8DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-17, and 19-20 remain pending in the application, and claims 3, 13, and 18 were cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 101, 102, and 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 16, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection, as described in the Response to Arguments, 112, and 103 Rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one sensor that detect abdominal and chest motion” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Page 9 of the specification describes “three-dimensional cameras includ[ing] a depth sensor”, and Fig. 7 and Page 26 of the specification describes a “band-type waveform acquisition sensor”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 11, and 16 disclose “a distribution map”. It is unclear based on the specification what a distribution “map” entails, as the term is not present in the specification. Claims 5, 15, and 20 also disclose the term “a past distribution map”, which is not present in the specification. For the purpose of examination, the term “distribution map” is interpreted to be any visual display or graph showing a distribution of data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100204601 A1 (Yoshihisa, Masuo) in view of US 20210386318 A1 (Rahman et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Masuo teaches an information processing apparatus comprising
at least one memory storing instructions ([0055] “The first memory 120 is a nonvolatile memory, for example, a ROM (Read Only Memory). The first memory 120 stores a control program for controlling the entire apparatus”), and
at least one processor ([0053] “a processor that is typically a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 170”) configured to execute the instructions to:
input expiratory phase data being data of expiratory phase and inspiratory phase data being data of inspiratory phase for each of abdominal waveform data indicating a breathing waveform of an abdomen of a subject performing breathing training ([0027]; [0053]) and chest waveform data indicating a breathing waveform of a chest of the subject ([0011] “the respiration type determiner determines whether respiration of the human subject is abdominal or costal on the basis of a difference between change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an inhalation of the human subject and change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an exhalation of the human subject”; [0110] “when the comparison result signal DET1 rises and falls within the normal respiration period, the CPU 170 determines that the respiration is abdominal. When the rise and fall of the comparison result signal DET1 takes a period longer than the normal respiration period, the CPU 170 determines that the respiration is costal. Using the normal respiration period as the base for the determination is reasonable since exhalations and inhalations alternate.”; [0042] “FIG. 12 is a waveform diagram showing change over time of a comparison result signal produced by the body condition determination apparatus”),
execute display control of displaying a distribution map of the phase difference on a display device in real time ([0129] “As shown in FIG. 16, the CPU 170 may cause the display device 160 (first reporter) to show a sequential line graph in which the change over time of each of the degrees of costal respiration and abdominal respiration”).
Masuo does not explicitly teach the expiratory phase data and inspiratory phase data being detected by at least one sensor at detect abdominal and chest motion;
calculate a phase difference between the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data in each of the expiratory phase and the inspiratory phase.
However,
Rahman teaches the expiratory phase data and inspiratory phase data being detected by at least one sensor at detect abdominal and chest motion ([0004] “a plurality of signals generated by one or more sensors of the portable device positioned to sense a portion of a human user's body, the one or more sensors generating the plurality of signals in response to sensor-detected movements of the user's body measured along multiple axes and the movements corresponding to lung activity in the user's body during one or more respiratory cycles.”; [0019]; [0032]; [0043]; [0086]; [0107]);
calculate a phase difference between the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data in each of the expiratory phase and the inspiratory phase ([0023] “unhealthy lung condition (e.g., phase difference in thoracic breathing pattern versus abdominal breathing pattern)”; [0063] “computes the phase difference”; [0085]; [0090-0091]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus taught by Masuo to include calculating a phase differenced based on data detected by at least one sensor. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the phase difference provides clear evidence of throaco-abdominal asynchrony, which can indicate respiratory disorders and/or respirator muscle dysfunctions, as suggested by Rahman [0064].
Regarding claim 2, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Masuo does not explicitly teach wherein the calculating includes calculating, for the inspiratory phase data and the expiratory phase data, a distribution of the phase difference during a breathing cycle being normalized for each breathing cycle.
However,
Rahman teaches wherein the calculating includes calculating, for the inspiratory phase data and the expiratory phase data, a distribution of the phase difference during a breathing cycle being normalized for each breathing cycle ([0046] “FIG. 3 depicts graph 300 of two example signal waveforms, aligned according to the procedures described below, in which the signal amplitudes are normalized and time is measured in millisecond”; [0062]; [0087]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus taught by Masuo to include normalizing the phase difference during a breathing cycle. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the normalization of data allows the waveforms to be adjusted for any time shift misalignment, as suggested by Rahman [0087].
Regarding claim 4, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the display control includes control of displaying in a different display mode according to a magnitude of the phase difference ([0130] “In addition to displaying change of the degrees of abdominal respiration and costal respiration, if respiration guidance information is displayed, it is possible to inform the human subject of the difference between ideal respiration and actually measured respiration. In this case, biofeedback effects can be further enhanced”).
Regarding claim 5, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the display control includes control of displaying, on the display device, a past distribution map of the phase difference for comparison, a past distribution, for displaying the past distribution map being calculated based on past abdominal waveform data and past chest waveform data of the subject ([0012] “by analyzing the difference between change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an inhalation at the abdominal region of the human subject and change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an exhalation at the abdominal region of the human subject, it is possible to determine whether respiration of the human subject is abdominal or costal”; The change over time is a comparison between a past time and a current time).
Regarding claim 6, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is to select the past abdominal waveform data and the past chest waveform data ([0056] “The second memory 130 serves as a work area for the CPU 170. During the execution of the predetermined arithmetic process by the CPU 170, the second memory 130 stores various data”; [0117] “the CPU 170 serves as a respiration period decider that determines individual respiration periods of the human subject, each of which is composed of an exhalation period and an inhalation period”; [0129] “the CPU 170 may cause the display device 160 (second reporter) to show changes over time in the depth of respiration with the degree of costal or abdominal respiration. Displaying the degrees of abdominal respiration and costal respiration in time series can be utilized as useful biofeedback information for respiration training.”).
Regarding claim 7, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the display control includes control of displaying information indicating a start timing of the expiratory phase in the distribution of the phase difference (Figs. 10-11 depict the time at which exhalation occurs throughout the respiratory cycle), and control of displaying a target timing set for a start timing of the expiratory phase in the distribution of the phase difference ([0027] “a time and a depth of exhalation that the human subject should perform”).
Regarding claim 8, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is to input the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data, and divide each of the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data into the expiratory phase data and the inspiratory phase data, based on average waveform data of the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data ([0139] “Therefore, the compensator may normalize change of the first or second bioelectrical impedance to an averaged or median value over a sampling period or a respiration period.”), and the inputting includes inputting the expiratory phase data and the inspiratory phase data being divided by the dividing ([0118] “CPU 170 serves as an integrator for integrating the impedance difference .DELTA.Z over the threshold to produce a first integral of the impedance difference .DELTA.Z in an inhalation, and for integrating the impedance difference .DELTA.Z beneath the threshold to produce a second integral of the impedance difference .DELTA.Z in an exhalation, for each respiration period. If the threshold is for example zero ohms in FIG. 11, the areas S.sub.1 and S.sub.2 are as in FIG. 11.”; Fig. 11 depicts the inhalation region and the exhalation region being divided by the threshold value (0) in order to determine when the patient is inhaling and when the patient is exhaling during abdominal and costal respiration).
Regarding claim 9, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is to
input the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data, and
execute another display control of displaying, on a display device, a time-series displacement value of the abdomen that is indicated by the abdominal waveform data and a time-series displacement value of the chest that is indicated by the chest waveform data by plotting one of the time-series displacement value of the abdomen and the time-series displacement value of the chest as a vertical axis and another of the time-series displacement value of the abdomen and the time-series displacement value of the chest as a horizontal axis (Fig. 19 depicts time-series displacement of costal and abdominal respiration on the vertical and horizontal axes).
Regarding claim 10, Masuo teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 9, wherein the another display control includes control of displaying markers representing the time-series displacement value of the abdomen and the time-series displacement value of the chest in such a way as to have a different display mode between a value within a first range from a peak of exhalation based on a result of expiratory analysis and a value within a second range from a peak of inspiration based on the result (Fig. 19 includes a background display of the exhalation and inhalation peaks and where the costal and abdominal breathing occur with resect to those peaks).
Regarding claim 11, Masuo teaches an information processing method comprising:
inputting expiratory phase data being data of expiratory phase and inspiratory phase data being data of expiratory phase, for each of abdominal waveform data indicating a breathing waveform of an abdomen of a subject performing breathing training and chest waveform data indicating a breathing waveform of a chest of the subject ([0011] “the respiration type determiner determines whether respiration of the human subject is abdominal or costal on the basis of a difference between change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an inhalation of the human subject and change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an exhalation of the human subject”; [0110] “when the comparison result signal DET1 rises and falls within the normal respiration period, the CPU 170 determines that the respiration is abdominal. When the rise and fall of the comparison result signal DET1 takes a period longer than the normal respiration period, the CPU 170 determines that the respiration is costal. Using the normal respiration period as the base for the determination is reasonable since exhalations and inhalations alternate.”; [0027, 0053]); and
executing display control of displaying a distribution map of the phase difference on a display device in real time ([0129] “As shown in FIG. 16, the CPU 170 may cause the display device 160 (first reporter) to show a sequential line graph in which the change over time of each of the degrees of costal respiration and abdominal respiration”).
Masuo does not explicitly teach the expiratory phase data and inspiratory phase data being detected by at least one sensor at detect abdominal and chest motion;
calculating a phase difference between the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data in each of the expiratory phase and the inspiratory phase.
However,
Rahman teaches the expiratory phase data and inspiratory phase data being detected by at least one sensor at detect abdominal and chest motion ([0004] “a plurality of signals generated by one or more sensors of the portable device positioned to sense a portion of a human user's body, the one or more sensors generating the plurality of signals in response to sensor-detected movements of the user's body measured along multiple axes and the movements corresponding to lung activity in the user's body during one or more respiratory cycles.”; [0019]; [0032]; [0043]; [0086]; [0107]);
calculating a phase difference between the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data in each of the expiratory phase and the inspiratory phase ([0023] “unhealthy lung condition (e.g., phase difference in thoracic breathing pattern versus abdominal breathing pattern)”; [0063] “computes the phase difference”; [0085]; [0090-0091]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus taught by Masuo to include calculating a phase differenced based on data detected by at least one sensor. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the phase difference provides clear evidence of throaco-abdominal asynchrony, which can indicate respiratory disorders and/or respirator muscle dysfunctions, as suggested by Rahman [0064].
Regarding claim 12, Masuo teaches the information processing method according to Claim 11.
Masuo does not explicitly teach wherein the calculating includes calculating, for the inspiratory phase data and the expiratory phase data, a distribution of the phase difference during a breathing cycle being normalized for each breathing cycle.
However,
Rahman teaches wherein the calculating includes calculating, for the inspiratory phase data and the expiratory phase data, a distribution of the phase difference during a breathing cycle being normalized for each breathing cycle ([0046] “FIG. 3 depicts graph 300 of two example signal waveforms, aligned according to the procedures described below, in which the signal amplitudes are normalized and time is measured in millisecond”; [0062]; [0087]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus taught by Masuo to include normalizing the phase difference during a breathing cycle. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the normalization of data allows the waveforms to be adjusted for any time shift misalignment, as suggested by Rahman [0087].
Regarding claim 14, Masuo teaches the information processing method according to claim 11, wherein the performing control includes performing a control of displaying in a different display mode according to a magnitude of the phase difference ([0130] “In addition to displaying change of the degrees of abdominal respiration and costal respiration, if respiration guidance information is displayed, it is possible to inform the human subject of the difference between ideal respiration and actually measured respiration. In this case, biofeedback effects can be further enhanced”).
Regarding claim 15, Masuo teaches the information processing method according to claim 11, wherein the performing control includes performing control of displaying, on the display device, a past distribution map of the phase difference for comparison, a past distribution, for displaying the past distribution being calculated based on past abdominal waveform data and past chest waveform data of the subject ([0012] “by analyzing the difference between change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an inhalation at the abdominal region of the human subject and change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an exhalation at the abdominal region of the human subject, it is possible to determine whether respiration of the human subject is abdominal or costal”; The change over time is a comparison between a past time and a current time).
Regarding claim 16, Masuo teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute information processing ([0055] “The first memory 120 stores a control program for controlling the entire apparatus. In accordance with the control program the CPU 170 executes a predetermined arithmetic process, thereby determining whether respiration of the human subject is abdominal or costal”) comprising:
inputting expiratory phase data being data of expiratory phase and inspiratory phase data being data of expiratory phase, for each of abdominal waveform data indicating a breathing waveform of an abdomen of a subject performing breathing training and chest waveform data indicating a breathing waveform of a chest of the subject ([0011] “the respiration type determiner determines whether respiration of the human subject is abdominal or costal on the basis of a difference between change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an inhalation of the human subject and change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an exhalation of the human subject”; [0110] “when the comparison result signal DET1 rises and falls within the normal respiration period, the CPU 170 determines that the respiration is abdominal. When the rise and fall of the comparison result signal DET1 takes a period longer than the normal respiration period, the CPU 170 determines that the respiration is costal. Using the normal respiration period as the base for the determination is reasonable since exhalations and inhalations alternate.”; [0027, 0053]); and
executing display control of displaying a distribution map of the phase difference on a display device in real time ([0129] “As shown in FIG. 16, the CPU 170 may cause the display device 160 (first reporter) to show a sequential line graph in which the change over time of each of the degrees of costal respiration and abdominal respiration”).
Masuo does not explicitly teach the expiratory phase data and inspiratory phase data being detected by at least one sensor at detect abdominal and chest motion;
calculating a phase difference between the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data in each of the expiratory phase and the inspiratory phase.
However,
Rahman teaches the expiratory phase data and inspiratory phase data being detected by at least one sensor at detect abdominal and chest motion ([0004] “a plurality of signals generated by one or more sensors of the portable device positioned to sense a portion of a human user's body, the one or more sensors generating the plurality of signals in response to sensor-detected movements of the user's body measured along multiple axes and the movements corresponding to lung activity in the user's body during one or more respiratory cycles.”; [0019]; [0032]; [0043]; [0086]; [0107]);
calculating a phase difference between the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data in each of the expiratory phase and the inspiratory phase ([0023] “unhealthy lung condition (e.g., phase difference in thoracic breathing pattern versus abdominal breathing pattern)”; [0063] “computes the phase difference”; [0085]; [0090-0091]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus taught by Masuo to include calculating a phase differenced based on data detected by at least one sensor. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the phase difference provides clear evidence of throaco-abdominal asynchrony, which can indicate respiratory disorders and/or respirator muscle dysfunctions, as suggested by Rahman [0064].
Regarding claim 17, Masuo teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 16.
Masuo does not explicitly teach wherein the calculating includes calculating, for the inspiratory phase data and the expiratory phase data, a distribution of the phase difference during a breathing cycle being normalized for each breathing cycle.
However,
Rahman teaches wherein the calculating includes calculating, for the inspiratory phase data and the expiratory phase data, a distribution of the phase difference during a breathing cycle being normalized for each breathing cycle ([0046] “FIG. 3 depicts graph 300 of two example signal waveforms, aligned according to the procedures described below, in which the signal amplitudes are normalized and time is measured in millisecond”; [0062]; [0087]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus taught by Masuo to include normalizing the phase difference during a breathing cycle. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the normalization of data allows the waveforms to be adjusted for any time shift misalignment, as suggested by Rahman [0087].
Regarding claim 19, Masuo teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 16, wherein the performing control includes performing a control of displaying in a different display mode according to a magnitude of the phase difference ([0130] “In addition to displaying change of the degrees of abdominal respiration and costal respiration, if respiration guidance information is displayed, it is possible to inform the human subject of the difference between ideal respiration and actually measured respiration. In this case, biofeedback effects can be further enhanced”).
Regarding claim 20, Masuo teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim
16, wherein the performing control includes performing control of displaying, on the display device, a past distribution map of the phase difference for comparison, a past distribution, for displaying the past distribution map, being calculated based on past abdominal waveform data and past chest waveform data of the subject ([0012] “by analyzing the difference between change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an inhalation at the abdominal region of the human subject and change over time of the bioelectrical impedance in an exhalation at the abdominal region of the human subject, it is possible to determine whether respiration of the human subject is abdominal or costal”; The change over time is a comparison between a past time and a current time).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered. With respect to the 102 Rejections in the Non-Final Office Action (See Pages 18-19 of Applicant’s Response “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102”), Applicant argues that Masuo does not teach calculating a phase difference between the abdominal waveform data and the chest waveform data.
There are new grounds of claim rejections that were necessitated by the claim amendments. Rahman teaches inspiratory and expiratory phase data being detected by at least one sensor and calculating a phase difference, as described in the 103 rejections above.
Claims 2, 4-10, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected because the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 are proper and the prior art teaches or suggests all the features of these claims for the reasons described in the 103 Rejections.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVELYN GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-0651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/EVELYN GRACE PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791