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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to: The semi-colons (;) should be replaced by commas (,). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-2, 4-12, 14-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1)
Claims 1 and 26 recite products and Claim 14 recites a method, thus each of the claims belong in one of the four statutory categories. All dependent claims meet this step.
Step 2a, prong one)
The claims recite “receiving acceleration data indicating physical activity of a subject, activity classification data, sleep data, and one or more vital sign metrics; determining a physical activity score, a sleep score, and a vital signs score based on the acceleration data, the activity classification data, the sleep data, and the one or more vital sign metrics; determining a quality of life score for the subject based on the physical activity score, the sleep score, and the vital signs score” which is directed to an ineligible concept, namely an abstract idea. In terms of abstract ideas, these limitations would cover: i) a mathematical relationship, defined by Applicant, between a score that Applicant named “quality of life score” and three other scores that were named “sleep score”, “physical activity score”, and “vital sign score” (i.e. of the type A= function (x,y,z),
ii) a mental process performed in the human mind or by mere use of pen and paper, such as observing and evaluating the movements and basic signs of life of a subject, and determining whether the subject is relatively healthy or not (or even whether they are alive or not), and iii) a method of organizing human activity, such as a routine examination by a doctor. All dependent claims include this ineligible concept.
Step 2a, prong two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: the claims do not recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim 1 merely adds extra-solution activities, such as: a) generic sensors for collecting the data (accelerometer, vital signs sensor), b) generic processing and memory (processor, hardware storage device, memory), to process and store data, and c) a generic display to output data (display screen).
Claim 14 merely adds extra-solution activities, such as: a) the data being received from a generic sensor, b) the generic intended result of causing the data to be presented using a generic display screen. Claim 26 adds generic storage media to store computer instructions.
These are generally linking the use of the exception to a generic technological environment or field of use, and merely use generic sensors to collect data, and a computer to perform the ineligible concept. Requesting the exception to begin and then essentially end by storing the result are the bare minimum for any computer application or concept. None of these limitations add to the claims: a) improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, b) use of the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, c) a particular machine or a transformation, or d) use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Only three of the dependent claims appear to meet the requirements of step 2a.
Regarding the dependent claims:
Claims 3-7, 12, 15-19, 24 do not add anything additional to an abstract idea, they merely elaborate on the idea with further mathematical functions or details on the variables of the functions. Claims 8, 20 adds the extra-solution activity of collecting the data with a generic sensor. Claims 9, and 21 elaborates on the variables of the abstract idea, thus does not add anything to an abstract idea. Claims 10-11, 22-23 add generic processing, such as filtering and categorizing data, another extra-solution activity.
On the other hand, claims 2, 13, and 25 meet step 2a), because they either alert the user or recommend a health treatment for the user, thus tending to show prophylaxis or treatment.
Thus, only Claims 2, 13 and 25 meet the requirements of step 2a, prong two. Claims 2, 13 and 25 are eligible.
Step 2b)
The remaining claims (1,3-12,14-24 and 26) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of all the reasons explained in Step 2a, prong two, and in addition, all of those additional elements individually or in combination are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The data gathering by generic sensors, generic processor, generic memory, the generic storage and display of a score, as recited in the independent claims, are all well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (e.g. see US 5474079 to Brodnick, 3:11-14). These are recited with a high level of generality, that merely append the exception to the bare minimum of any type of health monitoring with generic sensors and generic processors in the art. No dependent claim changes this. Claims 3-7, 12, 15-19, 24 do not add anything additional to an abstract idea, they merely elaborate on the idea with further mathematical functions or details on the variables of the functions. Claims 8, 20 adds well-understood, routine, and conventional collecting of the data with a generic sensor. Claims 9, and 21 elaborate on the variables of the abstract idea, thus does not add anything more to an abstract idea. Claims 10-11, 22-23 add generic processing, such as filtering and categorizing data, another well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Thus, none of the remaining claims from step 2a, prong two, meets the requirements of Step 2b.
As noted in step 2a, Claims 2, 13 and 25 are the only claims eligible.
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 1-13 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.
1) According to MPEP 2163.05.A, “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing”
In Claim 1, Applicant first claims a vital signs sensor separate from the accelerometer (line 2), and then claims “receiving, from the accelerometer of the wearable medical sensor, acceleration data indicating physical activity of a subject, activity classification data, sleep data, and one or more vital sign metrics”, ie. all measurements being received from the accelerometer, including vital signs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably concluded from the original disclosure that Applicant was in possession of an accelerometer that is used to produce all the data claimed from acceleration data, including “one or more vital sign metrics”. This is something not precluded by Claim 1, yet it is not found in the original specification, and the drawings. The specification specifically refers to a separate vital signs sensor, such as a “cardiac sensor”, “ECG sensor”, or “PPG sensor” [¶¶ 5,41] that specifically obtains “vital sign metrics 702 (e.g., heart rate, respiration rate, blood oxygen level)” [¶84]. There is not a single example where the accelerometer is used to provide heart rate, respiration rate, blood oxygen level, ECG, PPG, or cardiac data. Yet, the full scope of claim 1 does not preclude this. Thus, Claim 1 fails the written description requirement. None of the dependent claims remedy the foregoing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1) In Claims 1-2, 13-14 and 26, it is not clear what “causing” entails in: a) “causing a visual representation” of Claim 1, b) “causing the…score to be presented” of Claims 14 and 26, c) “causing an alert” in Claim 2, d) “causing …recommendations to be presented” of Claim 13. It is not clear whether this limitation refers to an actual computer instruction, step, an intended use, an intended result, or an otherwise optional limitation. In the product claim, does this refer to an instruction named “causing”? In the method claim, what is the active step of “causing”? What would make one objectively distinguish between who or what did or did not cause the display of the score or the alert or the recommendation?
It is suggested that the terms are replaced by “presenting”, “displaying”, “issuing an alert” or similar active limitations.
2) Regarding Claims 11 and 23, the terms “purposeful”, “light”, “moderate”, and “vigorous” in terms of the walk score are subjective and relevant, rendering the metes and bounds of the claims unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0232414 by Mollicone.
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 26, Mollicone teaches a medical system (abstract) comprising:
a wearable medical sensor comprising an accelerometer and a vital signs sensor (e.g. ¶ 33: “Techniques used to measure physical activity history data include without limitation: wrist-worn actigraphy sensors, pedometers, heel-strike shoe sensors, accelerometers embedded in phones, accelerometers otherwise mounted or coupled to an individual's body and/or the like.” ; ¶28: “Techniques used to measure heart beat data include without limitation: ECG holter monitors, blood pressure sensors, photoplethysmography sensors (PPG) or "pulse oximeters" and/or the like.”; ¶ 82: “In some embodiments actigraphy sensor 401 and heart beat sensor 402 may comprise a single wrist-worn unit”);
a display screen (e.g. ¶ 91: “ System 400 may also comprise an optional output unit 411, which may output to a user or other system the composite stress index I determined by composite stress index estimator 410. Output unit 411 may comprise any suitable device for outputting data, which by way of non-limiting example may include a screen, a printer, a network interface, a telecommunications link, an audible device, and/or the like.);
a hardware storage device and a processor and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations/ the method of (e.g. ¶ 85: “System 400 comprises a processor 450 shown in dashed outline in FIG. 4. Processor 450 may comprise a part of a suitably configured computer system (not shown) or may be part of an embedded system. Processor 450 may comprise more than one individual data processor which may be centrally located and/or distributed. Processor 450 may comprise internal memory (not shown) and/or have access to external memory (not shown). Processor 450 may be programmed with, or otherwise have access to, software (not shown) which may cause processor 450 to implement at least portions of the methods described herein. Suitable interfacing hardware and/or software (not shown) may be provided between processor 450 and the other components of system 400. By way of non-limiting example, such interfacing hardware and/or software may include: signal conditioning components, analog-to-digital converters, networking and/or other communications components, buffers, memory and/or the like.”) comprising:
receiving, from the accelerometer of the wearable medical sensor (e.g. ¶ 82: “actigraphy sensor 401 and heart beat sensor 402 may comprise a single wrist-worn unit.”, thus the sensor device is treated as a single unit), acceleration data indicating physical activity of a subject, activity classification data, sleep data, and a vital sign metric (e.g. Fig. 3: Receive physical activity data 306, Receive heart beat data 302, Receive sleep data 301; Note that “activity classification data” can be any data indicating any activity that is capable for use in classification of any data, and as one example, Mollicone discloses “Sleep history data may additionally or alternatively comprise: a set of sleep start times (sleep onset times) and end times (awakening times); a time series data set, wherein each data element comprises a time point and sleep/wake state classification; and/or the like. In some embodiments sleep/wake classifications states may be coded numerically (e.g. wake=0, sleep=1). Sleep/wake classifications used in the sleep history data are not limited to the binary states of sleep and awake. In particular embodiments, sleep history data may comprise sleep/wake classifications such as: asleep, awake, REM sleep, non-REM sleep, deep sleep, light sleep, in bed, awake in bed, sleeping in bed, and the like” in ¶ 34, all of the sleep and wake classifications reading on the generic activity classification data; Also note that the activity “count” or “no count” of ¶¶ 31-33, also read on the activity classification data);
determining a physical activity score, a sleep score, and a vital signs score based on the acceleration data, the activity classification data, the sleep data, and the vital sign metrics (¶¶ 4, 35, Fig. 3: physical activity index, sleep index, cardiac index);
determining a quality of life score for the subject based on the physical activity score, the sleep score, and the vital signs score (e.g. ¶¶ 4, 35, Fig. 3: A composite stress index is determined from the sleep index, the physical activity index and the cardiac index; The terms “qualify of life” in the “quality of life score” is a nominal term, and the quality of life score would be met by any health related index, including the “composite stress index”. Furthermore, Mollicone teaches the same factors as those claimed in determining the index, thus the index of Mollicone meets the “quality of life score”);
storing a data structure representing the quality of life score on the hardware storage device (e.g. ¶¶ 85,93: all processed data of a processor is stored at least in cache memory); and
causing a visual representation of the quality of life score to be rendered on the display screen (e.g. ¶ 91: “ System 400 may also comprise an optional output unit 411, which may output to a user or other system the composite stress index I determined by composite stress index estimator 410. Output unit 411 may comprise any suitable device for outputting data, which by way of non-limiting example may include a screen, a printer, a network interface, a telecommunications link, an audible device, and/or the like.”).
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13, 15-21, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0147775 by Ohnemus.
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 26, Ohnemus teaches a medical system (abstract) comprising:
a wearable medical sensor comprising an accelerometer and a vital signs sensor (e.g. ¶¶ 33,38,69,71,89,113,153,166,188, Fig. 1: biosensor 115 includes accelerometers and vital sign sensors, and is wearable, such as health band);
a display screen (e.g. ¶ 7, Fig. 19, Fig. 23: the scores are displayed):
a hardware storage device and a processor and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations/ the method of (e.g. abstract, ¶ 7, Fig. 1: processor with cache and memory) comprising:
receiving, from the accelerometer of the wearable medical sensor (e.g. ¶ 71: biosensor device 115 is treated as a single unit), acceleration data indicating physical activity of a subject, activity classification data, sleep data, and a vital sign metric (e.g. ¶¶ 7,38-39,42,48,60,69,71, Fig. 3B: physical activity, sleep data, heart rate, HRV, blood pressure, glucose and other vitals data is collected; Note that “activity classification data” can be any data indicating any activity that is capable for use in classification of any data, and this would include, for example, step counts vs inactivity, as per ¶ 189, as well as any motion vs. no motion, or signal vs. no signal determination);
determining a physical activity score, a sleep score, and a vital signs score based on the acceleration data, the activity classification data, the sleep data, and the vital sign metrics (¶¶ 7,45-47,57,112, 115, 173-175: the overall Health Score includes a series of sub-scores, including a sleep score, a sports-related tracking score based on physical activity, a stress score based on HRV, a nutrition score that is also based on accelerometry and HRV, and a metric health model metric which is based on both accelerometry and vitals, among others, also noting that any numerical output is a score. For example, the Heart Rate of 55 bpm of Fig. 17 is also a vital sign “score”);
determining a quality of life score for the subject based on the physical activity score, the sleep score, and the vital signs score (e.g. ¶¶ 7,45-47,54,59-65, 123-124, 152, 164,307, Fig. 3B, 7: The overall health score can be determined based on any of the disclosed scores and metrics, and this includes the aforementioned scores and sub-scores; The terms “qualify of life” in the “quality of life score” is a nominal term, and the quality of life score would be met by any health related index, including the “Health Score”. Furthermore, Ohnemus teaches the same factors as those claimed in determining the index, thus the index of Ohnemus meets the “quality of life score”);
storing a data structure representing the quality of life score on the hardware storage device (e.g. ¶¶ 7,45-47: all processed data of a processor is stored at least in cache memory); and
causing a visual representation of the quality of life score to be rendered on the display screen (e.g. ¶ 7, Fig. 19, Fig. 23: the scores, including the health score are displayed).
Regarding Claims 2 and 16, Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claim 1 and method of Claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the quality of life score is less than a threshold quality of life score; and in response to determining that the quality of life score is less than the threshold quality of life score, causing an alert to be generated indicating that the quality of life score is less than the threshold quality of life score (e.g. ¶¶ 8,34,39,138,157,166: Health Score triggers alerts and warnings).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claim 1 and method of Claim 14, further comprising monitoring the subject based on the quality of life score, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a plurality of quality of life scores for the subject at a plurality of times; determining a variability in quality of life for the subject based on the plurality of quality of life scores (e.g. ¶¶ 9, 157, 170, 186-187: the user is monitored over time to detect trends in the Health Score).
Regarding Claim 4, Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claim 3 wherein the instructions further comprise: determining a baseline quality of life for the subject based on the plurality of quality of life scores; determining one or more subsequent quality of life scores after determining the baseline quality of life; and determining that the one or more subsequent quality of life scores deviates more than a threshold amount from the baseline quality of life (e.g. ¶¶ 9, 157, 170, 186-187: the user is monitored over time to detect trends in the Health Score; ¶¶ 165-167: baselines and averages are determined).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claim 1, wherein the vital sign sensor comprises at least one of a heart rate sensor or a pulse rate sensor; and wherein the operations further comprise receiving heart rate data and data specifying a steps count from the wearable medical sensor, wherein the vital signs score is determined based on the heart rate data, the steps count, and the activity classification data (e.g. ¶¶ 185,189: daily step count; ¶¶ 42, 69: heart rate sensor).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claim 1 and the method of Claim 14, wherein determining the physical activity score comprises determining a walking score and a sedentary score (e.g. ¶¶ 189, 196, 216, 323: daily steps count and inactivity metrics).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claim 7 and the method of Claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving data specifying a steps count from the wearable medical sensor, wherein the walking score is determined based on the steps count, the acceleration data, and the activity classification data; and the sedentary score is determined based on the activity classification data and an activity count based on the acceleration data (e.g. ¶¶ 189, 196: daily steps count and inactivity metrics).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Ohnemus teaches he medical system of claim 8 and the method of Claim 17, wherein the activity count represents movement of the subject determined based on a magnitude of the acceleration over a time interval (e.g. ¶¶ 71, 189: pedometers/accelerometers in obtaining step counts).
Regarding Claims 13 and 25, Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claim 1 and the method of Claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the quality of life score, one or more recommendations for improving a health of the subject, and causing the one or more recommendations to be presented to the subject (e.g. ¶ 51, 60-61, 65, 115: recommendations and feedback).
Regarding Claim 20, Ohnemus teaches method of claim 19, further comprising: receiving data specifying a steps count from the wearable medical sensor, wherein the walking score is determined based on the steps count, the acceleration data, and the activity classification data; and the sedentary score is determined based on the activity classification data and an activity count based on the acceleration data (e.g. ¶¶ 189, 196, 216, 323: daily steps count and inactivity metrics).
Regarding Claim 21, Ohnemus teaches method of claim 20, wherein the activity count represents movement of the subject determined based on a magnitude of the acceleration over a time interval (e.g. ¶¶ 71, 189: pedometers/accelerometers in obtaining step counts).
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 6, 10, 12, 18, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnemus, as applied to Claims 5, 9, 17, and 21, in view of US 2012/0232414 by Mollicone.
Regarding Claims 6, 10, 18, and 22 Ohnemus teaches the medical system of claims 5 and 9, and the method of Claims 17 and 21, wherein determining the vital signs score comprises: receiving sleep metrics from the wearable medical sensor; determining a resting vitals score based on the activity classification data, the acceleration data, and the heart rate data; determining a sleeping vitals score based on the activity classification data, the acceleration data, the sleep metrics, and the heart rate data; determining a walking vitals score based on the activity classification data, the acceleration data, the steps count and the heart rate data; and determining the vital signs score based on the resting vitals score, the sleeping vitals score, and the walking vitals score, and, wherein the operations further comprise: filtering the activity classification data to extract low activity samples (e.g. ¶¶ 189, 196, 216, 323: daily steps count and inactivity metrics; Also, see discussion in Claims 1, 5, 9, 17 and 21).
Ohnemus does not explicitly disclose that the determining resting includes determining resting while awake, or filtering the activity classification data to extract low activity samples while the subject is awake, wherein the sedentary score comprises a count of continuous low activity samples while the subject is awake.
However, Mollicone teaches an analogous wearable medical device determining an activity score, a sleep score, a vitals score and a health/stress score, which includes determining a resting while awake vitals score based on activity classification data, acceleration data, and heart rate data and determining a score based on the resting while awake vitals score, the sleeping vitals score, and the walking vitals score, and filtering the activity classification data to extract low activity samples while the subject is awake, wherein the sedentary score comprises a count of continuous low activity samples while the subject is awake (e.g. ¶¶ 34, 59; Fig. 2B: resting while awake in bed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining that the subject is awake but resting in bed and factor this metric in the determination of any of the scores, including a score including “vitals”, in a device and method according to the teachings of Ohnemus, as taught by Mollicone, in order to predictably account for being unable to sleep while in bed in terms of the overall health status, stress, sleep, activity, vitals and any of the metrics in the combination.
Regarding Claims 12 and 24, Ohnemus as modified in Claims 6 and 18 teaches the medical system of claim 6 and the method of Claim 18, yet does not explicitly further disclose the combination of wherein determining the sleep score comprises determining one or more of a sleep duration score, a sleep latency score, and a sleep efficiency score based on the sleep metrics.
However, Mollicone teaches an analogous wearable medical device determining an activity score, a sleep score, a vitals score and a health/stress score, wherein determining the sleep score comprises determining one or more of a sleep duration score, a sleep latency score, and a sleep efficiency score based on the sleep metrics (e.g. ¶¶ 66, 70: sleep latency, sleep efficiency, sleep duration). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining the sleep score including determining one or more of a sleep duration score, a sleep latency score, and a sleep efficiency score based on the sleep metrics in a device and method according to the teachings of Ohnemus, as taught by Mollicone, in order to predictably determine and account for factors known to affect sleep quality, recovery and overall health, in any health related metric.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 USC 101, as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Neither Ohnemus, nor Mollicone teach that the walking score comprises: a step count score, a purposeful walk score, a light walk score, a moderate walk score, and a vigorous walk score, wherein each of the purposeful walk score, the light walk score, the moderate walk score, and the vigorous walk score is determined based on a number of steps in a time interval, in combination with the limitations of the base and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, EST.
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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at (571)272-4949. 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.
/MANOLIS PAHAKIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3796