DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 of claim 7 recite “…fits with a waist region…”. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “…fits within a waist region…”. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
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 15-18 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.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “in response to determining that the human body wears the wearable structure, the at least two electrodes are located on two sides of a midsagittal plane of a waist region of the human body” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what is determining if the human body wears the structure and it is unclear if the electrodes are being attached to the structure in response to the determination. In order to further advance prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim to require two electrodes being located on two sides of a midsagittal plane of a waist region when the structure is being worn. Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “wherein the at least two electrodes include a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the system requires at least two of a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode, or if all three electrodes are required by the system. In order to further advance prosecution Examiner will be interpreting the claim to only require a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims are 1-11, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of determining a physical state of a user) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system for determining a physical state of a user.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1-11, 14-19, and 21, the recited steps are directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations of “…determine a heart rate variability (HRV) of the human body based on the ECG signal, and determine a physical state of the human body based at least on the HRV, wherein the physical state includes at least a relaxed state and a tense state” are a process, as drafted, that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and judgment) under the broadest reasonable interpretation but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1-11, 14-19, and 21, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For claim 1, the additional limitation of “a processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the limitations of “at least two electrodes, configured to be attached to a human skin to collect an electrocardiograph (ECG) signal of a human body” amounts to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “at least two electrodes…” are directed to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering which does not amount to an inventive concept. In addition, “a wearable structure, configured to carry at least two electrodes and attach the at least two electrodes to two sides of a midsagittal plane of the human body” is recited at a high level of generality and considered to be well known, routine, and conventional in the art. For examples, see Sullivan et al (US 2016/0135706) [0258] and Condon (US 2020/0285873) [0032].
Dependent claims 2-6, and 8-10 are further directed towards the abstract idea and do not introduce any additional elements which amount to significantly more under the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analyses.
Dependent claims 7, 11, 14-19, and 21 are further directed towards insignificant extra-solution activities and do not introduce any additional elements which amount to significantly more under the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analyses (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the use of a strain sensor to gather data is considered to be well-known, routine, and conventional. For examples, see Orbach (US 2008/0214903) [0235], Connor (US 2020/0163621) [0044], and Madnani (US 2023/0309830) [0065]. Moreover, the use of “wearable…trousers” with attached sensors to gather data is considered to be well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. For examples, see Such et al (US 2006/0084880) [0007] and Connor (US 2020/0163621) [0114].
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “a feedback module” is generally recited and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component. Further, the use of a feedback module to issue feedback information amounts to nothing more than the post-solution activity of providing results.
Regarding claim 18, the use of “a reference electrode” is considered to be well known, routine, and conventional in the art. For examples, See Sullivan et al (US 2016/0135706) [0258] and Condon (US 2020/0285873) [0032].
Regarding claim 21, the use of “an electromyographic module” to gather data is considered to be well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. For examples, see Connor (US 2020/0163621) [0041] and Berg et al (US 2015/0148619) [0031].
Dependent claims 12-13 recite limitations directed towards controlling a loudspeaker to switch audio signals based on analyzed data which amounts to significantly more and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Condon (US 2020/0285873).
Regarding claim 1, Condon discloses a wearable device (Fig. 1), comprising:
at least two electrodes (sensors 2), configured to be attached to a human skin to collect an electrocardiograph (ECG) signal of a human body ([0032] sensors 2 are electrocardiogram (ECG) electrodes);
a wearable structure (elasticated top 1), configured to carry the at least two electrodes and attach the at least two electrodes to two sides of a midsagittal plane of the human body (Fig. 1; [0032]); and
a processor ([0034] computing means 4), configured to determine a heart rate variability (HRV) of the human body based on the ECG signal ([0036] time domain HRV analysis can be conducted on beat-to-beat or normal-to-normal (NN) intervals between successive normal ECG complexes), and
determine a physical state of the human body based at least on the HRV ([0034] computing means 4 includes a physiological state determination process using physiological information as an input; [0036] EDA measurements can be combined with heart rate variability (HRV) measurements to give a measure of fatigue),
wherein the physical state includes at least a relaxed state and a tense state ([0034] The physiological state of a user includes a user stress level, the user duress level, and/or the user fatigue level).
Regarding claim 5, Condon discloses using at least the HRV as input data into a trained machine learning model ([0036] EDA measurements can be combined with heart rate variability (HRV) measurements to give a measure of fatigue; [0071] classifier performs analysis 708 of the data to ascertain the state of the user and receives the user profile 706 to use as a baseline in the classification analysis), and
the trained machine learning model (classifier) outputting the physical state of the human body based on the input data ([0071] classifier performs analysis 708 of the data to ascertain the state of the authenticated user; Fig. 8: stressed 712).
Regarding claim 15, Condon discloses wherein the at least two electrodes are distributed on the wearable structure at interval (Fig. 1 shows sensors 2 being evenly distributed on the elasticated top 1), in response to determining that the human body wears the wearable structure, the at least two electrodes are located on two sides of a midsagittal plane of a waist region of the human body (Fig. 1 shows an electrode placed on each side of the midsagittal plane).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Fink (US 2016/0353996).
Regarding claim 2, Condon discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than a preset threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state; and in response to determining that the HRV is greater than the preset threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state.
However, Fink discloses in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than a preset threshold (T.relaxed), designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state ([0053] T.sub.stress and T.sub.relaxed are two thresholds which determine the stress level based on HRV; [00003] yellow (moderate stress) if T.stress < HRV < T.relaxed); and
in response to determining that the HRV is greater than the preset threshold (T.relaxed), designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state ([0053] T.sub.stress and T.sub.relaxed are two thresholds which determine the stress level based on HRV; [00003] blue (healthy state) if T.relaxed < HRV).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than a preset threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state; and in response to determining that the HRV is greater than the preset threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state as taught by Fink. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of identifying an optimal breathing exercise to help the user increase HRV and relieve stress (Fink, [0027]).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Sohne et al (US 2020/0035337) hereinafter Sohne.
Regarding claim 3, Condon discloses determining the HRV and a heart rate (BPM) of the human body based on the ECG signal ([0035] ECG can be used to determine BPM; [0036] time domain HRV analysis can be conducted on beat-to-beat or normal-to-normal (NN) intervals between successive normal ECG complexes), but fails to disclose
determining the physical state of the human body based on the HRV and the heart rate.
However, Sohne discloses determining the physical state of the human body based on the HRV and the heart rate ([0078] determining the (for example flow) state value by multiplying the real time HR value with the real time HRV value, as is indicated in FIG. 15). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with determining the physical state of the human body based on the HRV and the heart rate as taught by Sohne. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining a state value in a detailed and concise way (Sohne, [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 3 as discussed above, but fails to disclose in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than a preset threshold and the heart rate is greater than a preset heart rate threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state; and in response to determining that the HRV is greater than the preset threshold and the heart rate is not greater than the preset heart rate threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state.
However, Sohne discloses in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than a preset threshold and the heart rate is greater than a preset heart rate threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state (see annotated Fig. 2); and
in response to determining that the HRV is greater than the preset threshold and the heart rate is not greater than the preset heart rate threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state (see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2: T1 = preset HRV threshold, T2 = preset HR threshold
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than a preset threshold and the heart rate is greater than a preset heart rate threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state; and in response to determining that the HRV is greater than the preset threshold and the heart rate is not greater than the preset heart rate threshold, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state as taught by Sohne. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining a state value in a detailed and concise way (Sohne, [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Condon discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose obtaining a calibration curve, the calibration curve being obtained by fitting HRVs generated when the human body is in different physical states; and determining the physical state of the human body based on the calibration curve.
However, Sohne discloses obtaining a calibration curve (Fig. 8 shows a line indicating a state value 4), the calibration curve being obtained by fitting HRVs generated when the human body is in different physical states (Fig. 1: calculated HR and HRV values from heart beat information data are indicated by the number 1; Fig. 2: HR and HRV relation 4); and
determining the physical state of the human body based on the calibration curve ([0096] For higher or lower (for example flow) states values or states, different states can be defined).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with obtaining a calibration curve, the calibration curve being obtained by fitting HRVs generated when the human body is in different physical states; and determining the physical state of the human body based on the calibration curve as taught by Sohne. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining a state value in a detailed and concise way (Sohne, [0028]).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Madnani (US 2023/0309830).
Regarding claim 7, Condon discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose a first strain sensor, wherein the first strain sensor is disposed on the wearable structure and fits with a waist region of the human body, and the first strain sensor is configured to collect respiratory state information of the human body based on a fluctuation of the waist region when the human body breathes.
However, Madnani discloses a first strain sensor (strain gauge 260),
wherein the first strain sensor is disposed on the wearable structure and fits with a waist region (torso) of the human body ([0065] wearable device 200 may also include a sensor strain gauge 260; [0073] wearable device 200 may be worn on a torso of the user), and
the first strain sensor is configured to collect respiratory state information (breathing data) of the human body based on a fluctuation of the waist region when the human body breathes ([0073] the strain gauge 260 and the accelerometer 262 senses breathing data of the user by measuring, for example, torso movement while inhaling and exhaling of the user to capture breathing data).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with a first strain sensor, wherein the first strain sensor is disposed on the wearable structure and fits with a waist region of the human body, and the first strain sensor is configured to collect respiratory state information of the human body based on a fluctuation of the waist region when the human body breathes as taught by Madnani. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining a remedial procedure based on health parameters in order to regulate the wellness value of the user (Madnani, [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 7 as discussed above, but fails to disclose determining the physical state of the human body based on the HRV and the respiratory state information. However, Madnani discloses determining the physical state of the human body based on the HRV and the respiratory state information ([0135-0136] physical wellness value 1704 may be determined based on the received set of health parameters (HRV, breathing data, etc.)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with determining the physical state of the human body based on the HRV and the respiratory state information as taught by Madnani. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining a remedial procedure based on health parameters in order to regulate the wellness value of the user (Madnani, [0007]).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Madnani (US 2023/0309830) and further in view of Persen et al (US 2019/0290147) hereinafter Persen.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 8 as discussed above, but fails to disclose in response to determining that the HRV is greater than a preset threshold and the respiratory state information is within a preset range, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state; and in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than the preset threshold and the respiratory state information is not within the preset range, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state.
However, Persen discloses in response to determining that the HRV is greater than a preset threshold and the respiratory state information is within a preset range designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state ([0070] when the respiration rate/heart rate/HRV/PRV of a user deviates from typical pathological values by a predetermined threshold included in the user profile, system 100 may determine that the user is experiencing a certain level of stress; [0086] system 100 may determine if the user is in recovery based on factors such as a lower heart rate, an increased HRV/PRV, and a reduced respiration rate); and
in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than the preset threshold and the respiratory state information is not within the preset range, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state ([0086] system 100 may determine if the user is in recovery based on factors such as a lower heart rate, an increased HRV/PRV, and a reduced respiration rate (relative to the patient's normal ranges for each). If the user is not active and not in recovery, system 100 can determine that the user is in a state of stress).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with in response to determining that the HRV is greater than a preset threshold and the respiratory state information is within a preset range, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the relaxed state; and in response to determining that the HRV is not greater than the preset threshold and the respiratory state information is not within the preset range, designating the physical state of the human body during exercise as the tense state as taught by Persen. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining whether the user is in a stressed state based on the heart rate, the HRV, and the respiration rate and providing instructions and/or advice for reducing a stress level of the user (Persen, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 8 as discussed above, but fails to disclose using at least the HRV and the respiratory state information as input data into a trained machine learning model, and the trained machine learning model outputting the physical state of the human body based on the input data.
However, Persen discloses using at least the HRV and the respiratory state information as input data into a trained machine learning model ([0073] the HRV, and the respiration rate to be used as inputs into the mathematical model; mathematical model can be built based on personal data corresponding to the user and other data corresponding to population norms), and
the trained machine learning model outputting the physical state of the human body based on the input data ([0073] causing the mathematical model to output the determination of whether the user is in a stressed state based on the inputs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with using at least the HRV and the respiratory state information as input data into a trained machine learning model, and the trained machine learning model outputting the physical state of the human body based on the input data as taught by Persen. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining whether the user is in a stressed state based on the heart rate, the HRV, and the respiration rate and providing instructions and/or advice for reducing a stress level of the user (Persen, Abstract).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Goldman (US 2018/0333091).
Regarding claim 11, Condon discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose a feedback module, wherein the feedback module is in communication connection with the processor, the processor is configured to issue a control instruction in response to the physical state of the human body, and the feedback module is configured to issue feedback information to a user based on the control instruction.
However, Goldman discloses a feedback module ([0159] 4 headset),
wherein the feedback module is in communication connection with the processor ([0069] processor of the communication headset),
the processor is configured to issue a control instruction in response to the physical state of the human body ([0069] processor of the communication headset may therefore be configured to detect a change in stress or anger situation and provide a feedback), and
the feedback module is configured to issue feedback information to a user based on the control instruction ([0069] the feedback to the user can be an audio signal provided to the user in the headphones).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with a feedback module, wherein the feedback module is in communication connection with the processor, the processor is configured to issue a control instruction in response to the physical state of the human body, and the feedback module is configured to issue feedback information to a user based on the control instruction as taught by Goldman. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing feedback influencing the user to relax (Goldman, [0069]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the feedback module includes a loudspeaker, and the loudspeaker is controlled to enter an operation state or switch audio signals based on the control instruction. However, Goldman discloses wherein the feedback module includes a loudspeaker (headphones), and the loudspeaker is controlled to enter an operation state or switch audio signals based on the control instruction ([0069] the feedback to the user can be an audio signal provided to the user in the headphones).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with a loudspeaker, and the loudspeaker is controlled to enter an operation state or switch audio signals based on the control instruction as taught by Goldman. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing feedback influencing the user to relax (Goldman, [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the physical state of the human body is associated with the feedback information. However, Goldman discloses wherein the physical state of the human body is associated with the feedback information ([0069] processor of the communication headset may therefore be configured to detect a change in stress or anger situation and provide a feedback). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with the physical state of the human body being associated with the feedback information as taught by Goldman. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing feedback influencing the user to relax (Goldman, [0069]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Goldman (US 2018/0333091) and further in view of Collier (US 2013/0184517).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 12 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein after the loudspeaker enters the operation state or switches the audio signals, the processor continues to determine the physical state of the human body at least based on the ECG signal, and in response to determining that the physical state of the human body is still the tense state, the processor switches the audio signals until the physical state of the human body enters into the relaxed state.
However, Collier discloses wherein after the loudspeaker enters the operation state or switches the audio signals ([0051] stress level is detected 26), the processor continues to determine the physical state of the human body at least based on the ECG signal ([0050-0051] program continues to detect stress levels using HR and HRV information), and in response to determining that the physical state of the human body is still the tense state, the processor switches the audio signals until the physical state of the human body enters into the relaxed state ([0051] As the program continues to detect stress levels, the audio and/or visual alert 28 is adjusted; This iterative process may continue until the desired outcome is achieved).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with after the loudspeaker enters the operation state or switches the audio signals, the processor continues to determine the physical state of the human body at least based on the ECG signal, and in response to determining that the physical state of the human body is still the tense state, the processor switches the audio signals until the physical state of the human body enters into the relaxed state as taught by Collier. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of generating a stress-level audio feedback loop (Collier, [0006]).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873).
Regarding claim 16, Condon discloses the system of claim 15 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least two electrodes include a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein when the human body wears the wearable structure, the first electrode and the second electrode are respectively attached to an ilium, a rear waist, or an abdomen on the two sides of the midsagittal plane of the human body. However, Condon further discloses wherein at least two electrodes include a first electrode and a second electrode ([0042] sensors 22 are ECG electrodes; Fig. 3), wherein
when the human body wears the wearable structure, the first electrode and the second electrode are respectively attached to an ilium, a rear waist, or an abdomen on the two sides of the midsagittal plane of the human body (Fig 3. Shows ECG electrodes 22 being disposed on an abdomen on the two sides of the midsagittal plane; [0041] sensors 22 are embedded in the elastic band 26) in an alternative embodiment.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the electrodes to an ilium, a rear waist, or an abdomen on the two sides of the midsagittal plane of the human body as taught by Condon. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of measuring ECG data using underwear.
Regarding claim 17, Condon discloses wherein when the human body wears the wearable structure, the first electrode and the second electrode are symmetrically arranged with respect to the midsagittal plane of the human body (Figs. 1 and 3 both show sensors 2 and 22 respectively being symmetrically arranged on the midsagittal plane).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Sullivan et al (US 2016/0135706) hereinafter Sullivan.
Regarding claim 18, Condon discloses the system of claim 15 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least two electrodes include a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode, the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed on a surface of the wearable structure close to the human skin at interval, and the reference electrode is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.
However, Sullivan discloses wherein the at least two electrodes include a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode ([0258] ECG sensing electrodes 112),
the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed on a surface of the wearable structure close to the human skin at interval ([0258] wearable medical device 100 includes a plurality of ECG sensing electrodes 112 that are attached to the harness 110 at various positions about the subject's body during use), and
the reference electrode is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Sullivan: E1 shows the first electrode on a side of a midsagittal plane, E2 shows a second electrode on another side of the midsagittal plane, and Er shows the reference electrode in between the first and second electrode.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with at least two electrodes include a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode, the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed on a surface of the wearable structure close to the human skin at interval, and the reference electrode is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode as taught by Sullivan. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of monitoring the cardiac function of the subject (Sullivan, [0258]).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Madnani (US 2023/0309830) and further in view of Connor (US 2020/0163621).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 7 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the wearable structure is trousers, and the wearable device further comprises a second strain sensor, the second strain sensor is disposed at a position of the wearable structure corresponding to a leg or a buttock of the human body; and the processor is further configured to recognize an exercise movement of lower limbs of the human body based on the second strain sensor.
However, Connor discloses wherein the wearable structure is trousers ([0115] a pair of pants worn by a person), and
the wearable device further comprises a second strain sensor ([0115] second strain sensor),
the second strain sensor is disposed at a position of the wearable structure corresponding to a leg or a buttock of the human body ([0115] a second strain sensor which is incorporated into (or attached to) the leg); and
the processor is further configured to recognize an exercise movement of lower limbs of the human body based on the second strain sensor ([0115] data processor which analyzes data from the second strain sensor to measure a configuration and/or motion of the knee).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with the wearable structure is trousers, and the wearable device further comprises a second strain sensor, the second strain sensor is disposed at a position of the wearable structure corresponding to a leg or a buttock of the human body; and the processor is further configured to recognize an exercise movement of lower limbs of the human body based on the second strain sensor as taught by Connor. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of measuring a configuration and/or motion of the knee (Connor, [0115]).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 2020/0285873) in view of Madnani (US 2023/0309830) and Connor (US 2020/0163621) and further in view of Berg et al (US 2015/0148619) hereinafter Berg.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Condon discloses the system of claim 19 as discussed above, but fails to disclose an electromyographic module, wherein the electromyographic module is configured to collect an electromyographic signal of the human body, and the processor is configured to evaluate the exercise movement of the human body based on the electromyographic signal, the exercise movement, and one or more of the respiratory state information, the heart rate, or the HRV.
However, Berg discloses an electromyographic module ([0031] set of biometric sensors 120),
wherein the electromyographic module is configured to collect an electromyographic signal of the human body ([0031] set of biometric sensors 120 preferably include electromyography (EMG) electrodes configured to acquire biopotential signals resulting from muscle activity of the user), and
the processor is configured to evaluate the exercise movement of the human body based on the electromyographic signal, the exercise movement, and one or more of the respiratory state information, the heart rate, or the HRV ([0024] system 100 also functions to process detected biometric signals (EMG, respiration, heart rate data, etc.) and to provide information derived from the processed biometric signals to the user performing a physical activity; [0064] processing subsystem 170 configured to communicate with the electronics subsystem 160 and generate analyses based upon biometric signals detected by way of the set of biometric sensors).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Condon with an electromyographic module, wherein the electromyographic module is configured to collect an electromyographic signal of the human body, and the processor is configured to evaluate the exercise movement of the human body based on the electromyographic signal, the exercise movement, and one or more of the respiratory state information, the heart rate, or the HRV as taught by Berg. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of analyzing biometric signals during exercise in order to provide the user with insights pertaining to their muscle exertion, balance, fatigue, etc. (Berg, [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights