon to disclose the particular details of “determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” and that “each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise”.
Furthermore, Wu does recognize the system having an active biofeedback mechanism to obtain the instant physiological status information and the breathing condition to perform comparison (para. [0038]). Wu does not particularly detail the manner in which the active biofeedback mechanism performs 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. However, Iliffe-Moon (US 20210257080 A1) directed to a system and method for entrainment of a user based on bio rhythm of the user is relied upon to particularly detail the manner in which the active biofeedback mechanism performs dynamically updating the target breathing pattern in response to detecting a change in the type of current exercise during an exercise session.
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.
Such claim limitations are:
Means for receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor is defined in para. [0055, 0117, 0157-0158] as a processor including interface circuitry for interfacing with peripheral devices/ receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor;
means for determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input in claim 30 is defined in para. [0066, 0110] as cameras, lidar, light sensors, microphones, IMUs, electromyograms, pressure sensors, and/or proximity/motion sensors, a processor coupled to memory, remote system, external resources using a transceiver.
means for selecting, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns the user in claim 30 is defined in para. [0071, 0078, 0083, 0105, 0111] as a processor coupled to memory, remote system, external resources using a transceiver.
means for monitoring a current breathing pattern of the user while performing the current exercise based on inputs from a respiratory sensor in claim 30 is defined in para. [0066, 0089, 0112] as cameras, lidar, light sensors, microphones, IMUs, electromyograms, pressure sensors, and/or proximity/motion sensors, a respiratory sensor, a processor coupled to memory and one or more devices with sensors, remote system, external resources using a transceiver.
means for determining differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user in claim 30 is defined in para. [0113, 0157] as one or more processors/a processor coupled to memory, remote system, external resources using a transceiver.
means for 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 in claim 30 is defined in para. [0113, 0157] as one or more processors/a processor coupled to memory, remote system, external resources using a transceiver;
means for providing information to the user 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 in claim 30 is defined in para. [0114] as one or more processors/a processor coupled to the display, a speaker, a vibration device, memory, remote source/system, or external resources using a transceiver.
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 Objections
Claims 5, 11, 16, 20, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise” in claim 5 line 7, claim 11 line 2, claim 16 line 3, claim 20 line 8, claim 28 line 12 should recite “the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise”.
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 1-30 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 lines 17-19, Claim 17 lines 19-21, Claim 26 lines 20-22, and Claim 30 lines 18-20 recites the limitation “providing information to the user regarding determined differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user”. It is unclear whether the information provided to the user regarding determined differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user is referring to the first selected target breathing pattern or the second re-selected target breathing pattern. Furthermore, if it is referring to the second re-selected target breathing pattern, it is unclear how the information regarding determined differences is provided to a user when it has not been previously computed.
Examiner suggests moving the limitation of “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” to be after the limitation of “providing information ... of the user”.
Claims 2-16, 18-25, and 27-29 are rejected by virtue from depending from independent claims 1, 17, or 26.
Claim 5 lines 4-6, Claim 20 lines 2-4, and Claim 28 lines 3-6 recite the limitation “wherein: the target breathing pattern for the current exercise includes a first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern different from the first breathing pattern and associated with the second part of the current exercise”. It is unclear how the first part of the current exercise and second part of the current exercise relate to the steps of selecting/dynamically updating as recited in amended independent claims 1, 17, and 26. Further, it is unclear if the first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise and the second breathing pattern associated with the second part of the current exercise has any relation to the first selected breathing pattern and/or the second re-selected target breathing pattern. Examiner suggests relating and aligning the breathing patterns and first and second parts of the exercise recited in claims 5, 20, and 28 with the steps of selecting and dynamically updating target breathing patterns as recited in the independent claims to provide relation/clarification.
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 line 2 and 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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “the target breathing pattern is based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor indicating how the user is moving during the exercise”. Claim 1 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, claim 3 does not further limit the subject matter of independent clam 1. 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 1-30 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 1, 17, 26, and 30 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claims 1, 17, 26, and 30, the claims recite a series of structural elements and/or a series of steps or acts, including a device/user equipment. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and/or a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input;
selecting, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns, wherein each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise;
determining differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user;
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
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 1, 17, 26, and 30 recites receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor and monitoring a currently breathing pattern of the user while performing the current exercise based on inputs from a respiratory sensor and providing information to the user regarding determined differences between the selected target breathing pattern 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 providing information does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the provided information, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
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;
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 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 1, 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; 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) 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 2-16, 18-25, and 27-29 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-15, 17-18, 21-23, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20160007911 A1 – previously cited) in view of Krans (US 20180338709 A1), and further in view of Iliffe-Moon (US 20210257080 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method executed by a processor (processing device 12, para. [0016]) of user equipment (breathing guidance system 1, para. [0016]) for providing information regarding breathing patterns of a user during exercise (“breathing waveform”, Abstract), comprising: receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor (“physiological status detection device 10 ... gravity sensor”, para. [0017-0018, 0021]); determining a current exercise performed by the user (“instant physiological status information 11 … body movement … direction and a distance of the body movement”, para. [0017-0018], step 302, fig. 3) based on the received sensor input (“instant physiological status information 11”, para. [0017-0018, 0021]); selecting, based on the determined current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns (“pre-stored algorithms ... breathing methods ... target breathing waveform”; “generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0024], step 306; claim 15, “select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms”); monitoring a current breathing pattern of the user (“instant breathing status information 17 … breathing frequency”, para. [0033-0035, 0051]) while performing the current exercise based on inputs from a respiratory sensor (instant breathing detection module 16, para. [0033-0034, 0051], fig. 1) (step 307, fig. 3, para. [0051]); determining differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user (“breathing waveform difference”, para. [0037, 0052-0053], step 308, fig. 3); and providing information to the user 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 (“breathing indication device 14 generates a breathing indication signal 15”; “breathing condition indication signal 19 … displayed”, para. [0025-0029, 0031, 0036], steps 310-311, fig. 3).
Wu further discloses that the physiological status detection device 10 can be such as, but not limited to a gravity sensor, an oxygen saturation measuring device or a heartbeat rate measuring device (para. [0017]) and Wu does recognize generating a target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information 11 and a pre-stored default breathing waveform, that breathing patterns can be related to different breathing methods such as, but not limited to Tai-Chi, Kung-Fu or Yoga, receiving a selection command to select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms, and generating the target breathing waveform that is suitable for the user 18 (para. [0022-0024], claims 15 & 29).
Wu does not particularly detail the step of “determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” and that “each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise”.
However, Krans directed to wearable devices that recognize and track activity discloses the particular manner of “determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” and that “each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise”. Krans discloses an exercise sensor (“sensors 28 ... inertial sensors (e.g., gyroscopes, single or multi-axis accelerometers, such as those using piezoelectric, piezoresistive or capacitive technology in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) infrastructure)”, para. [0038]) and determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input (“determining the identity of the activity in which the subject is engaged ... subset of the sensors 28 in the wearable device 12 that are needed to accurately measure the activity”; “automatically determining the type of activity based on the information in the received signal”, para. [0057-0058, 0062-0064]) and wherein each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise (“detected activity ... optimal breathing rate and rhythm may be different for each activity, and even for sub-types of the activity”; “selectable algorithms stored in the memory based on determining the type of activity”, para. [0057, 0070). Krans further discloses using the information about the activity for improving the interpretation of the data through selective engagement of one of the plurality of algorithms 48 and selecting an activity-specific algorithm (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, which recognizes it is useful to generate a target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information, such that the method comprises determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input and wherein each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise, in view of the teachings of Krans, as this would aid in selecting the activity-specific algorithm (optimal breathing rate and rhythm) appropriate for the activity (Krans, para. [0057]) by using a known manner to generate/select a target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information/type of activity, which is of interest to Wu.
Wu, as modified by Krans hereinabove, discloses selecting, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns (“pre-stored algorithms ... breathing methods ... target breathing waveform”; “generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0024], step 306; claim 15, “select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms” & “selected ... activity ... optimal breathing rate and rhythm”, Krans, para. [0057-0058]).
Wu does recognize the system having an active biofeedback mechanism to obtain the instant physiological status information and the breathing condition to perform comparison (para. [0038]). Wu, as modified by Krans hereinabove, does not particularly detail the manner in which the active biofeedback mechanism performs the step of 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.
However, Iliffe-Moon directed to a system and method for entrainment of a user based on bio rhythm of the user discloses dynamically updating the target breathing pattern in response to detecting a change in the type of current exercise during an exercise session, (“transition between modes”; “set the entraining target based on ... a mode ... physical activity ... entraining target may be set differently for a different mode”; “entrainment period ... dynamically shifts between different states or modes”; “target breathing rate is adjusted dynamically”; “the breathing rate is altered dynamically for exercise training”, para. [0005, 0023, 0026-0027, 0058-0064, 0077, 0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans hereinabove, such that the method comprises 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, in view of the teachings of Iliffe-Moon, as this would aid in setting/dynamically changing the entrainment target based on the mode/physical activity of the user.
Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the dynamic updating comprising re-selecting a different one of the plurality of stored breathing patterns (“pre-stored algorithms ... breathing methods ... target breathing waveform”; “generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0024], step 306; claim 15, “select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms” & “selected ... activity ... optimal breathing rate and rhythm”, Krans, para. [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 17, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the user equipment (UE) (Wu, breathing guidance system 1, fig. 1), comprising: a user interface (Wu, “smartphone or a tablet PC”, para. [0022]); and a processor coupled to the user interface (Wu, processing device 12, para. [0022]) and configured with processor-executable instructions (Wu, “smartphone”; breathing guidance method 300, fig. 3, para. [0022, 0044]), as the subject matter of claim 17 is analogous to the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the user equipment (UE) (breathing guidance system 1, fig. 1), as the subject matter of claim 17 is analogous to the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the exercise sensor provides information regarding user body movements (“gravity sensor … body movement information”, para. [0017-0018, 0021]), wherein determining the type of the current exercise is based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor (“instant physiological status information 11”, para. [0017-0018, 0021] & Krans, para. [0057-0058, 0062-0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 2, 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 (“receive instant physiological status information 11 … to generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0023]).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1/the UE of claim 17, further comprising: receiving a manual user input regarding at least one of the current exercise or the target breathing pattern (“default breathing waveform … exercising … options … user to select … selection command … generate the default breathing waveform”, para. [0022, 0045]), wherein determining the target breathing pattern is further based on the received manual user input (“generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0023]).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1/the UE of claim 17, further comprising: receiving contextual information indicating a context in which the user is performing the current exercise (“actual environment status”, para. [0040]), wherein determining the target breathing pattern is further based on the received contextual information (“target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information 11 and a pre-stored default breathing waveform”; “generates the default breathing waveform … according to … 21 … 11”, para. [0022, 0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1. Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the target breathing pattern is based on at least one of a user’s body type, health goals, or experience level performing the current exercise.
However, Iliffe-Moon directed to system and method for entrainment of a user based on bio rhythm of the user discloses wherein the target breathing pattern is based on at least one of a user’s body type, health goals, or experience level performing the current exercise (“bio-rhythm … targets … based on experience or aspirational goals of the user … numerical value for a bio-rhythm (e.g. a breathing rate) or choose a mode or level (e.g. relaxation or meditation level) or type of experience, for example via a graphical user interface”; “sets an entraining target”, para. [0040-0042, 0058-0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the target breathing pattern is based on at least one of a user’s body type, health goals, or experience level performing the current exercise, in view of the teachings of Iliffe-Moon, as this would aid in setting an entraining target bio rhythm/breathing rate based on the user’s experience or aspirational goals.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1/the UE of claim 17, and determining a target breathing pattern for the user to achieve in response to the current breathing pattern exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold (“breathing waveform difference is not smaller than the threshold … target breathing waveform is generated”, para. [0052-0053]). Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not disclose the method further comprising determining another target breathing pattern for the user to achieve in response to the current breathing pattern exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold; and providing additional information to the user regarding the other target breathing pattern.
However, Iliffe-Moon directed to system and method for entrainment of a user based on bio rhythm of the user discloses determining another target breathing pattern for the user to achieve in response to the user successfully reaching each incremental/decremental entraining target (“entraining target … breathing rate … reduced or increased progressively”; “target breathing rate … progressively updated or changed according to the actual breathing rate”, para. [0025, 0032, 0077, 0086]); and providing additional information to the user regarding the other target breathing pattern (“provide bio-feedback 160”; “feedback on the status of the … difference”, para. [0032, 068, 0075-0077, 0086]). Iliffe-Moon further discloses that bio-feedback 160 functions as a feedback loop to adapt the entraining rhythm and the entrainment experience and breathing exercises may then be conducted where the breathing rate is altered dynamically for exercise training and/or provide variations to maintain user engagement, interest and/or prevent fatigue (para. [0075, 0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the method further comprises determining another target breathing pattern for the user to achieve in response to the current breathing pattern exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold; and providing additional information to the user regarding the other target breathing pattern, in view of the teachings of Iliffe-Moon, as this would aid in adapting the entraining rhythm and the entrainment experience in order to dynamically alter the breathing rate for exercise training and/or provide variations to maintain user engagement, interest and/or prevent fatigue.
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1/the UE of claim 17, further comprising: determining a first extent of body movements by the user attributed to the determined current exercise apart from breathing (“physiological status information … body movement information … gravity sensor … direction and a distance of body movement … watch-like contacting device”, para. [0017-0018, 0021-0022]), wherein the current breathing pattern of the user is associated with a second extent of body movement by the user attributed to breathing and distinct from the first extent of body movements (“radar wave transceiver module …body portions that displace according to the breathing … distance of expansion and contraction of the chest and the stomach”, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current breathing pattern of the user includes at least one of a rate, rhythm, or quality of respiratory movement (“strength of the breathing sound … a breathing depth, a breathing frequency”, para. [0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 15, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein providing information to the user regarding the determined differences includes notifying the user through at least one of a visual, audible, or haptic alert (“14 … light generation device”; “14 … sound generati0n device”; “breathing condition … display module”, para. [0025-0026, 0028, 0036]).
Regarding claim 18, Wu, as modified by Niehaus hereinabove, discloses the UE of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions (“smartphone”; breathing guidance method 300, fig. 3, para. [0022, 0044]) to: receive information regarding user body movements from the exercise sensor (“gravity sensor … body movement information”, para. [0017-0018, 0021], fig. 1); and determine the type of the current exercise based on the sensor input received from the exercise sensor (“instant physiological status information 11”, para. [0017-0018, 0021] & Niehaus, para. [0033-0034, 0052]).
Claims 4, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view Krans and Iliffe-Moon, as applied to claims 1 and 17, and further in view of Jayalth (US 20140135593 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1/ UE of claim 17. Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not disclose receiving sensor input from the exercise sensor that provides exercise information regarding the current exercise, wherein the exercise sensor is associated with exercise equipment used by the user to perform the current exercise, and wherein determining the current exercise is further based on the exercise information associated with the exercise equipment.
However, Jayalth having to a form-fitting sensor garment 102 and an equipment detector (ED) 116 for obtaining information from exercise equipment communicating device 110 (fig. 1A) discloses receiving sensor input from the exercise sensor (equipment detector 116 & exercise equipment communicating device 110, fig. 1A, “116 ... acquire the aforementioned information regarding the exercise equipment”, para. [0053]) that provides exercise information associated with the current exercise (“information regarding the exercise equipment … or types of exercises”; “system schema”, para. [0053, 0056-0057]), wherein the exercise sensor is associated with exercise equipment used by the user to perform the current exercise (as seen in fig. 1A, para. [0053, 0056-0057]), wherein determining the current exercise is further based on the exercise information associated with the exercise equipment (“information ... acquire ... the types of exercises that may be performed on the exercise equipment”, para. [0053]). Jayalth further discloses that a system schema (combination of workout and/or exercise parameters) associated with a particular exercise may be automatically obtained in a user-friendly manner (e.g., wirelessly) without requiring data entry by the human subject (para. [0056-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the method comprises receiving sensor input from the exercise sensor that provides exercise information regarding the current exercise, the exercise sensor is associated with exercise equipment used by the user to perform the current exercise, and determining the current exercise is further based on the exercise information associated with the exercise equipment, in view of the teachings of Jayalth, as this would aid in acquiring the types of exercises that may be performed on the exercise equipment and automatically obtaining a system schema (combination of workout and/or exercise parameters) associated with a particular exercise in a user-friendly manner.
Regarding claim 16, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information regarding the determined differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user is provided to the user through feedback (“breathing indication device 14 generates a breathing indication signal 15”; “breathing condition indication signal 19 … displayed”, para. [0025-0029, 0031, 0036], steps 310-311, fig. 3).
Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the current exercise is determined based on exercise equipment used by the user and the information regarding the determined differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user is provided to the user through feedback from the exercise equipment.
However, Jayalth having to a form-fitting sensor garment 102 and an equipment detector (ED) 116 for obtaining information from exercise equipment communicating device 110 (fig. 1A) discloses wherein the current exercise is determined based on exercise equipment used by the user (“exercise equipment communicating devices 110 may be read by equipment detector 116 … information … types of exercises”, para. [0053, 0057-0058]) and information is provided to the user through feedback from the exercise equipment (“biopotential sensors … respiration”; “provided as instant feedback to the user and/or to adjust the exercise the equipment (e.g., in real time) to optimize the exercise session … sensors provide information”, para. [0029, 0038, 0109]). Jayalth further discloses that the use of different types of sensors together (e.g., … respiration …) to monitor a human subject performance on a particular exercise routine greatly improves the accuracy and richness of the performance data acquired as well as improving the type of analysis and/or recommendation/coaching that can be provided (para. [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the current exercise is determined based on exercise equipment used by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user is provided to the user through feedback from the exercise equipment, in view of the teachings of Jayalth, as this would aid in determining the type of exercise that may be performed based on the equipment detector and providing instant feedback to the user and/or adjusting the exercise equipment to improve the accuracy and richness of the performance data acquired as well as improving the type of analysis and/or recommendation/coaching (Jayalth, para. [0109]).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Krans and Iliffe-Moon, as applied to claims 1 and 17, and further in view of Bullens (US 20080161657 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1/ the UE of claim 17. Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not disclose the method further comprising receiving user body movement information from the exercise sensor indicating which of a first and a second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing, wherein: the target breathing pattern includes a first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern different from the first breathing pattern and associated with the second part of the current exercise; determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user comprises determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise; and providing information to the user includes providing information to the user regarding differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise.
However, Bullens directed to a device and method for automatically setting a threshold for detecting a physiological event discloses receiving user body movement information from the exercise sensor (sensors 70, fig. 2) indicating which of a first and a second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing (“sensors 70 include an activity sensor for monitoring the physical activity of the patient”; “activity signal will immediately …resting state … active state”, para. [0021, 0030-0032]), wherein: the target breathing pattern (normal respiration rate response template 325, para. [0036]) includes a first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise (“respiration rate at a first activity level 315 … lower activity level … walking”, para. [0036], fig. 4) and a second breathing pattern different from the first breathing pattern and associated with the second part of the current exercise (“respiration rate at … second activity level 320 … higher activity level … jogging or cycling … substantially different”, para. [0036], fig. 4); determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user (as seen in fig. 4) comprises determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise (“detection of a deviation from the normal respiration rate response template 325 … increase in the respiration response … falls outside a predetermined range 335”; “measured respiration rate is determined to deviate from the stored template”, para. [0036-0038, 0041-0043], as seen in figs. 4-5); and providing information to the user includes providing information to the user regarding differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise (“physiological events or changes in monitored physiological conditions may be defined as triggering conditions for a patient alarm to be generated by IMD 10”; “thresholds … triggering a patient alarm”, para. [0020, 0023]). Bullens further discloses that the respiration rate response to an increase in activity level is used in setting a thoracic impedance measurement threshold for detecting a worsening pulmonary edema condition, that the deviation from this normal response may correspond to abnormal breathing associated with heart failure, and that the increase in the respiration rate response to activity may reflect shortness of breath due to increased thoracic congestion (para. [0021, 0035-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the method/processor further comprises receiving user body movement information from the exercise sensor indicating which of a first and a second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing, wherein: the target breathing pattern includes a first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern different from the first breathing pattern and associated with the second part of the current exercise; determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user comprises determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise; and providing information to the user includes providing information to the user regarding differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise, in view of the teachings of Bullens, as this would aid in detecting abnormal breathing and a worsening pulmonary edema condition based on the respiration rate response to exercise.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Krans and Iliffe-Moon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cronin (US 20180078181 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1. Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not disclose the method further comprising: activating the respiratory sensor, configured to monitor the current breathing pattern of the user while performing the current exercise, in response to determining the current exercise is being performed by the user.
However, Cronin directed to a health wearable device having a microphone to measure respiratory rate and an accelerometer to measure exercise (para. [0042, 0074]) discloses activating the respiratory sensor, configured to monitor the current breathing pattern of the user while performing the current exercise (“sensors 110 … measuring … respiratory rate”, para. [0042]), in response to determining the current exercise is being performed by the user (“user priority setting list … determining which sensors should remain on during the activity … during activity … turn on temperature sensor and respiratory rate to detect over exertion or adjust exercise coaching advice”, para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the method further comprises activating the respiratory sensor, configured to monitor the current breathing pattern of the user while performing the current exercise, in response to determining the current exercise is being performed by the user, in view of the teachings of Cronin, as this would aid in of detecting over exertion during exercise and adjusting exercise coaching advice.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Krans and Iliffe-Moon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sels (US 20190029563 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1. Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user comprises comparing the current breathing pattern of the user to at least one of a previously determined respiratory rate, rhythm, or quality of the user when the user performed the current exercise.
However, Sels directed to methods and apparatus for detecting breathing patterns and gathering breathing data while the user is performing one or more activities (para. [0001, 0013]) discloses wherein determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user (“determine … the breathing pattern data 126 satisfies a threshold … breathing rate”, para. [0054]) comprises comparing the current breathing pattern of the user to at least one of a previously determined respiratory rate, rhythm, or quality of the user when the user performed the current exercise (“breathing rate … change detected in the breathing pattern data 126 … relative to historical breathing pattern data stored in the database 300 (e.g., more than a threshold increase in breathing rate over time)”, para. [0054]). Sels further discloses breathing data is processed in substantially real-time to provide the user with notifications during user activities and the alert(s) include warnings about potential health conditions detected based on the breathing data (para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user comprises comparing the current breathing pattern of the user to at least one of a previously determined respiratory rate, rhythm, or quality of the user when the user performed the current exercise, in view of the teachings of Sels, as this would aid in detecting changes in the breathing patterns relative to historical breathing patterns and provide the user with notifications/alerts during user activities based on the breathing data.
Regarding claim 12, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 1. Wu further discloses that the breathing detection module 16 includes a sound-receiving module to receive a breathing sound of the user 18 (para. [0034]).
Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not disclose activating an additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold.
However, Sels directed to methods and apparatus for detecting breathing patterns and gathering breathing data while the user is performing one or more activities (para. [0001, 0013]) discloses activating an additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold (“microphone rules(s) 314 … threshold(s) … based on one or more other characteristics of the breathing sounds, such as pattern(s) of the sound(s) … microphone(s) 106, 118 are not “always on” but instead are activated for audio collection only when certain conditions are met”, para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the method further comprises activating an additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold, in view of the teachings of Sels, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the instant breathing detection module of Wu for the microphones of Sels, and would aid in detect breathing sounds of the user by activating the second microphone in response to microphone rules being met.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Krans, Iliffe-Moon, as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Cronin, and further in view of Sels.
Regarding claim 24, Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses The UE of claim 17. Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions to: activate the respiratory sensor in response to determining the current exercise is being performed by the user.
However, Cronin directed to a health wearable device having a microphone to measure respiratory rate and an accelerometer to measure exercise (para. [0042, 0074]) discloses wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions (para. [0014]) to: activate the respiratory sensor in response to determining the current exercise is being performed by the user (“user priority setting list … determining which sensors should remain on during the activity … during activity … turn on temperature sensor and respiratory rate to detect over exertion or adjust exercise coaching advice”, para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions to: activate the respiratory sensor in response to determining the current exercise is being performed by the user, in view of the teachings of Cronin, as this would aid in detecting over exertion during exercise and adjusting exercise coaching advice.
Wu further discloses that the breathing detection module 16 includes a sound-receiving module to receive a breathing sound of the user 18 (para. [0034]).
Wu, as modified by Krans, Iliffe-Moon, and Cronin hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions to: activate an additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold.
However, Sels directed to methods and apparatus for detecting breathing patterns and gathering breathing data while the user is performing one or more activities (para. [0001, 0013]) discloses wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions (“microphone manager 312 … programmable processor(s)” para. [0062]) to: activate an additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold (“microphone rules(s) 314 … threshold(s) … based on one or more other characteristics of the breathing sounds, such as pattern(s) of the sound(s) … microphone(s) 106, 118 are not “always on” but instead are activated for audio collection only when certain conditions are met”, para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Krans, Iliffe-Moon, and Cronin hereinabove, such that the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions to: activate an additional sensor in response to the current breathing pattern of the user exceeding a normal breathing pattern threshold, in view of the teachings of Sels, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the instant breathing detection module of Wu for the microphones of Sels, and would aid in detect breathing sounds of the user by activating the second microphone in response to microphone rules being met.
Claims 26-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lu (US 20170086730 A1), further in view of Krans, and further in view of Iliffe-Moon.
Regarding claim 26, Wu discloses a processor (processing device 12, fig. 1) of a user equipment (UE) (breathing guidance system 1, fig. 1) to provide information regarding breathing patterns of a user during exercise by performing operations (Abstract) comprising: receiving a sensor input from an exercise sensor (“physiological status detection device 10 ... gravity sensor”, para. [0017-0018, 0021]); determining a current exercise performed by the user (“instant physiological status information 11 … body movement … direction and a distance of the body movement”, para. [0017-0018], step 302, fig. 3) based on the received sensor input (“instant physiological status information 11”, para. [0017-0018, 0021]); selecting, based on the determined current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns (“pre-stored algorithms ... breathing methods ... target breathing waveform”; “generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0024], step 306; claim 15, “select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms”); monitoring a current breathing pattern of the user (“instant breathing status information 17 … breathing frequency”, para. [0033-0035, 0051]) while performing the current exercise based on inputs from a respiratory sensor (instant breathing detection module 16, para. [0033-0034, 0051], fig. 1) (step 307, fig. 3, para. [0051]); determining differences between the target breathing pattern selected for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user (“breathing waveform difference”, para. [0037, 0052-0053], step 308, fig. 3); and providing information to the user 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 (“breathing indication device 14 generates a breathing indication signal 15”; “breathing condition indication signal 19 … displayed”, para. [0025-0029, 0031, 0036], steps 310-311, fig. 3).
Wu does not expressly disclose a non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processor of a user equipment (UE) to provide information regarding breathing patterns of a user during exercise by performing operations.
However, discloses Lu directed to sports training based wearable devices discloses a non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions (“machine-readable medium … RAMS … machine-executable instructions”, para. [0050]) configured to cause a processor (“processor”; “computer”, para. [0018, 0050]) of a user equipment (UE) (computing device 100 (e.g. wearable device), fig. 2, para. [0016]) to provide information regarding breathing patterns of a user during exercise (fig. 4, “assists in achieving an optimal breathing during a user workout by coordinating body movement”, para. [0014, 0034]) by performing operations (process 400, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to further comprise a non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processor of a user equipment (UE) to provide information regarding breathing patterns of a user during exercise by performing operations, in view of the teachings of Lu, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the processing device of Wu for the wearable computing device of Lu as this would aid in providing a sports training based wearable device.
Wu further discloses that the physiological status detection device 10 can be such as, but not limited to a gravity sensor, an oxygen saturation measuring device or a heartbeat rate measuring device (para. [0017]) and Wu does recognize generating a target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information 11 and a pre-stored default breathing waveform, that breathing patterns can be related to different breathing methods such as, but not limited to Tai-Chi, Kung-Fu or Yoga, receiving a selection command to select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms, and generating the target breathing waveform that is suitable for the user 18 (para. [0022-0024], claims 15 & 29).
Wu does not particularly detail the step of “determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” that “each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise”.
However, Krans directed to wearable devices that recognize and track activity discloses the particular manner of “determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input” and that “each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise”. Krans discloses an exercise sensor (“sensors 28 ... inertial sensors (e.g., gyroscopes, single or multi-axis accelerometers, such as those using piezoelectric, piezoresistive or capacitive technology in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) infrastructure)”, para. [0038]) and determining a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input (“determining the identity of the activity in which the subject is engaged ... subset of the sensors 28 in the wearable device 12 that are needed to accurately measure the activity”; “automatically determining the type of activity based on the information in the received signal”, para. [0057-0058, 0062-0064]) and wherein each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise (“detected activity ... optimal breathing rate and rhythm may be different for each activity, and even for sub-types of the activity”, para. [0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, which recognizes it is useful to generate a target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information, such that the processor is configured to determine a type of current exercise performed by the user based on the received sensor input and each of the plurality of stored breathing patterns is associated with a different type of exercise, in view of the teachings of Krans, as this would aid in selecting the activity-specific algorithm (optimal breathing rate and rhythm) appropriate for the activity (Krans, para. [0057]) by using a known manner to generate/select a target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information/type of activity, which is of interest to Wu.
Wu, as modified by Lu and Krans hereinabove, discloses selecting, based on the determined type of current exercise, a target breathing pattern from a plurality of stored breathing patterns (“pre-stored algorithms ... breathing methods ... target breathing waveform”; “generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0024], step 306; claim 15, “select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms” & “selected ... activity ... optimal breathing rate and rhythm”, Krans, para. [0057-0058]).
Wu does recognize the system having an active biofeedback mechanism to obtain the instant physiological status information and the breathing condition to perform comparison (para. [0038]).
Wu, as modified by Lu and Krans hereinabove, does not expressly disclose 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.
However, Iliffe-Moon directed to a system and method for entrainment of a user based on bio rhythm of the user discloses dynamically updating the target breathing pattern in response to detecting a change in the type of current exercise during an exercise session, (“transition between modes”; “set the entraining target based on ... a mode ... physical activity ... entraining target may be set differently for a different mode”; “entrainment period ... dynamically shifts between different states or modes”; “target breathing rate is adjusted dynamically”; “the breathing rate is altered dynamically for exercise training”, para. [0005, 0023, 0026-0027, 0058-0064, 0077, 0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Lu and Krans hereinabove, such that the method comprises 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, in view of the teachings of Iliffe-Moon, as this would aid in setting/dynamically changing the entrainment target based on the mode/physical activity of the user.
Wu, as modified by Lu, Krans, and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the dynamic updating comprising re-selecting a different one of the plurality of stored breathing patterns (“pre-stored algorithms ... breathing methods ... target breathing waveform”; “generate a target breathing waveform … default breathing waveform … exercising … breathing frequency”, para. [0022-0024], step 306; claim 15, “select one of a plurality of default breathing waveforms” & “selected ... activity ... optimal breathing rate and rhythm”, Krans, para. [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 27, Wu, as modified by Lu, Krans, and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the sensor input provides information regarding user body movements (“gravity sensor … body movement information”, para. [0017-0018, 0021]), wherein determining the type of the current exercise is based on the received sensor input from the exercise sensor (“instant physiological status information 11”, para. [0017-0018, 0021] & Niehaus, para. [0033-0034, 0052]).
Regarding claim 29, Wu, as modified by Lu, Krans, and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the stored processor-executable instructions are configured to cause a processor of the UE to perform operations further comprising: receiving contextual information indicating a context in which the user is performing the current exercise (“actual environment status”, para. [0040]); and determine the target breathing pattern further based on the received contextual information (“target breathing waveform according to the instant physiological status information 11 and a pre-stored default breathing waveform”; “generates the default breathing waveform … according to … 21 … 11”, para. [0022, 0040]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view Lu, Krans, and Iliffe-Moon, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Bullens.
Regarding claim 28, Wu, as modified by Lu, Krans, and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 26. Wu, as modified by Lu, Krans, and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, does not disclose wherein: the stored processor-executable instructions are configured to cause a processor of the UE to perform operations further comprising receiving user body movement information from the exercise sensor indicating which of a first and a second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing; and the stored processor-executable instructions are configured to cause a processor of the UE to perform operations such that: the target breathing pattern includes a first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern different from the first breathing pattern and associated with the second part of the current exercise; determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user comprises determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise; and providing information to the user comprises providing information to the user regarding differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise.
However, Bullens directed to a device and method for automatically setting a threshold for detecting a physiological event discloses wherein: the stored processor-executable instructions are configured to cause a processor (microprocessor 54 and signal processor 60, fig. 2) of the UE (10, fig. 2) to perform operations (para. [0028]) further comprising receiving user body movement information from the exercise sensor (sensors 70, fig. 2) indicating which of a first and a second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing (“sensors 70 include an activity sensor for monitoring the physical activity of the patient”; “activity signal will immediately …resting state … active state”, para. [0021, 0030-0032]); and the stored processor-executable instructions are configured to cause a processor of the UE to perform operations (para. [0028]) such that: the target breathing pattern (normal respiration rate response template 325, para. [0036], as seen in fig. 4) includes a first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise (“respiration rate at a first activity level 315 … lower activity level … walking”, para. [0036], fig. 4) and a second breathing pattern different from the first breathing pattern and associated with the second part of the current exercise (“respiration rate at … second activity level 320 … higher activity level … jogging or cycling … substantially different”, para. [0036], fig. 4); determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user (as seen in fig. 4) comprises determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise (“detection of a deviation from the normal respiration rate response template 325 … increase in the respiration response … falls outside a predetermined range 335”; “measured respiration rate is determined to deviate from the stored template”, para. [0036-0038, 0041-0043], as seen in figs. 4-5); and providing information to the user comprises providing information to the user regarding differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise (“physiological events or changes in monitored physiological conditions may be defined as triggering conditions for a patient alarm to be generated by IMD 10”; “thresholds … triggering a patient alarm”, para. [0020, 0023]). Bullens further discloses that the respiration rate response to an increase in activity level is used in setting a thoracic impedance measurement threshold for detecting a worsening pulmonary edema condition, that the deviation from this normal response may correspond to abnormal breathing associated with heart failure, and that the increase in the respiration rate response to activity may reflect shortness of breath due to increased thoracic congestion (para. [0021, 0035-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, as modified by Lu, Krans, and Iliffe-Moon hereinabove, such that the stored processor-executable instructions are configured to cause a processor of the UE to perform operations further comprising receiving user body movement information from the exercise sensor indicating which of a first and a second part of the current exercise the user is currently performing; and the stored processor-executable instructions are configured to cause a processor of the UE to perform operations such that: the target breathing pattern includes a first breathing pattern associated with the first part of the current exercise and a second breathing pattern different from the first breathing pattern and associated with the second part of the current exercise; determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the current exercise performed by the user and the current breathing pattern of the user comprises determining differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise; and providing information to the user comprises providing information to the user regarding differences between the target breathing pattern appropriate for the first and second parts of the current exercise and the current breathing pattern of the user during the first and second parts of the current exercise, in view of the teachings of Bullens, as this would aid in detecting abnormal breathing and a worsening pulmonary edema condition based on the respiration rate response to exercise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shirasaki (US 20090227425 A1) directed to a breathing exerciser.
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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights