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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 recite(s):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a target time contribution for each of a set of workout target effort zones for a workout of a user, thereby determining target time contributions, wherein each of the set of workout target effort zones corresponds to a target range of values for a biosignal;
determining a time series of workout target effort zones for the user based on the target time contributions for the set of workout target effort zones;
receiving, during a workout time period, real-time biosignal data from a sensor in a wearable electronic device being worn by the user;
generating, during the workout time period, an audio, visual, or haptic stimulus based on the real-time biosignal data and a workout target effort zone in the time series of workout target effort zones; and
outputting, during the workout time period, the audio, visual, or haptic stimulus.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting ”computer”, “computing , “sensor in a wearable electronic”, “generate/outputting audio, visual and haptic stimulus”, “memories” and “ processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ behaviors and adjusting its instruction/lecture level accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computer-implemented” [claim 1], “processor” [claim 8] and “computer-readable storage medium” [claims 8 and 15].
The ”computer”, “computing , “sensor in a wearable electronic”, “generate/outputting audio, visual and haptic stimulus”, “memories” and “ processors” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 50, 52 and 54).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are either directed to the type of data being monitored, or further expound the abstract idea explained above. Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bristol et al US 20230145841
Claims 1 and 17: The Bristol reference provides a teaching of a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a target time contribution for each of a set of workout target effort zones for a workout of a user, thereby determining target time contributions, wherein each of the set of workout target effort zones corresponds to a target range of values for a biosignal (see paragraph 55 showing the time where the user is exercising at different workout zones);
determining a time series of workout target effort zones for the user based on the target time contributions for the set of workout target effort zones (see paragraph 61 determining target zone based on the user’s biosignal data);
receiving, during a workout time period, real-time biosignal data from a sensor in a wearable electronic device being worn by the user (see paragraph 29 receiving biosignal data from wearable);
generating, during the workout time period, an audio or haptic stimulus based on the real-time biosignal data and a workout target effort zone in the time series of workout target effort zones (see paragraph 57 showing audio and haptic feedback in regards to the user’s workout); and
outputting, during the workout time period, the audio, visual stimulus (paragraph 48 the stimulus can either be audio or haptic or combination thereof).
Claims 2, 10: The Bristol reference provides a teaching wherein the biosignal is a heart rate (see paragraph 29 and FIG. 2 item 205 “collect heart rate data”).
Claims 3, 11 and 18: The Bristol reference provides a teaching of wherein each workout target effort zone in the time series of workout target effort zones includes a workout target effort zone from among the set of workout target effort zones (see FIG 2 item 210 “determine heart zones based on heart rate data” and paragraph 33 dividing the workout zone into three zone); and
wherein the audio stimulus identifies a particular workout target effort zone corresponding to a current time (see paragraph 35 instructing the user to move from zone 1 to zone 2).
Claims 6, 14: The Bristol reference provides a teaching of wherein the audio, visual, or haptic stimulus includes an audio stimulus (see paragraph 35 instructing the user to move from zone 1 to zone 2 and paragraph 48 the stimulus can either be audio or haptic or combination thereof)
Claims 7, 15: The Bristol reference provides a teaching of wherein determining the time series of workout target effort zones for the user based on the target time contributions for the set of workout target effort zones comprises using a model that transforms the biosignal to an estimated energy expenditure (see paragraph 58 calories burned and FIG. 5 showing the calories burned on each of the workout zone).
Claim 8, 16: The Bristol reference provides a teaching of wherein determining the time series of workout target effort zones includes:
determining a target percentage of time to be spent across the set of workout target effort zones based on one or more preferences identified by the user (see paragraph 40 adjusting the time spent on each zone by user’s profile and selection);
defining a set of sessions for the workout, where each session corresponds to the time series of workout target effort zones (see paragraph 34); and
assigning, to each workout target effort zone of the time series of workout target effort zones, a duration of the workout time period and a particular target range of values for the biosignal from a set of workout effort ranges to the session (see paragraph 56).
Claim 9: The Bristol reference provide a teaching of a computing device comprising:
one or more memories (see paragraph 88 storage device) and
one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories (see paragraph 87 microprocessor)
and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to a method comprising:
determining a target time contribution for each of a set of workout target effort zones for a workout of a user, thereby determining target time contributions, wherein each of the set of workout target effort zones corresponds to a target range of values for a biosignal (see paragraph 55 showing the time where the user is exercising at different workout zones);
determining a time series of workout target effort zones for the user based on the target time contributions for the set of workout target effort zones (see paragraph 61 determining target zone based on the user’s biosignal data);
receiving, during a workout time period, real-time biosignal data from a sensor in a wearable electronic device being worn by the user (see paragraph 94 “Collecting heart rate data may include using a wearable device having a heart rate sensor to collect the user’s heart rate data”);
generating, during the workout time period, an audio, or haptic stimulus based on the real-time biosignal data and a workout target effort zone in the time series of workout target effort zones (see paragraph 57 showing audio and haptic feedback in regards to the user’s workout); and
outputting, during the workout time period, the audio, visual, or haptic stimulus (paragraph 48 the stimulus can either be audio or haptic or combination thereof)
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.
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristol et al US 20230145841 and in view of Acres US 20050070809
Claims 4, 12 and 19: The Bristol reference is silent on the teaching of estimating, based on the real-time biosignal data and at least part of the time series of workout target effort zones, an extent to which a current effort level of the user differs from the workout target effort zone; and determining a stimulus property based on the extent, wherein the audio, visual, or haptic stimulus is generated based on the stimulus property.
However, the Acres reference provides a teaching of estimating, based on the real-time biosignal data and at least part of the time series of workout target effort zones, an extent to which a current effort level of the user differs from the workout target effort zone (see paragraph 85); and determining a stimulus property based on the extent, wherein the audio, visual stimulus is generated based on the stimulus property (see paragraph 53 and 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Bristol reference with the feature of estimating, based on the real-time biosignal data and at least part of the time series of workout target effort zones, an extent to which a current effort level of the user differs from the workout target effort zone; and determining a stimulus property based on the extent, wherein the audio, visual, or haptic stimulus is generated based on the stimulus property; as taught by the Acres reference, in order to provide an intuitive stimulus to the user.
Claims 5, 13: The Bristol reference is silent on the teaching of wherein estimating, based on the real-time biosignal data and at least part of the time series of workout target effort zones, the extent to which the current effort level of the user differs from the workout target effort zone includes:
comparing a current value of the biosignal to the target range of values for the biosignal of the workout target effort zone.
However, the Acres reference provides a teaching of wherein estimating, based on the real-time biosignal data and at least part of the time series of workout target effort zones, the extent to which the current effort level of the user differs from the workout target effort zone includes: comparing a current value of the biosignal to the target range of values for the biosignal of the workout target effort zone (see paragraph 85 comparing the heart rate with the target rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Bristol reference with the feature of wherein estimating, based on the real-time biosignal data and at least part of the time series of workout target effort zones, the extent to which the current effort level of the user differs from the workout target effort zone includes:
comparing a current value of the biosignal to the target range of values for the biosignal of the workout target effort zone; as taught by the Acres reference, in order to provide an intuitive stimulus to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715