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 .
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, 3-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 recites at least one step or instruction for calculating a respiratory training intensity using a continuous stream of data, which is grouped as mathematical concepts under the 2019 PEG. The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of claim 1 includes receiving a dataset comprising pressure data and performing calculations, which are mathematical operations.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 3-8, and 10-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Attention is drawn specifically to claim 12, which recites a respiratory training or testing device, an electronic sensor unit comprising a pressure sensor, a processing unit, a computer program having instructions. However, these structural elements merely serve as the data source for the calculations in claim 1. Similarly, claim 14 recites a breathing unit comprising a mouthpiece connected to at least one inhalation airway having an adjustable inhalation airflow resistance, at least one exhalation airway having an adjustable exhalation airflow resistance, an electronic sensor unit comprising a pressure sensor, a processing unit, a computer program having instructions. However, also similarly to claim 12, these structural elements merely serve as the data source for the calculations in claim 1. Regarding claim 20, the method claim does not recite anything other than the abstract idea itself as identified above.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in dependent Claims 12 and 14 and Claim 1 now recites that pressure data is obtained from a pressure sensor configured for measuring pressure within the inhalation and/or exhalation airway of the respiratory training or testing device, and the step of providing visual, audio, or tactile feedback.), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: Regarding claim 1, the pressure sensor is not positively recited, and serves as a mechanism for obtaining data which is manipulated via mathematical calculations recited in the remainder of the claim. Attention is drawn specifically to claim 12, which recites a respiratory training or testing device, an electronic sensor unit comprising a pressure sensor, a processing unit, a computer program having instructions. Similarly, claim 14 recites a breathing unit comprising a mouthpiece connected to at least one inhalation airway having an adjustable inhalation airflow resistance, at least one exhalation airway having an adjustable exhalation airflow resistance, an electronic sensor unit comprising a pressure sensor, a processing unit, a computer program having instructions. Claim 1 further recites providing feedback by a device configured to provide visual, audio, or tactile feedback. Providing feedback merely serves to output the result of the calculations in the remainder of the claim. The inventive concept of the claim lies not in the provision of feedback, but rather in the calculations themselves. These structural elements are generically recited elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in claims 1 and 3-19 is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mathematical operations) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of claim 1, which recites a sensor for obtaining data and an output device for providing feedback, claim 12, which recites a respiratory training or testing device, an electronic sensor unit comprising a pressure sensor, a processing unit, a computer program having instructions. Similarly, claim 14 recites a breathing unit comprising a mouthpiece connected to at least one inhalation airway having an adjustable inhalation airflow resistance, at least one exhalation airway having an adjustable exhalation airflow resistance, an electronic sensor unit comprising a pressure sensor, a processing unit, a computer program having instructions. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mathematical operations or mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the amendments recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in the amendments have been considered, however, the claims are still drawn to the judicial exception, as detailed in the rejections above. Applicant argues that the use of a stream of data continuously received ties the method to a real-world application. Examiner notes that the continuous nature of the data stream does not change the analysis above. Applicant argues that since the pressure sensor measures pressure separately within the inhalation and/or exhalation airway, the resulting calculations allow the respiratory training or testing device to provide phase specific feedback. Examiner notes that this feature is not claimed. Applicant further argues that the improvement is tied to operation of a particular respiratory training or testing device, to which Examiner notes that a particular machine is not explicitly recited.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that Peterson calculates WOB at the end of each training session, and thus does not perform calculations on a continuous stream of data. Examiner finds this argument persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4966. 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.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784