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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 16 September 2025, wherein:
Claims 1-15 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, IN 202141053506, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide sufficient written description for “tracking an amount of time the user is mindful during a session of meditation”, “an input module allowing the user to select and register at least one form of meditation session from a list consisting of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation to establish a session for monitoring”, “a plurality of first set of sensor modules recognising an input provided by the user”, “a display module displaying the registered form of meditation that will be tracked by the wearable smart device (100)”, and “a processing module (101), with an inbuilt wireless communication unit, to calculate a time difference between consecutive heartbeats and converting the same into frequencies in order to determine a mindfulness of the user during a session” in claim 1, “the display module further includes communication modules to communicate with the user” in claim 3, “the another device locates and recommends the at least one form of meditation session for the user” in claim 7, “the input module includes receiving inputs from the user by way of swiping and/or tapping a surface of the wearable smart device (100)” in claim 12, “selecting and registering the breathing form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 13, “selecting and registering the relaxation form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 14, “selecting and registering focus form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 15, and “displaying a percentage and amount of time the user has been mindful in the session upon the user tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) to indicate an end of the session” in each of claims 13-15 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification of the prior-filed application, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, claims 1-15 do not gain benefit of priority to IN 202141053506. Therefore, claims 1-15 have an effective filing date of 22 November 2022.
Drawings
The amendment filed 30 April 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The amended drawings introduce new matter, such as labeling element 101 as “Bluetooth + Microcontroller”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8 is so blurry as to be illegible. In other words, it is so blurry that they do not illustrate the elements described in at least para. 64 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites both “inbuilt” and “built-in”. Uniformity is recommended. Conventional practice is to recite “built-in”.
The specification recites the term “smartphone” as both one word and two words. Uniformity is recommended.
The specification has inconsistent spacing around multiple forward slashes. This causes ambiguity as to whether (1) the forward slash is a typo, (2) the terms on either side of the forward slash are alternatives wherein the forward slash connotes “or”, or (3) some other meaning wherein the term following the forward slash is not an alternative of the term preceding it.
The specification has been amended to recite multiple forward slashes followed by a hyphen. These are not only improperly marked amendments, but also grammatically incorrect.
The specification improperly recites “i.e.” in multiple instances throughout the specification.
The specification recites both “photoplethysmograph” and “photo plethysmograph”. Uniformity is recommended. As a note, the proper spelling of the term is as one word, not two.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims include multiple amendments that are improperly marked in the same manner as identified in the Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment mailed 17 July 2025. Continuing to improperly mark amendments will result in further Notices of Non-Compliance.
Claim 1 recites an errant hyphen in “at least” recited in limitation (a).
Claim 1 recites the term “in-built” with and without a hyphen. Uniformity is recommended. Regardless, this framing of the term is unconventional. Conventional practice is to recite “built-in”.
Claims 4, 8, and 13-15 each recite initialisms. The first instance of an initialism, abbreviation, or acronym should be accompanied by the fully written term. With particular respect to claims 13-15, there is no antecedent basis for “PPG”.
Claim 5 recites “photo plethysmograph” as two words. This should be one word, not two.
Claims 13-15 each recite the “smart wearable device” while independent claim 1 recites a “wearable smart device”. Uniformity is recommended.
Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(f) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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:
“an input module allowing the user to select and register at least one form of meditation session from a list consisting of breathing, relaxing and focus meditation to establish a session for monitoring” in claim 1.
“a plurality of first set of sensor modules recognising an input provided by the user” in claim 1.
“a display module displaying the registered form of meditation that will be tracked by the wearable smart device (100)” in claim 1.
“a plurality of second set of sensor modules measuring beat-by-beat heart rate of the user” in claim 1.
“a processing module (101), with an inbuilt wireless communication unit, to calculate a time difference between consecutive heartbeats and converting the same into frequencies in order to determine a mindfulness of the user during a session” in claim 1.
“the display module further includes communication modules to communicate with the user” in claim 3.
“the another device locates and recommends the at least one form of meditation session for the user” in claim 7.
“the input module includes receiving inputs from the user by way of swiping and/or tapping a surface of the wearable smart device (100)” in claim 12.
“selecting and registering the breathing form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/ tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 13.
“displaying a percentage and amount of time the user has been mindful in the session upon the user tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) to indicate an end of the session” in each of claims 13-15.
“selecting and registering the relaxation form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/ tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 14.
“selecting and registering focus form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/ tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 15.
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim limitation “an input module allowing the user to select and register at least one form of meditation session from a list consisting of breathing, relaxing, and focus meditation to establish a session for monitoring” in claim 1 and “the input module includes receiving inputs from the user by way of swiping and/or tapping a surface of the wearable smart device (100)” in claim 12 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, an input module is not illustrated in the drawings while para. 25 and 28 merely recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a plurality of first set of sensor modules recognising an input provided by the user” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, a plurality of sensor modules for recognizing the input provided by the user is not illustrated in the drawings while para. 25 recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a display module displaying the registered form of meditation that will be tracked by the wearable smart device (100)” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, Fig. 5 and 6 illustrate an unidentifiable “display” as the surface of a ring while the specification merely recites similar language as the claim as well as a non-descript “display”. Both the drawings and specification are silent regarding any meaningful description of a display module performing the function of displaying the registered type of meditation that will be tracked by the device, particularly on such a small device as a ring. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a processing module (101), with an inbuilt wireless communication unit, to calculate a time difference between consecutive heartbeats and converting the same into frequencies in order to determine a mindfulness of the user during a session” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the disclosure provides for calculating the time difference between consecutive heartbeats and converting the same into frequencies, it is silent regarding any meaningful description of the analysis of these measures to determining the mindfulness of the user. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the display module further includes communication modules to communicate with the user” in claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest disclosure is found in para. 54 which merely recites that “a small display using a range of colours to communicate with the user”. However, the disclosure is silent regarding how the small display provides this range of colours and how this range is used to communicate with the user. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claim 4 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the another device locates and recommends the at least one form of meditation session for the user” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The most disclosure is found in para. 55 which recites “such smartphone locates meditations across the internet and recommend the right one to the user depending on their current situation. Thus, this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). However, the disclosure is silent regarding any steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 9-11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “selecting and registering the breathing form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/ tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. 25 and 65 of the specification recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of how a display module in the only provided embodiment of the device (i.e., a ring) performs this function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “displaying a percentage and amount of time the user has been mindful in the session upon the user tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) to indicate an end of the session” in each of claims 13-15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest disclosure is found in para. 54 which merely recites that “a small display using a range of colours to communicate with the user”. However, the disclosure is silent regarding how the small display provides this range of colours and how this range is used to communicate with the user, let alone display the percentage and amount of time the user has been mindful. Furthermore, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful analysis for determining a percentage or amount of time that the user has been mindful as the disclosure as a whole conflates mindfulness with undisclosed aspects of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “mindfulness” to be a quality while “meditation” comprises a multitude of techniques with the claims and disclosure as a whole focused on only three other forms – breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation. Additionally, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a category of meditative practices called “mindfulness meditation”, the disclosure is silent regarding this particular category of meditative practices. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “being mindful” does not require meditation as it is a quality of living. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “selecting and registering the relaxation form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/ tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. 25 and 65 of the specification recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of how a display module in the only provided embodiment of the device (i.e., a ring) performs this function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “selecting and registering focus form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/ tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. 25 and 65 of the specification recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of how a display module in the only provided embodiment of the device (i.e., a ring) performs this function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “a plurality of first set of sensor modules” in limitation (b) and “a plurality of second set of sensor modules” in limitation (d). It is unclear what constitutes “a plurality of first set/second set of sensor modules”. This is at least grammatically incorrect. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “a plurality of sensor modules” or “a first set/second set of sensor modules”, but not “a plurality of first set/second set of sensor modules”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, limitation (b) is construed to recite “a first set of sensor modules” and limitation (d) is construed to recite “a second set of sensor modules”. Claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the session" in limitation (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitation "a calculated and analysed data" in limitation (f). This language is grammatically incorrect and leads one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the limitation that “a calculated and analysed data” is a singular datum. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, in limitation (f), it is unclear which session “the session” refers to: “a session of meditation” recited in the preamble, “a session for monitoring” recited in limitation (a), or “a session” in limitation (e). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-15, each of these claims have inconsistent spacing around at least one forward slash in each claim. This causes ambiguity as to whether (1) the forward slash is a typo, (2) the terms on either side of the forward slash are alternatives wherein the forward slash connotes “or”, or (3) some other meaning wherein the term following the forward slash is not an alternative of the term preceding it. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Further regarding claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of second set of sensor modules further includes a photoplethysmograph (PPG) sensor utilizing infra-red and red lights (102), 6-axes gyroscope (103), conduction sensor, touch detection sensor (104), and temperature sensor.” This is grammatically incorrect causing one of ordinary skill in the art to not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. In particular, it is unclear whether each of claimed variants of sensor modules are meant to be recited in the singular or plural. If the former, each of these variants should have the appropriate version of “a” or “an” preceding it.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear whether “computer” is meant to be singular or plural. If the former, “computer” should have the term “a” preceding it since it is the first instance of “computer” being recited in the claim.
Further regarding claim 6, it is unclear what constitutes “computer or a combination thereof”. As recited, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how a combination thereof can be of “computer”. If “a combination thereof” is meant to refer to “a phone, a tablet computer, computer”, then an oxford comma will make this clear. However, this will still be indefinite as it is unclear how “another device” would be “a combination thereof” of “a phone, a tablet computer, computer” because “another device” is a singular device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 7 and 9-11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the time difference between consecutive heartbeats" in limitation (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the processing module (3002)" in limitation (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the processing module (3003)" in limitation (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the time difference between consecutive heartbeats" in limitation (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the processing module (5002)" in limitation (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the processing module (5003)" in limitation (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the processing module (7002)" in limitation (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the processing module (7003)" in limitation (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 13-15, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “tracking an amount of time the user is mindful during a session of meditation” in claim 1 and “displaying a percentage and amount of time the user been mindful in the session” in claims 13-15 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least para. 65-78 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any further meaningful detail. In particular, they recite calculating separate physiological measures during a breathing meditation session, a relaxation meditation session, and a focus meditation session. However, the disclosure is silent regarding any analysis of these physiological measures to identify mindfulness. Furthermore, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful analysis for determining a percentage or amount of time that the user has been mindful as the disclosure as a whole conflates mindfulness with undisclosed aspects of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “mindfulness” to be a quality while “meditation” comprises a multitude of techniques with the claims and disclosure as a whole focused on only three other forms – breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation. Additionally, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a category of meditative practices called “mindfulness meditation”, the disclosure is silent regarding this particular category of meditative practices. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “being mindful” does not require meditation as it is a quality of living. Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an input module allowing the user to select and register at least one form of meditation session from a list consisting of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation to establish a session for monitoring” in claim 1 and “the input module includes receiving inputs from the user by way of swiping and/or tapping a surface of the wearable smart device (101)” in claim 12 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. In particular, an input module is not illustrated in the drawings while para. 25 and 28 merely recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a plurality of first set of sensor modules recognising an input provided by the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, a plurality of sensor modules for recognizing the input provided by the user is not illustrated in the drawings while para. 25 recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a display module displaying the registered form of meditation that will be tracked by the wearable smart device (101)” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, Fig. 5 and 6 illustrate an unidentifiable “display” as the surface of a ring while the specification merely recites similar language as the claim as well as a non-descript “display”. Both the drawings and specification are silent regarding any meaningful description of a display module performing the function of displaying the registered type of meditation that will be tracked by the device, particularly on such a small device as a ring. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a processing module (101), with an inbuilt wireless communication unit, to calculate a time difference between consecutive heartbeats and converting the same into frequencies in order to determine a mindfulness of the user during a session” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the disclosure provides for calculating the time difference between consecutive heartbeats and converting the same into frequencies, it is silent regarding any meaningful description of the analysis of these measures to determining the mindfulness of the user. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Thus, just as this this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding the newly amended limitation which recites “wherein the processing module (101) measures other vital parameters of the user”. Therefore, this is new matter. Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the display module further includes communication modules to communicate with the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest disclosure is found in para. 54 which merely recites that “a small display using a range of colours to communicate with the user”. However, the disclosure is silent regarding how the small display provides this range of colours and how this range is used to communicate with the user. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claim 4 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the another device locates and recommends the at least one form of meditation session for the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The most disclosure is found in para. 55 which recites “such smartphone locates meditations across the internet and recommend the right one to the user depending on their current situation. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 9-11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 13-15, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “selecting and registering the breathing form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 13, selecting and registering the relaxation form of meditation to be monitored by swiping / tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 14, and “selecting and registering focus form of meditation to be monitored by swiping/ tapping the display module of the wearable smart device (100) by user” in claim 15 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. 25 and 65 of the specification recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of how a display module in the only provided embodiment of the device (i.e., a ring) performs this function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided