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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 13 inadvertently recites “…wherein he first prompt…”. This should correctly recite “…wherein the first prompt…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-14 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining an action type of a user.
The limitation of determining an action type of a user is a method and system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device”, “processors”, “memory”, “computer code” and “computer instructions”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “an electronic device”, “processors”, “memory”, “computer code” and “computer instructions” language, “determining” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper using the obtained sensor data to determine a type of action. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “an electronic device”, “processors”, “memory”, “computer code” and “computer instructions”. These additional elements are all clamed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components and instructions to implement the abstract idea using the generic components. Furthermore, the generic components are used in manners consistent with their known usage in the field, with the electronic device being used to receive and transmit data, the processors and memory being used to perform computing functions, store data and execute the computer instructions, and the computer code and instructions being used to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements are not held to be significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
With respect to the dependent claims, they are drawn to types of data output, determining different types of user actions,, receiving different types of sensor data, which neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims are also rejected as being drawn 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, 2, 4, 6-7, 9-12 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190038180 (Tzviele).
In re Claims 1, 18 & 22
Tzviele teaches an electronic device comprising one or more memories coupled to one or more processors (par. 0084) storing instructions enabling the device to:
obtain sensor data (par. 0290);
determine an action type of a user based on the sensor data (par. 0295);
outputting a first prompt in response to the electronic device determining that the action type of the user represents a first action type, wherein the first prompt is used to prompt the user to perform an inhalation action (par. 0295 – inhale during backswing); and
outputting a second prompt in response to the electronic device determining that the action type of the user represents a second action type, wherein the second prompt prompts the user to perform an exhalation action, and wherein the first prompt is different from the second prompt (par. 0295 – exhale during downswing).
In re Claim 2
Tzviele further teaches wherein the prompts are any one of a vibration, voice, text or picture type (Figs. 28, 35c, 35d; par. 0171).
In re Claim 4
Tzviele further teaches wherein the voice content of the first prompt is different from the voice content of the second prompt (par. 0295).
In re Claims 6, 9, 19, 23
Tzviele further teaches wherein the first electronic device outputs the first prompt (see rejection above), sending, by the first electronic device, a first instruction to a second electronic device (Fig. 35b, user interface), wherein the second electronic device outputs a third prompt to perform a second inhalation action (par. 0295 – the user is prompted to inhale on every backswing – Claim 9), wherein the third prompt is any one or more of a vibration, voice, text or picture type (Figs. 28, 35c, 35d; par. 0171).
In re Claims 7, 20, 24
Tzviele further teaches outputting by the electronic device the first prompt in response to the first electronic device determining that the action type of the user represents the first action type comprises:
Outputting by the first electronic device, the first prompt in response to the first electronic device determining for at least one or more consecutive times that the action type of the user represents the first action type (par. 0295).
In re Claims 10, 21
Tzviele further teaches a plurality of modes including at least one of running, swimming, weight lifting, elliptical machine, rowing machine and rowing (par. 0011, 0252, 0258) and wherein determining the action type of the user comprises determining that the action type based on the sensor data (par. 0279).
In re Claims 11-12
Tzviele further teaches before obtaining sensor data by the first electronic device, receiving sensor data sent by a third electronic device, wherein the third electronic device comprises one or more of acceleration data, gyroscope data, image data, gravity data or pressure data (par. 0154, 0259).
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.
Claim 3 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzviele.
In re Claim 3
Tzviele teaches the limitations of claim 12 (see rejection above) and further teaches that the prompts comprise vibration frequencies (par. 0277) but fails to specifically teach that the vibration frequencies of the prompts are different.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used different vibration frequencies for the different prompts in order to yield the predictable result of allowing a user to be able to distinguish between the different prompts.
In re Claim 8
Tzviele teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection above) and further teaches providing a prompt for a user to hold their breath (par. 0172). Tzviele fails to specifically teach the claimed order of providing the breath holding prompt.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the arrangement of Tzviele to teach the breath holding prompt after the first prompt and before the second prompt since it is a choice from a finite group of options, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a user with feedback to help alleviate an asthma attack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday (7-5).
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763