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 .
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.
This application claims the benefit of US Provisional 63/534,571, filed on 8/24/2023, and is a continuation of PCT/US24/43896, filed on 8/26/2024.
Specification
The title of the invention as filed is “Comparative Exercisa Session Equivalende, Differential Air Pressure (DAP) Systems, Controls And Related Devices And Methods” and appears to contain typographical errors. It is suggested to amend the title to ---Comparative Exercise Session Equivalence, Differential Air Pressure (DAP) Systems, Controls And Related Devices And Methods---.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The claims objected to because of the following informalities:
For ALL claims:
Each instance of “1st” and “2nd” should read ---first--- and ---second--- for clarity and consistency of language throughout the claims.
Claim 1:
Lines 3-4, “the unweighted Differential Air Pressure (DAP) exercise session” should read ---the unweighted DAP exercise session---
Line 9, “the unsupported exercise session comprising:” should read ---the unsupported exercise session, the settings values comprising:---
Lines 19-20, “the 1st session output” should read ---the session output---
Line 22, “the 1st session output” should read ---the session output---
Claim 2
Line 4, “kilocalories; and” should read ---kilocalories;---
Claim 3
Line 4, “a session output for the comparative group” should read ---the session output for the first comparative group---
Claim 4
Line 2, “the comparative group” should read ---the first comparative group---
Line 4, “one of default” should read ---one of a default---
Claim 5
Line 2, “The” should read ---the---
Claim 7
Line 16, “the 1st parameter” should read ---the first exercise parameter---
Line 19, “a different 2nd parameter” should read ---a different second exercise parameter---
Line 22, “the different 2nd parameter” should read ---the different second exercise parameter---
Line 41, “for on one of” should read ---for one of---
Line 43, “changed 2nd parameters” should read ---changed second exercise parameters---
Line 48, “changed 1st parameters” should read ---changed first exercise parameters---
Claim 12
Line 1, “the session output comprises” should read ---the session output for the first comparative group---
Line 2, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 3, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 4, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 6, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Claim 13
Lines 1-2, “the comparative group” should read ---the first comparative group---
Line 4, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 5, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Claim 14
Lines 1-2, “the comparative group” should read ---the first comparative group---
Claim 15
Lines 1-2, “the comparative group” should read ---the first comparative group---
Line 3, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Claim 16
Lines 1-2, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 6, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Claim 17
Lines 1-2, “the comparative group” should read ---the first comparative group---
Lines 3-4, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 5, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 10, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Claim 18
Line 2, “the DAP exercise session” should read ---the unweighted DAP exercise session---
Line 5, “the base selection” should read ---the first base selection---
Line 7, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Line 26, “the second evaluating” should read ---the evaluating---
Line 27, “the session output” should read ---the second session output---
Line 27, “the unweighting for a comparison selection” should read ---the second unweighting for a second comparison selection---
Lines 27-28, “the comparison selection” should read ---the second comparison selection---
Line 28, “the second comparative” should read ---the second comparative group---
Line 31, “the base selection and the comparison selection” should read ---the second base selection and the second comparison selection---
Line 32, “to the user second session output” should read ---to the user the second session output---
Claim 19
Line 3, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Lines 4-5, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Lines 6-7, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Lines 8-9, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Claim 20
Line 7, “date” should read ---data---
Line 22, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Line 23, “the comparison selection” should read ---the first comparison selection---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12-19 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 12 recites “the exercise output” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the recited exercise output is referring to the previously claimed session output. Claims 13-17 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 12.
Claim 18 recites “the exercise output is a first exercise output” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the recited exercise output is referring to the previously claimed session output.
Claim 19 recites “to the user to one of the user and the support entity” is indefinite as it is unclear what this limitation is intended to convey with respect to the providing limitation. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the support entity” in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 12-19 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, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a method for controlling a Differential Air Pressure (DAP) system in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising receiving settings values for a first comparative group, the settings values comprising an unweighting associated with each of an unweighted DAP exercise session and an unsupported exercise session, and a first exercise parameter comprising a first gait speed and a first incline for a first base selection where the first base selection is the unsupported exercise session; evaluating a session output based on the values associated with the first base selection and determining a second exercise parameter comprising a second gait speed and a second incline for a first comparison selection where the first comparison selection is the unweighted DAP exercise session, the session output for the first base selection and the first comparison selection being substantially the same; and controlling the DAP system to apply to the user the unweighting associated with the unweighted DAP exercise session and operating the DAP treadmill with the second gait speed and second incline.
The closest prior art of record includes Phillips et al. (US 11654327) and Long et al. (US 2024/0189658).
Each of the above prior arts teaches a DAP system and a method of operating the DAP system including analyzing a user’s performance and adjusting operations of the DAP system either by a computer or a therapist. However, none of the prior art alone or in combination reasonably teach or suggest the comparative aspect of the claimed invention including evaluating and determining variables for an unsupported exercise session and an unweighted DAP exercise session such that the session output is substantially the same for the two exercise sessions.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights