DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The amendments and remarks filed on 23OCT2025 have been entered and considered.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Claims 1-15 have been amended.
Claim 16 has been added.
Claims 14-15 have been withdrawn.
No new matter has been added.
Limitation “calculate an exercise score based on calorie consumption” found in claim 1 has support in the Specification in ¶0026 . Limitation “processor” found in claim 1 has support in the Specification in ¶0045 as the “information terminal 30”.Limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the exercise score only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions” as stated in claim 1 has support in the Specification in ¶0026. Limitation “the standard value being an average value of relative heart rates that have been measured for a plurality of subjects” found in claim 1 has support in the Specification in ¶0007. Finally, Limitation “store a walking heart rate reference derived from a regression equation, the walking heart rate reference defining a correspondence relationship of a standard value of a relative heart rate with respect to a walking speed” as seen in claim 1 has support in the Specification in ¶0037.
Claims 1-13 & 16 are under examination
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23OCT2025 regarding the Specification & Drawing Objections have been fully considered and have been found to be persuasive. The applicant has sufficiently explained the various reference labels and character numbers which were designated for duplicate issues in the Specification/Drawings. Therefore, the objections to the Specification and Drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments filed 23OCT2025 regarding the interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and have been found to be obviate the interpretations. Therefore, the 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 23OCT2025 regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and have been found to be persuasive. Responses to Applicant’s comment are provided below.
Applicant states (see Pages 14 of the Remarks):
“First, the Office Action asserts that claims 1-13 are indefinite because the various "units" recited in the claims are nondescriptive. Applicant respectfully contends that this issue is addressed by the claim amendments discussed above to avoid claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
The examiner has withdrawn the related rejections under 112(b) following the deletion of the “units” in amendments made on 23OCT2025.
“Additionally, the Office Action on page 16 asserts that it is unclear what calculation is performed to "derive the standard value," and what calculation is performed for "determining an evaluation value." Applicant amends claim 1 to recite "the standard value being an average value of relative heart rates that have been measured for a plurality of subjects." Applicant notes that, for example, at least [[0007 of the original specification supports the amendment.
The examiner is persuaded by the explanation and amendments made regarding the rejection of claim 1 for term “deriving the standard value” in Lines 10-11. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
By defining the standard value, Applicant contends that persons skilled in the art would readily understand how the "evaluation value" is determined based on the comparison between the measured value and the standard value (in particular, claim 1 recites: "determine an evaluation value based on a difference between the measured value and the standard value").”
The amendments made regarding claim 1 has obviated the rejection. Therefore, the rejection of the evaluation value as cited in claim 1 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
“The Office Action on pages 17 and 18 also asserts that the meanings of the "reference storage," the "walking heart rate reference," and the "correspondence relationship" are unclear. For the "reference storage," the original specification may not explicitly describe the term. However, Applicant notes that the "reference storage" represents a memory, as the Examiner interprets on page 17. Furthermore, Applicant believes that the terms "storage" and "memory" can be used interchangeably, and thus no amendment is required to address the issue”
The examiner is persuaded by the provided clarification regarding the reference storage. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 limitation “reference storage” has been withdrawn.
“ Regarding the "walking heart rate reference," [0027 of the original specification describes that the reference denotes a regression equation. Hence, Applicant amends independent claims 1, 14, and 15 to recite "a walking heart rate reference derived from a regression equation.".”
The amendments to claim 1 regarding the walking heart rate reference obviates the rejection under 112(b). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 limitation “reference storage” has been withdrawn.
“As for the "correspondence relationship." Applicant notes that claim 1 clearly defines the term as "relationship of a standard value of a relative heart rate with respect to a walking speed." And as discussed above, the term "standard value" is now clearly defined. Hence, Applicant respectfully contends that no amendment is required to address this issue.”
The amendments to claim 1 obviates the rejection under 112(b). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant states (see Pages 15 of the Remarks):
“Additionally, the Office Action on page 18 asserts that the term "high speed range" in claims 5-7 is a relative term, rendering the claims indefinite. Applicant does not necessarily agree with the assertion because the claims recite that a high speed range is a range "equal to or higher than a predetermined speed." Nonetheless, in the interest of advancing the prosecution, Applicant amends the claims to remove the term "high."”
The examiner notes that the amendments of claims 5-7 overcomes the rejection made to claims 5-7. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
“The Office Action also asserts that the feature "the speed acquisition unit and the heart rate acquisition unit acquire the measured value" recited in claims 8-10 is unclear. That is, claim 1 recites that each of the speed acquisition unit and the heart rate acquisition unit acquires a measured value, and the Office Action asserts that the above feature in claims 8-10 is unclear as to whether the measured value recited in the claims is a value measured by the speed acquisition unit or a value measured by the heart rate acquisition unit, or both. Based on [[0030 of the original specification and based on the above amendments to avoid 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation, Applicant amends claims 8-10 to recite "the processor is configured to speed acquisition unit and the heart rate acquisition unit acquire the measured value.".”
The examiner notes that the amendments of claims 8-10 overcomes the rejection made to claims 8-10. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
“The Office Action also asserts that the feature "based on the measured value" recited in claims 8-10 lacks a sufficient antecedent basis. Applicant respectfully submits that the above amendments to claims 8-10 would also address this issue because the amendments more abundantly recite the definition of the measured value. “
The examiner notes that the amendments made to address the antecedence issue overcomes the rejection made to claims 8-10. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
“Lastly, the Office Action asserts that it is unclear how the predetermined time period is measured in claims 8-10. The Office Action then indicates that, for examination purposes, the Examiner interprets this feature as meaning "based on the measured values of the heart rate and speed corresponding to the predetermined elapsed period of time." Applicant notes that claims 8-10 define that the predetermined time period may be any arbitrary time period taken while the subject is walking. Also, based on [0030 of the original specification, Applicant amends the claims to recite "based on the measured value acquired during the predetermined elapsed period of time.".”
The examiner notes that the amendments of claims 8-10 overcomes the rejection made to claims 8-10. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed23OCT2025 regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and have been found to be not persuasive. Parts deemed not persuasive discussed below:
Applicant states (see Page 16 of the Remarks):
“Amended claim 1 explicitly recites that the calculation is carried out only under specific and complex conditions, i.e., "only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions." Applicant respectfully contends that, by limiting the calculation to only necessary circumstances, the recited processor avoids unnecessarily calculating the exercise score, resulting in a technical improvement of better processing efficiency. Applicant respectfully submits that this additional feature sufficiently demonstrates a technical improvement to computer functionality; and therefore, amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
The examiner is not persuaded because the act of calculating the scores under certain conditions, such as "only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions." Amounts to no more that a clinician plotting the data with the conditional limits and performing the stated calculations of physical strength based on when all three are determined to be within their respective thresholds for data. Since a clinican can perform this task regardless of the automation, the limitation of "only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions” does not provide more than an abstract idea. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As additionally discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In this case, a human could acquire the necessary data and plot the relationship on paper to determine an physical strength score.
Applicant's amendments filed 23OCT2025 regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) & 103 have been fully considered and have been found to obviate the rejections. Therefore, the 102(a)(1) and 103 Rejections have been withdrawn. A new ground for rejection is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Regarding claim 1, the following step is an abstract idea: “derive the standard value of the relative heart rate corresponding to the measured value of the walking speed that has been acquired, based on the walking heart rate reference,”; “calculate an exercise score based on calorie consumption”; “determine an evaluation value of a physical strength level of the subject, based on the calculated exercise score and a difference between the measured value of the relative heart rate and the standard value of the relative heart rate.”; and “calculate the exercise score only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions.” which is a mental process and mathematical concept when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As additionally discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In this case, a human could acquire the necessary data and plot the relationship on paper to determine an physical strength score.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Regarding claim 1, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
The “a reference storage structured to store a walking heart rate reference derived from a regression equation, the walking heart rate reference defining a correspondence relationship of a standard value of a relative heart rate with respect to a walking speed, and the standard value being an average value of relative heart rates that have been measured for a plurality of subjects”; “acquire a measured value of a walking speed of a subject”; “acquire a measured value of a relative heart rate of the subject”; “a standard value derivation unit”; “acquire a measured value of a relative heart rate of the subject” are merely extra-solution activity of data gathering and input [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. The references as cited below can also be seen to use such elements in their inventions as to accomplish processing tasks in a manner that is useable by the subject. These are items that can be found in the referenced artwork, along with being found in the medical field as generic daily items that are collected, reviewed, and evaluated for by practitioners for diagnostic purposes.
Step 2B
The additional elements of claim 1, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The items “processor” and “reference storage”, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer using generic processers. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well- understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas of claim 1. The dependent claim limitations are directed to: Data processing (Claims 2-4 & 8-13); Extra-solution activity (Claims 2-7); further defining the data analysis relationships (Claims 5-13 & 16), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The limitation of data collection can be commonly seen for applications such as fitness tracking and health monitoring.
In summary, claims 1-13 & 16 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
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 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.
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 1-4, 8-13, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (JP Publication 2001346906; Previously Cited) in view of Raghuram et al (US Publication No. 20160058356).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi discloses a physical strength evaluation system (Noguchi ¶0005 “That is, the invention of the gait training method according to claim 1 measures the heart rate of a trainee who is doing gait training, obtains the physical strength of the trainee from the heart rate, and determines the walking speed according to the physical strength.”) a processor (Noguchi ¶0056 “information processing unit 13”); and a reference storage structured to store a walking heart rate reference (Noguchi ¶0057 “The heart rate information 29 is acquired and stored together with various information such as age and sex in a file in a specific holder in the customer terminal 53 “)derived from a regression equation, the walking heart rate reference defining a correspondence relationship of a standard value of a relative heart rate with respect to a walking speed (Noguchi ¶0046 “(Determination of Training Target Upper and Lower Limits) Next, the relationship between the step speed and the heart rate is calculated based on these pieces of information. The process flow at this time is as shown in the schematic diagram of FIG. First, as shown in FIG. 6(A), if the distance between the walking speed and the heart rate is represented by a linear regression line”) and the standard value being an average value of relative heart rates that have been measured for a plurality of subjects (Noguchi ¶0035 “The walking speed/heart rate relation standard value recording unit 32 records the data collected about all the persons before the walking training and after the walking training. “); wherein the processor is configured to acquire a measured value of a walking speed of a subject (Noguchi ¶0056 “the step speed information 27, and the heart rate information 29 can be respectively acquired, and a step speed instruction sent from the information processing unit 13”); acquire a measured value of a relative heart rate of the subject (Noguchi ¶0058 “At this time, the service center 51 stores not only the desired information but also the walking contact detection information 26, the walking speed information 27, the heart rate information 29, and various information such as age and sex of the trainee 11 who desires walking training.”); derive the standard value of the relative heart rate corresponding to the measured value of the walking speed that has been acquired, based on the walking heart rate reference (Noguchi ¶0047 “the standard relational expression of the walking speed and the heart rate is pre-recorded in the walking speed/heart rate relationship standard value recording unit 32 based on the age/sex of the trainee 11, the standard The data of the comparison calculation unit 34 that compares the relation between the normal walking speed/heart rate and the relation between the walking speed/heart rate obtained from the trainee 11 is applied”); determine an evaluation value of a physical strength level of the subject, based on the calculated exercise score and a difference between the measured value of the relative heart rate and the standard value of the relative heart rate (Noguchi ¶0038 “ The step speed upper/lower limit value calculation unit 36 compares the physical relationship of the trainee 11 by comparing the standard relationship between the step speed and the heart rate from the age/sex of the trainee 11 and the relationship between the step speed and the heart rate obtained from the trainee 11. It is possible to determine the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the step speed at which the training is to be performed.”; ¶0047); and output the evaluation value of the physical strength level that has been determined (Noguchi ¶0004 “a walking training device or the like that determines the training menu by comparing the physical strength of the trainee with a standard value.” Where the training menu can be considered the final output of the device”),
Noguchi does not disclose a physical strength evaluation system configured to calculate an exercise score based on calorie consumption wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the exercise score only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions.
Raghuram, in a similar field of endeavor of fitness level tracking, teaches a fitness evaluation system (Raghuram Abstract “a fitness tracking device and techniques for accurately tracking an individual's energy expenditure over time and over a variety of activities while wearing the fitness tracking device.”) comprising: a processor (Raghuram ¶0026 “ a processor communicatively coupled to the heart rate sensor, the motion sensor, and the memory, “); configured to calculate an exercise score based on calorie consumption (Raghuram ¶0262 “In some embodiments, at least the initial calorie models may be based on training data. In other embodiments, the calorie models may be calibrated or otherwise adjusted according the user's physical characteristics or fitness level.”; ¶0015) wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the exercise score only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions.(Raghuram ¶0095-¶0100 describing the processing of acquired data to determine a score based on data from step count, time of exercise, distance, and physical qualities which fall within acceptable ranges of data; ¶0114 “Also, in some embodiments, the two-dimensional user-specific table 740 may include some non-overlapping step minimums or step ranges for which the level of activity or other dimension of data may not affect to the estimated PAL score. For example, in Table III above, if a user reaches approximately at least 6,500 mean steps per day (corresponding to a PAL score of at least 6), the activity metrics may not change the estimated PAL score. “ Showing that there is a threshold for acceptable data used in calculations such as step minimums, stating other data sets follow the same concept. This is shown for step count in ¶0092 “The valid day aggregator 520 may output a mean steps per day 530 that was computed using only valid days because the valid day aggregator 520 may have filtered out the invalid days within the rolling window of time.”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system of Noguchi with Raghuram by replacing Noguchi’s processor with the processor configured to calculate an exercise score based on calorie consumption wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the exercise score only in a case where a walking time, a number of steps, and a walking distance in walking exercise respectively satisfy predetermined conditions, as taught by Raghuram, for the purposes of increasing accuracy of the calculations (Noguchi ¶0053).
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi combined with Raghuram teaches the limitations of claim 1. Noguchi further discloses wherein the reference storage stores the walking heart rate reference corresponding to an age of a subject (Noguchi ¶0057 “The heart rate information 29 is acquired and stored together with various information such as age and sex in a file in a specific holder in the customer terminal 53 “), and the processor is configured to derive the standard value of the relative heart rate corresponding to the measured value of the walking speed that has been acquired, based on the walking heart rate reference in accordance with the age of the subject (Noguchi ¶0035 “Then, personal attribute information such as age and sex input from the personal attribute input unit 33 is added to the recorded data, and the relationship between the step speed and the heart rate for each age and sex is recorded in a readable and writable manner. The age information may be recorded as the age at the time of data collection.”).
Regarding claim 3, Noguchi combined with Raghuram teaches the limitations of claim 1. Noguchi further discloses wherein the reference storage stores the walking heart rate reference corresponding to a gender of a subject (Noguchi ¶0057 “The heart rate information 29 is acquired and stored together with various information such as age and sex in a file in a specific holder in the customer terminal 53 “), and the processor is configured to derive the standard value of the relative heart rate corresponding to the measured value of the walking speed that has been acquired, based on the walking heart rate reference in accordance with the gender of the subject (Noguchi ¶0035 “Then, personal attribute information such as age and sex input from the personal attribute input unit 33 is added to the recorded data, and the relationship between the step speed and the heart rate for each age and sex is recorded in a readable and writable manner. The age information may be recorded as the age at the time of data collection.”).
Regarding claim 4, Noguchi combined with Raghuram teaches the limitations of claims 1-2. Noguchi further discloses wherein the reference storage stores the walking heart rate reference corresponding to a gender of a subject (Noguchi ¶0057 “The heart rate information 29 is acquired and stored together with various information such as age and sex in a file in a specific holder in the customer terminal 53 “), and the processor is configured to derive the standard value of the relative heart rate corresponding to the measured value of the walking speed that has been acquired, based on the walking heart rate reference in accordance with the gender of the subject (Noguchi ¶0035 “Then, personal attribute information such as age and sex input from the personal attribute input unit 33 is added to the recorded data, and the relationship between the step speed and the heart rate for each age and sex is recorded in a readable and writable manner. The age information may be recorded as the age at the time of data collection.”).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Noguchi combined with Raghuram teaches the limitations of claim 1-3. Noguchi further discloses wherein processor is configured to acquire the measured value in a predetermined elapsed period of time while the subject is walking and the processor is configured to determine the evaluation value of the physical strength level of the subject, based on the measured value acquired during the predetermined elapsed period of time (Noguchi ¶0045 “the trainer drives the drive unit 14 via the step speed control unit 17 so as to set three step speeds of low speed, medium speed, and high speed, which are predetermined according to the age and sex of the trainee 11, and walks. ….Therefore, as shown in the flow chart of FIG. Drive) for 3 minutes and measure the heart rate during the last 1 minute.”).
Regarding claims 11-13, Noguchi combined with Raghuram teaches the limitations of claims 1-3. Noguchi further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the evaluation value of the physical strength level of the subject, based on a difference between the measured value of the relative heart rate and the standard value of the relative heart rate, and a length of a walking time (Noguchi ¶0045 “At this time, it is known from experience that humans have a stable heart rate if they walk at the same speed for 3 minutes. Therefore, as shown in the flow chart of FIG. Drive) for 3 minutes and measure the heart rate during the last 1 minute…By performing the above operation, the heart rate at three speeds could be measured.”).
Regarding claim 16, Noguchi combined with Raghuram teaches the limitations of claim 1. Noguchi does not further disclose wherein the processor calculates the calorie consumption based on the walking speed and a length of a walking time. Raghuram further teaches wherein the processor calculates the calorie consumption based on the walking speed and a length of a walking time (Raghuram ¶0262 “In some embodiments, at least the initial calorie models may be based on training data. In other embodiments, the calorie models may be calibrated or otherwise adjusted according the user's physical characteristics or fitness level.”; ¶0015; where the fitness level (PAL) was previously described to include length of time & speed in (¶0097 “Thus, total steps S.sub.mod during base activity or modest activity may be computed as a product the time t spent engaged in base activity or modest activity with a typical cadence C.sub.w (for the portion of base activity or modest activity measured based on time) plus the number of steps based on walking stride length (for the portion of base activity or modest activity measured based on distance d traversed):”; ¶0095-¶0100 describing the processing of acquired data to determine a score based on data from step count, time of exercise, distance, and physical qualities which fall within acceptable ranges of data)).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system of Noguchi with wherein the processor calculates the calorie consumption based on the walking speed and a length of a walking time, as taught by Raghuram, for the purposes of evaluating the efficacy of a training level (Noguchi ¶0003).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (JP Publication 2001346906; Previously Cited) in view of Raghuram et al (US Publication No. 20160058356), and Kim et al. (US Publication 20170106241; Previously Cited).
Regarding claims 5-7, Noguchi combined with Raghuram teaches the limitations of claim 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Noguchi further discloses and the processor is configured to determine the evaluation value of the physical strength level of the subject, based on a difference between the measured value of the relative heart rate and the standard value of the relative heart rate in a case where the measured value of the walking speed is in a speed range equal to or higher than a predetermined speed (Noguchi ¶0047; ¶0048 “If the physical strength is greater than the maximum value or the minimum value of the standard walking speed heart rate recorded here, the maximum value or the minimum value may be set as the optimum walking speed value.”).
Noguchi does not disclose wherein the correspondence relationship of the standard value of the relative heart rate with respect to the walking speed defined as the walking heart rate reference has a relationship in which the standard value of the relative heart rate increases in a quadratic function with respect to an increase in the walking speed. Kim in a similar field of endeavor of evaluating exercise capability based on heart rate teaches wherein the correspondence relationship of the standard value of the relative heart rate with respect to the walking speed defined as the walking heart rate reference has a relationship in which the standard value of the relative heart rate increases in a quadratic function with respect to an increase in the walking speed (Kim ¶0094 “he block 840 indicates an example of a method of detecting a feature point based on a quadratic differential indicating a change in a mean value of heart rates. The apparatus calculates mean values of heart rates corresponding to intervals in a detection area, and detects a feature point based on a quadratic differential indicating a change in the mean values of the heart rates in the detection area. The apparatus calculates the quadratic differential indicating changes in the mean values of the heart rates based on, for example, y(n)=x(N+2)−2x(N)+x(N−2), and detects a mean value of heart rates corresponding to a largest quadratic differential among the calculated quadratic differentials to be the feature value.”). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system of Noguchi and Raghuram with the correspondence relationship of the standard value of the relative heart rate with respect to the walking speed defined as the walking heart rate reference has a relationship in which the standard value of the relative heart rate increases in a quadratic function with respect to an increase in the walking speed, as taught by Kim, for the purposes of detecting heart rate changes at a higher speed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN FEDORKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on M-F 9:30-4:30. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN T FEDORKY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796