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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority to TW112134101 filed 07 September 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers for TW112134101 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is further made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application TW113119908 filed 29 May 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of TW113119908as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Figure 2B) in the reply filed on 18 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 12 are generic claims that encompass at least Species A-F, H, J, and L-M. This is not found persuasive because just because generic claims exist does not mean that there is not a serious search burden between the species. Furthermore, in this case, the independent claims may be generic to some of the species, but they are not generic to all of the species. The figures identified with each grouping provide evidence of the mutually exclusive characteristics of the species and search for each of the identified species would be burdensome because each requires differing text search terms to identify the mutually exclusive characteristics. Couple the search with amendments that may occur during the course of prosecution, and the potential variations of the invention multiply accordingly, presenting an even greater burden for the examiner as prosecution advances.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 14, 16, 18-21, and 23-25 were withdrawn by Applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The Examiner further withdraws claims 11 and 15 as being drawn to nonelected species. Claim 11 recites limitations regarding “waist circumference information” which is only described with reference to the species that include the belt (i.e., Species G-J), which is not depicted or described with reference to Species B (Figure 2B). Claim 15 recites limitations regarding “a prompting unit arranged on the mask body” which is not depicted or described with reference to Species B (Figure 2B). The prompting unit 320 is shown as being part of the separate processing device 32, not the mask body 30.
Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18-21, and 23-25 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 17, and 22 are examined on the merits as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“an airflow regulation component” in claim 1. It is noted that the specification describes and the drawings show an “airflow regulating element 34” and “airflow adjustment component 34,” but do not describe or show “an airflow regulation component.”
No new matter should be entered.
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“an airflow regulation component” in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, “simulates” should read --simulate--
Claim 10, line 1, “step” should read --a step--
Claim 10, line 2, “exercise” should read --exercises--
Claim 10, line 2, “step” should read --a step--
Claim 12, line 1, “muscle” should read --muscles--
Claim 12, line 2, “utilized” should read --configured--
Claim 12, line 2, “air intake” should read --an air intake--
Claim 12, line 2, “face” should read --a face--
Claim 12, line 7, “an respiratory” should read --a respiratory--
Claim 12, line 10, “raining” should read --training--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 airflow regulation component for generating an inhalation resistance” in claim 1 is not described with sufficient structure in the specification. The specification describes “an airflow regulating element” and “an airflow adjustment component,” but does not describe “an airflow regulation component.” The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “component;”
the functional language is “for generating an inhalation resistance;” and
the generic place holder of “component” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“a pressure detecting element for detecting the air pressure information during each inhalation or exhalation exercise” in claim 6 is not described with sufficient structure in the specification. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “element;”
the functional language is “for detecting the air pressure information during each inhalation or exhalation exercise;” and
the generic place holder of “element” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“an airflow regulating element … for generating the inhalation resistance” in claim 12 is not described with sufficient structure in the specification. It is noted that the specification describes the structure of “an airflow adjustment component,” but not for “an airflow regulating element.” The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “element;”
the functional language is “for generating the inhalation resistance;” and
the generic place holder of “element” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“a detecting element, utilized to detect detecting information” in claim 12 is not described with sufficient structure in the specification. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “element;”
the functional language is “to detect detecting information;” and
the generic place holder of “element” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“a processing device” in claim 12 is interpreted as “a smart handheld device or wearable device, such as a smartphone, tablet, or smartwatch, for example” or “a laptop or a cloud server” or “a smartphone equipped with a prompt unit for displaying training standard information” as described in paragraph [0014] of the specification. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “device;”
the functional language is “processing;” and
the generic place holder of “device” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“a prompt unit for displaying the training standard information and the resistance information” in claim 13 is interpreted as “a display unit, voice unit, or other vibration feedback device” as described in paragraph [0014] of the specification. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “unit;”
the functional language is “for displaying the training standard information and the resistance information;” and
the generic place holder of “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“a pressure detecting element … for detecting an air pressure information” in claim 17 is not described with sufficient structure in the specification. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “element;”
the functional language is “for detecting an air pressure information;” and
the generic place holder of “element” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 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, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 17, and 22 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 limitations “an airflow regulation component” in claim 1, “a pressure detecting element” in claims 6 and 17, “an airflow regulating element” in claim 12, and “a detecting element” 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 functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The disclosure is devoid of any structures that performs the functions in the claim. 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 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)(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.
(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, 5-6, 12-13, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gwon (US 2023/0347208).
Regarding claim 1, Gwon teaches a method for training respiratory muscles, comprising steps of:
providing a mask body (mask body 100) for covering air intake and exhaust areas on a face of a user (Fig. 20. Para. [0067]: “The mask body 100 gets in close contact with the face of the user to cover the mouth and nose of the user, thereby partitioning the inside and the outside.”) and providing an airflow regulation component (pressure unit 200) for generating an inhalation resistance so as to simulates respiratory tract obstruction thereby generating negative pressure within the respiratory tract during inhalation process (Fig. 3. Para. [0077]: “the pressure unit 200 serves to control the amount of air flowing into the mask body 100 from the outside during the user's inhalation. In other words, in a case in which the pressure unit 200 is provided, the amount of air flowing into the mask body 100 from the outside decreases due to the user's inhalation.” Para. [0078]: “the pressure unit 200 flows air inhaled from the outside of the mask body 100 when inhalation is performed at pressure exceeding a predetermined pressure value, and blocks air inhaled from the outside of the mask body 100 when inhalation is performed at pressure lower than the predetermined pressure value.” The pressure unit 200 is used to decrease the amount of air that flows into the mask which would create an inhalation resistance. Such a resistance would simulate respiratory tract obstruction which would create negative pressure during inhalation.);
setting a training standard information (Para. [0104]: “The application 320 analyzes the user's respiration based on the measurement value and provides an appropriate exercise schedule to the user. Furthermore, the application 320 displays the analysis result and the exercise schedule.” The exercise schedule is a training standard information in as much as Applicant has described a training standard information.); and
performing a training process to allow the user, under the inhalation resistance, to achieve the training standard information by performing at least one inhalation or exhalation exercise (Paras. [0110]-[0111]: “Additionally, the application 320 outputs exercise schedule management, exercise state feedback, exercise result analysis, calorie consumption by the respiratory motion, etc. to the user's terminal, such as a smartphone, on the basis of information on the user's respiration transmitted from the communication unit 310. In this instance, the application 320 serves to output the analysis result and the exercise schedule or the like. That is, the application 320 can indicate the user's lung capacity into a digital numerical value through the value calculated by the sensor unit 300, and can output exercise schedule management, exercise state feedback, and exercise result analysis to the user's terminal, such as a smartphone. In addition, the application 320 can receive and confirm the exercise schedule management, exercise state feedback, exercise result analysis, etc. in real time. As an example, the user can perform the respiratory motion, measure the maximum inhalation pressure and the maximum exhalation pressure, and inquire the user's use record after executing the application 320.” The user performs the exercise with the pressure set by the pressure unit 200 and receives exercise result analysis.).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Gwon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the training process further comprises:
detecting a parameter information during the user performing the at least one inhalation or exhalation exercise;
determining whether the training standard information is achieved according to the parameter information; and
generating a prompt message if the training standard information is achieved (Figs. 18, 19. Para. [0104]: “The application 320 analyzes the user's respiration based on the measurement value and provides an appropriate exercise schedule to the user. Furthermore, the application 320 displays the analysis result and the exercise schedule.” The application 320 displays the user’s analysis results compared to their exercise schedule. This would require a signal on the display to show whether or not the exercise schedule has been achieved.).
Regarding claim 6, Gwon teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the parameter information is an air pressure information and the step of detecting the parameter information further comprises steps of providing the mask body that covers air intake and exhaust position on user's face, wherein the mask body comprises a pressure detecting element (sensor unit 300) for detecting the air pressure information during each inhalation or exhalation exercise (Fig. 3. Para. [0103]: “the sensor unit 300 serves to measure pressure and a flow rate of the inhaled air or the exhaled air of the user, and can be provided in any form if the user can measure the pressure and flow rate of the user. For example, the sensor unit 300 is a pressure sensor for measuring lung capacity of the user.”).
Regarding claim 12, Gwon teaches a device for training respiratory muscle, comprising:
a mask body (mask body 100), utilized to cover air intake and exhaust position on face of a user (Fig. 20. Para. [0067]: “The mask body 100 gets in close contact with the face of the user to cover the mouth and nose of the user, thereby partitioning the inside and the outside.”);
an airflow regulating element (pressure unit 200), arranged on the mask body for generating the inhalation resistance so as to simulate respiratory tract obstruction during the inhalation exercise thereby resulting in a negative pressure within an respiratory tract (Fig. 3. Para. [0077]: “the pressure unit 200 serves to control the amount of air flowing into the mask body 100 from the outside during the user's inhalation. In other words, in a case in which the pressure unit 200 is provided, the amount of air flowing into the mask body 100 from the outside decreases due to the user's inhalation.” Para. [0078]: “the pressure unit 200 flows air inhaled from the outside of the mask body 100 when inhalation is performed at pressure exceeding a predetermined pressure value, and blocks air inhaled from the outside of the mask body 100 when inhalation is performed at pressure lower than the predetermined pressure value.” The pressure unit 200 is used to decrease the amount of air that flows into the mask which would create an inhalation resistance. Such a resistance would simulate respiratory tract obstruction which would create negative pressure during inhalation.);
a detecting element (sensor unit 300), utilized to detect a detecting information during an inhalation exercise or an exhalation exercise of the user (Fig. 3. Para. [0103]: “the sensor unit 300 serves to measure pressure and a flow rate of the inhaled air or the exhaled air of the user, and can be provided in any form if the user can measure the pressure and flow rate of the user.”); and
a processing device, configured to have a [t]raining standard information set therein and electrically connected to the detecting element, wherein the processing device determines if the training standard information is reached according to the detecting information (Figs. 18, 10. Para. [0104]: “The application 320 analyzes the user's respiration based on the measurement value and provides an appropriate exercise schedule to the user. Furthermore, the application 320 displays the analysis result and the exercise schedule.” The exercise schedule is a training standard information in as much as Applicant has described a training standard information. Paras. [0110]-[0111]: “Additionally, the application 320 outputs exercise schedule management, exercise state feedback, exercise result analysis, calorie consumption by the respiratory motion, etc. to the user's terminal, such as a smartphone, on the basis of information on the user's respiration transmitted from the communication unit 310. In this instance, the application 320 serves to output the analysis result and the exercise schedule or the like. That is, the application 320 can indicate the user's lung capacity into a digital numerical value through the value calculated by the sensor unit 300, and can output exercise schedule management, exercise state feedback, and exercise result analysis to the user's terminal, such as a smartphone. In addition, the application 320 can receive and confirm the exercise schedule management, exercise state feedback, exercise result analysis, etc. in real time. As an example, the user can perform the respiratory motion, measure the maximum inhalation pressure and the maximum exhalation pressure, and inquire the user's use record after executing the application 320.” The user performs the exercise with the pressure set by the pressure unit 200 and receives exercise result analysis. The application 320 displays the user’s analysis results compared to their exercise schedule. This would require a signal on the display to show whether or not the exercise schedule has been achieved. Gwon teaches a processing device in the form of a smartphone in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the limitation made above.).
Regarding claim 13, Gwon teaches the device of claim 12, further comprising a prompt unit (application 320) for displaying the training standard information and the resistance information corresponding to the amount of airflow (Para. [0104]: “the application 320 displays the analysis result and the exercise schedule.” Figs. 18, 19 show the display of the application 320 that displays the pressure value and a respiration pattern.).
Regarding claim 17, Gwon teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the detecting element is a pressure detecting element (sensor unit 300), arranged on the mask body for detecting an air pressure information during each inhalation or exhalation exercise of the user, wherein the air pressure information is the detecting information (Fig. 3. Para. [0103]: “the sensor unit 300 serves to measure pressure and a flow rate of the inhaled air or the exhaled air of the user, and can be provided in any form if the user can measure the pressure and flow rate of the user. For example, the sensor unit 300 is a pressure sensor for measuring lung capacity of the user.”).
Regarding claim 22, Gwon teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the detecting element is arranged on the mask body (Fig. 3 shows the sensor unit 300 on the mask body 100.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwon (US 2023/0347208) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boutellier et al. (US 6,165,105, hereinafter Boutellier).
Regarding claim 10, Gwon teaches the method of claim 1.
Gwon does not teach further comprising step of counting a number of inhalation or exhalation exercise, or step of recording an inhalation volume.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Boutellier teaches a method for training respiratory muscles comprising steps of: providing a mask body (mask 3), and counting a number of inhalation or exhalation exercise, or step of recording an inhalation volume (Col. 7, lines 37-44: “Timing device 17 may, for example, be a crystal controlled oscillator with a known pulse frequency and a counter for the number of pulses between breaths. The number of pulses counted can then be converted to the equivalent breathing frequency (number of breaths per minute) by a processing device 18.” Counting the number of pulses between breaths would count the number of inhalations and exhalations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gwon by including the counter of Boutellier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calculate a user’s breathing frequency which in turn “provides feedback to the exerciser so that he or she may be paced to slow down or speed up his or her breathing,” as suggested by Boutellier (Col. 7, lines 53-68).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday, 8am - 5pm MT.
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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights