Detailed Action
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nejezchleb (US 2018/0161623 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nejezchleb discloses a method of monitoring and providing feedback on an exercise activity (Abstract) comprising acquiring, by a processor (¶ [0044]), biometric information of a user performing an exercise activity using a sensor (Abstract: 3-axis accelerometer to monitor movements of a user), determining a motion pattern of the exercise activity based on the biometric information acquired, comparing the motion pattern with a predetermined pattern and providing a haptic feedback to present a physical stimuli in order to simulate a tactile experience for said user to correct the exercise activity being performed by said user based on the comparison (Abstract: determining when certain physical activities are not being performed properly in comparison to a preferred and pre-configured performance, and can provide real-time feedback using visual, aural, haptic, and other feedback mechanisms).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Nejezchleb discloses identifying deviations in the motion pattern from the predetermined pattern, and providing real-time instructions for correcting the exercise activity (¶ [0080]: significant deviations may trigger one or more feedback mechanisms in the form or audible, visual and/or haptic signals).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Nejezchleb discloses wherein the real-time instructions comprise visual instructions, and auditory instructions, or a combination thereof (¶ [0080]: significant deviations may trigger one or more feedback mechanisms in the form or audible, visual and/or haptic signals).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Nejezchleb discloses wherein the biometric information comprises acceleration data, movement data, body position data, heart rate, pulse rate, temperature, respiration, skin resistivity, or a combination thereof (Abstract: 3-axis accelerometer to monitor movements of a user).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Nejezchleb discloses detecting repeated motion or movement corresponding to the exercise activity performed by said user prior to the step of acquiring the biometric information (Abstract: comparison to a preferred and pre-configured performance).
Claims 8 and 20 subsume the limitations of claim 1 above and are accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claims 8 and 20, Nejezchleb discloses a processor, a memory coupled to said processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer system (¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Nejezchleb discloses wherein the visual instructions are displayed on a display of said wearable device (¶ [0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Nejezchleb discloses transmitting the biometric information to a server for analyzing the biometric information (¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Nejezchleb discloses transmitting the biometric information to an electronic device for analyzing the biometric information, and wherein said electronic device comprises one of a mobile phone, a laptop, a personal digital assistant, and a tablet computer (¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 18, Nejezchleb discloses wherein said sensor comprises one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a heart rate monitor, a pressure sensor, a Micro Electronic Mechanical System (MEMS), a motion sensor, a location sensor, a Nano Electronic Mechanical System (NEMS) and an image capturing unit (Abstract: 3-axis accelerometer).
Regarding claim 19, Nejezchleb discloses wherein said wearable device comprises one of a wrist band, an ankle band, a strap, and a bracelet (claim 3).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 6, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nejezchleb in view of Wells et al (US 2019/0344121 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Wells suggests—where Nejezchleb does not disclose—analyzing, by said processor, the biometric information for recommending an exercise routine based on an age and profile of said user (¶ [0030]: athlete age; ¶ [0070]: feedback customized for demographic information). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the part prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Nejezchleb and Wells in order to make the feedback more personalized and effective.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Wells suggests—where Nejezchleb does not disclose—wherein the predetermined pattern comprises recommended exercise form, specific number of exercise sets, specific number of repetitions, and rest period duration between sets (¶ [0070]: number of sets … number of repetitions … duration of rests). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the part prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Nejezchleb and Wells in order to make the feedback more personalized and effective.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Bogdonavich et al (US 20200297279 A1) discloses a biometric garment sleeve.
Korzinov (US 20190343459 A1) disclose a sensor-equipped workout garment.
Czaja (US 20170225033 A1) discloses a gait-measuring shoe sensor.
Cho et al (US 20230398031 A1) discloses and exercise-monitoring belt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights