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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, and 12-26 remain pending the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the limitations related to displaying, pausing, and resuming the exercise cannot be performed in the human mind and therefore the claims overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitations of claim 1 directed towards displaying, pausing and resuming the selected exercise are merely extra-solution activity of outputting data and the limitations related to determining when to pause or resume based on physiological measurements can in fact be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the claims are directed to a specific device with a specific improvement, rather than a generic device such as sensor. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, these limitations are not found in claim 1, only in claim 21. So this argument is moot with respect to claims 1-7 and 12-20. With respect to claims 21-26, the limitations directed towards strain sensors and collecting lung data based on chest expansion are merely extra-solution activity of collecting data. There is nothing in the claims to suggest this is anything different than a typical strain gauge sensor used to measure chest expansion. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive. However, further details related to the strain gauge sensors would likely overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the previously cited art does not disclose the newly amended limitations to claim 1 which change the arrangement of the parts, now requiring a sensor reg rather than a network device. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment which relies on newly cited portions of Abdo and Sasahara to disclose these limitations in the claim. Accordingly, this argument is moot.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the previously cited art does not disclose the limitations related to the smart device because the exercises are not stored in the same device that displays the devices. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims need not be so narrowly construed. As the Applicant themselves cite, the claims merely require that the smart device be “operatively connected to” the display. This is different than being part of the same device. In this case a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the smart device is operably connected to the display because it is capable of sending things to be shown on the display. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
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:
Sensor element in claim 1.
Smart device in claims 1 and 21.
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.
A review of the published specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure describe in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Sensor element – described as a camera, heart rate monitoring device, a position-based lung sensor and/or any other appropriate or desired sensors in paragraphs 19-22 of the published specification.
Smart device – described as a cell phone, a tablet computer, a laptop, a desktop computer, a smart watch, or any other appropriate or desired device in paragraph 24 of the published specification.
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 § 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 1-7, 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to system configured to select at least one targeted exercise for a participant based on physiological measurements and recommending pausing or resuming the exercise based on monitoring the physiological measurements.
Claim 1 is considered to be directed towards an abstract idea because it recites a mental process of selecting at least one targeted exercise for a participant based on physiological measurements and recommending pausing or resuming the exercise based on monitoring the physiological measurements. This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In this case, a physician or trainer can and often does prescribe certain exercise for a patient based on physiological measurements and would recommend a user pause or resume an exercise based on monitoring the physiological measurements. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. A-B.
The judicial exception enumerated above (i.e., mathematical formula, mental process, and law of nature) is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations of claim 1 directed towards a smart device and program code or use thereof comprise no more than instructions to implement the judicial exceptions on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. The additional limitations of claim 1 directed towards displaying, pausing and resuming the selected exercise are merely extra-solution activity of outputting data. The additional limitations of claim 1 directed towards sensors and collecting data are merely extra-solution activity of collecting data. Consequently, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exceptions.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, as explained above, the additional limitations of claim 1 directed towards displaying, pausing, and resuming, the selected exercise are merely extra-solution activity of outputting data. The additional limitations of claim 1 directed towards sensors and collecting data are merely extra-solution activity of collecting data. Mere extra-solution activity does not add significantly more to the judicial exceptions.
Turning to the dependent claims:
Claim 4 recites additional elements directed towards further details of the abstract idea, specifying the specific type of data which is considered. These elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and are insufficient amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because they too are directed towards the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7, recite additional elements directed towards further details of the extra-solution activity, specifying particular methods of outputting data such as storing the data or notifying different operators. These elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and are insufficient amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere extra-solution activity.
Claim 12-20 recite additional elements directed towards further details of the extra-solution activity, specifying particular methods and details of collecting data. These elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and are insufficient amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere extra-solution activity.
The limitations of the dependent claims do not improve a computer or another technology or technical field. The limitations do not apply or use the judicial exceptions to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The limitations do not apply or use the judicial exceptions with, or by use of, a particular machine. The limitations do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. In addition, the claims do not include other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations of the dependent claims do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exceptions.
Claim 21 is directed to system configured to select at least one targeted exercise for a participant based on lung measurement data and recommending pausing or resuming the exercise based on monitoring the lung measurement data.
Claim 21 is considered to be directed towards an abstract idea because it recites a mental process of selecting at least one targeted exercise for a participant based on lung measurement data and recommending pausing or resuming the exercise based on monitoring the lung measurement data. This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In this case, a physician or trainer can and often does prescribe certain exercise for a patient based on lung measurement data and would recommend a user pause or resume an exercise based on monitoring the lung measurement data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. A-B.
The judicial exception enumerated above (i.e., mathematical formula, mental process, and law of nature) is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations of claim 21 directed towards a smart device and program code or use thereof comprise no more than instructions to implement the judicial exceptions on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. The additional limitations of claim 21 directed towards displaying, pausing and resuming the selected exercise are merely extra-solution activity of outputting data. The additional limitations of claim 21 directed towards sensors and collecting data are merely extra-solution activity of collecting data. Consequently, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exceptions.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, as explained above, the additional limitations of claim 21 directed towards displaying, pausing, and resuming, the selected exercise are merely extra-solution activity of outputting data. The additional limitations of claim 21 directed towards sensors and collecting data are merely extra-solution activity of collecting data. Mere extra-solution activity does not add significantly more to the judicial exceptions.
Turning to the dependent claims:
Claims 25-26, recite additional elements directed towards further details of the extra-solution activity, specifying particular methods of outputting data such as storing the data or notifying different operators. These elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and are insufficient amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere extra-solution activity.
Claim 22-24 recite additional elements directed towards further details of the extra-solution activity, specifying particular methods and details of collecting data. These elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and are insufficient amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere extra-solution activity.
The limitations of the dependent claims do not improve a computer or another technology or technical field. The limitations do not apply or use the judicial exceptions to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The limitations do not apply or use the judicial exceptions with, or by use of, a particular machine. The limitations do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. In addition, the claims do not include other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations of the dependent claims do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exceptions.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo et al. (US20220346703A1, hereafter Abdo) and Sasahara et al. (US20180110415, hereafter Sasahara).
Regarding claim 1, a Abdo discloses in Figure 1 a system for providing guided and monitored exercise routines (Abdo, Para 17; “Based upon the user's level of musculoskeletal health and risk of injury, the system may select one or more treatment plans for the user. A treatment plan may include, but is not limited to, physical exercise instructions, instructions on how to perform physical treatment on one or more parts of the user's body, prescribed medications, education on physical exercises and movements, user diagnosis reports, as well as physical fitness goals and methods to track a user's treatment. For example, the system may determine that the user should perform a series of stretching exercises to treat the user's injured back. Upon determining the one or more treatment plans, the system may present the one or more treatment plans to the user. For instance, the system may present stretching exercises in the form of an instructional video. In another example, the system may present the stretching exercises using an interactive video that records and displays, in real-time, the user's movement as the user performs the stretching exercise.”) comprising:
a) at least one sensor element (sensors of the client devices) operably affixed to a participant which can collect base physiological data measurements (Abdo, Figures 2-3) (Abdo, Para 30; “In an embodiment, the postural health calculation service 124 may calculate postural health values and risk of injury by determining position and movement of the anatomical landmarks and comparing the positions and movements to other anatomical landmarks of the user and other users.”) (Abdo, Para 74-79; “In operation 304, process 300 identifies points on the user's body and assigns spatial coordinates to each point on the user's body. In an embodiment, the data processing service 123 may assign spatial coordinates to each of the identified anatomical landmarks of the user. These coordinates may be compared to the initial coordinates measured during the initial user assessment and may be used as a baseline measurement for interactive video exercises. […] In operation 314, process 300 generates an updated digital representation of the user's body using the assigned second spatial coordinates. In an embodiment, the interactive exercise generation service 128 generates the updated digital representation of the user while performing the squat exercise. The updated digital representation may be displayed in the interactive exercise video so that the user can see himself performing the exercise in real-time or near real-time.”) (Abdo, Para 44; “client devices 102-106 may represent computing devices enabled with touch feedback, such as wearable devices. Wearable devices may be used to gather information from contact with the user's body. Examples of information gathered from a wearable include, but are not limited to, temperature, electrical currents, body tension, heart rate, blood pressure, and any other user vital signs”) (Abdo, Para 69; “In operation 206, process 200 determines initial levels of user musculoskeletal health based upon the one or more sets of user measurements.”);
b) a sensor rig (client devices) which uses the sensor element to collect at least one base physiological data measurement from the participant, the sensor rig comprising a processor, a memory, and a wireless transceiver (Abdo, Figure 1 ) (Abdo, Para 44; “client devices 102-106 may represent computing devices enabled with touch feedback, such as wearable devices. Wearable devices may be used to gather information from contact with the user's body. Examples of information gathered from a wearable include, but are not limited to, temperature, electrical currents, body tension, heart rate, blood pressure, and any other user vital signs”);
c) a smart device (Application management system 120) which receives the base physiological data measurement from the sensor rig (Abdo, Figure 1 and 20) (Abdo, Para 22; “In an embodiment, the application management system 120 may be communicatively coupled to client devices 102-106 and data repository 130 via network 110.”);
d) a program code stored on the smart device which uses the base physiological data measurement to select at least one targeted exercise for the participant (Abdo, Para 17; “For example, the system may use one or more client computing devices to determine the musculoskeletal health and risk of injury to the user. Based upon the user's level of musculoskeletal health and risk of injury, the system may select one or more treatment plans for the user. A treatment plan may include, but is not limited to, physical exercise instructions, instructions on how to perform physical treatment on one or more parts of the user's body, prescribed medications, education on physical exercises and movements, user diagnosis reports, as well as physical fitness goals and methods to track a user's treatment.”) (Abdo, Para 70; “In operation 208, process 200 selects a subset of exercises for the user based on the initial levels of user musculoskeletal health of the user. In an embodiment, the postural health analysis model 125 may implement a machine-learned model configured to select a subset of exercises for the user based upon the initial levels of user musculoskeletal health calculated by the postural health calculation service 124.”) (Abdo, Para 30-55; “In an embodiment, the postural health calculation service 124 may calculate postural health values and risk of injury by determining position and movement of the anatomical landmarks and comparing the positions and movements to other anatomical landmarks of the user and other users. […] the postural health calculation service 124 may calculate postural health values using other types of formatted data. For example, the data processing service 123 may analyze medical records for a user to generate data values representing physical characteristics of the user, such as their height, weight, and measurements of specific portions of the body. […] he health calculation service 142 may input the standardized input data and calculate one or more health data values associated with evaluating the user's cardiovascular health. The calculated health data values may represent data points used to determine whether the user is suffering from any possible cardiovascular disorders. The health data values may then be provided as input into the health analysis model 152. The health analysis model 152 may be configured to compare the health data values to historical health data values of other users identified as having cardiovascular disorders. The health analysis model 152 may generate one or more user diagnosis reports that may be sent to one or more external health care professionals for follow up treatment, such as sending referral and a report to a cardiologist. Additionally, the health analysis model 152 may generate one or more treatment plans that include recommendations of exercises to help alleviate any cardiovascular issues the user may be suffering from. The instruction generation service 127 may be used to present the one or more treatment plans to the user”);
e) a display operably connected to the smart device which displays the targeted exercise to the participant such that the participant can follow along and perform the targeted exercise (Abdo, Para 71; “The instruction generation service 127 may send to client device 102 instructions for the selected subset of exercises. For example, the instruction generation service 127 may render a graphical user interface for display and/or playing instructional exercise videos to the user. Alternatively, the interactive exercise generation service 128 may present a graphical user interface configured to play an interactive exercise video, which superimposes a video representation of the user, in real-time, onto the interactive video. Video representations of the user may include live video, an avatar, and any other graphical representation of a human.”).
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the program code further monitors a monitored physiological data measurement collected by the sensor element against a correlated safety limit, automatically pauses presentation of the targeted exercise on the display if the monitored physiological data measurement exceeds the correlated safety limit, and automatically resumes presentation of the targeted exercise after the monitored physiological data measurement returns within the correlated safety limit.
In an analogous biofeedback for exercise field of endeavor Sasahara discloses in Figure 5 monitoring a physiological data measurement (body temperature) collected by a sensor element (temperature sensor) against a correlated safety limit (threshold value), automatically pauses presentation of an exercise on a display if the monitored physiological data measurement exceeds the correlated safety limit (Sasahara, Para 233; “Particularly, the electronic apparatus 1 in the daily life mode attracts a user's attention or warns the user about the risk of the user getting heatstroke during the life. Therefore, even if the user is not aware of a body temperature thereof or an ambient atmospheric temperature, in a case where the body of the user has fallen into a dangerous situation or is likely to fall thereinto, the user surely recognizes the situation, and can thus safely live the daily life. The electronic apparatus 1 gives advice corresponding to a deep body temperature of the user, and thus the user can perform an appropriate action such as water intake at a proper timing.”) (Sasahara, Para 119; “The alert screen illustrated in FIG. 8(C) includes alert, “attention to heatstroke”, the advice related to the necessity of water intake, “intake of water”, the advice related to the necessity of rest, “stop exercise”, and the advice related to the necessity of atmospheric temperature adjustment, “get out of the sun”.”), and automatically resumes presentation of the targeted exercise after the monitored physiological data measurement returns within the correlated safety limit (Sasahara, Figure 5) (Sasahara, Para 139 explaining this further) (Sasahara, Para 144-153; “The exercise starting screen (FIG. 9(C) or 9(D)) includes advice to the user, and the advice includes advice related to whether or not starting of an exercise is possible, specifically, advice on exercise starting, “Interval Go!”. […] The exercise stopping screen includes advice to the user, and the advice includes advice related to whether or not an exercise is required to be stopped, specifically, advice on exercise stoppage, “Interval Stop!”.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the program code further monitors a monitored physiological data measurement collected by the sensor element against a correlated safety limit, automatically pauses presentation of the targeted exercise on the display if the monitored physiological data measurement exceeds the correlated safety limit, and automatically resumes presentation of the targeted exercise after the monitored physiological data measurement returns within the correlated safety limit in order to help ensure user safety and reduce risks during exercise as taught by Sasahara (Sasahara, Para 233)
Regarding claim 2, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Abdo further discloses wherein the smart device records at least one of the base physiological data measurements to create a recorded physiological data measurement (Abdo, Para 25-48; “In an embodiment, the data management layer 122 may implement data privacy standards according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to store data values within the data repository 130. […] Location coordinates for each of the anatomical landmarks of the user may be stored in the data repository 130. […] detected user movements during performance of an exercise may be received by the data communication layer 121. The data processing service 123 may format the received data and the data management layer 122 may store the formatted data in the data repository 130. In an embodiment, the postural health analysis model 125 may periodically review stored data of the user performing the prescribed exercises to determine whether the user is progressing as expected or if there is a deviation in the user's rehabilitation […] System 500 generally determines one or more treatment plans for a user and presents the treatment plans to the user in a manner that allows the user to track their progress during the user's recovery. The example system 500 is conceptually described herein as comprising client devices 102-106, the application management system 120, and the data repository 130. System 500 may represent one example arrangement and other system arrangements may include more or less components than what is depicted in system 500.”).
Regarding claim 3, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Abdo further discloses wherein the recorded physiological data measurement is transmitted to a health care professional for evaluation (Abdo, Para 55; “The health analysis model 152 may generate one or more user diagnosis reports that may be sent to one or more external health care professionals for follow up treatment.”) (Abdo, Para 56; “The health data values may then be provided as input into the health analysis model 152. The health analysis model 152 may be configured to compare the health data values to historical health data values of other users who may have been suffering from various skin issues. The health analysis model 152 may generate one or more user diagnosis reports that may be sent to one or more external health care professionals for follow up treatment, such as sending a referral to a dermatologist”) (Abdo, Para 53; “more medical reports, such as user diagnosis reports, that detail one or more identified ailments associated with the user. The one or more medical reports may then be packaged and sent to one or more external services for further analysis and treatment. For example, the one or more medical reports may represent referrals to external health care professionals. The one or more medical reports may contain, the identified ailments of the user along with observational data that shows why the referral was made so that an external health care professional may treat the user for the identified ailments.”).
Regarding claim 4, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the correlated safety limit corresponds to at least one of an unsafe heart rate, an unsafe lung expansion, and an unsafe body temperature.
Sasahara further discloses wherein the correlated safety limit corresponds to at least one of an unsafe heart rate, an unsafe lung expansion, and an unsafe body temperature (Sasahara, Para 233; “Particularly, the electronic apparatus 1 in the daily life mode attracts a user's attention or warns the user about the risk of the user getting heatstroke during the life. Therefore, even if the user is not aware of a body temperature thereof or an ambient atmospheric temperature, in a case where the body of the user has fallen into a dangerous situation or is likely to fall thereinto, the user surely recognizes the situation, and can thus safely live the daily life. The electronic apparatus 1 gives advice corresponding to a deep body temperature of the user, and thus the user can perform an appropriate action such as water intake at a proper timing.”) (Sasahara, Para 119; “The alert screen illustrated in FIG. 8(C) includes alert, “attention to heatstroke”, the advice related to the necessity of water intake, “intake of water”, the advice related to the necessity of rest, “stop exercise”, and the advice related to the necessity of atmospheric temperature adjustment, “get out of the sun”.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the correlated safety limit corresponds to at least one of an unsafe heart rate, an unsafe lung expansion, and an unsafe body temperature in order to help ensure user safety and reduce risks during exercise as taught by Sasahara (Sasahara, Para 233)
Regarding claim 6, Abdo as modified by Sasahara discloses all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Abdo further discloses wherein the smart device records at least one of the physiological data measurements to create a recorded physiological data measurement (Abdo, Para 25-48; “In an embodiment, the data management layer 122 may implement data privacy standards according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to store data values within the data repository 130. […] Location coordinates for each of the anatomical landmarks of the user may be stored in the data repository 130. […] detected user movements during performance of an exercise may be received by the data communication layer 121. The data processing service 123 may format the received data and the data management layer 122 may store the formatted data in the data repository 130. In an embodiment, the postural health analysis model 125 may periodically review stored data of the user performing the prescribed exercises to determine whether the user is progressing as expected or if there is a deviation in the user's rehabilitation […] System 500 generally determines one or more treatment plans for a user and presents the treatment plans to the user in a manner that allows the user to track their progress during the user's recovery. The example system 500 is conceptually described herein as comprising client devices 102-106, the application management system 120, and the data repository 130. System 500 may represent one example arrangement and other system arrangements may include more or less components than what is depicted in system 500.”).
Regarding claim 7, Abdo as modified by Sasahara discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Abdo further discloses wherein the recorded physiological data measurement is transmitted to a health care professional for evaluation (Abdo, Para 55; “The health analysis model 152 may generate one or more user diagnosis reports that may be sent to one or more external health care professionals for follow up treatment.”) (Abdo, Para 56; “The health data values may then be provided as input into the health analysis model 152. The health analysis model 152 may be configured to compare the health data values to historical health data values of other users who may have been suffering from various skin issues. The health analysis model 152 may generate one or more user diagnosis reports that may be sent to one or more external health care professionals for follow up treatment, such as sending a referral to a dermatologist”) (Abdo, Para 53; “more medical reports, such as user diagnosis reports, that detail one or more identified ailments associated with the user. The one or more medical reports may then be packaged and sent to one or more external services for further analysis and treatment. For example, the one or more medical reports may represent referrals to external health care professionals. The one or more medical reports may contain, the identified ailments of the user along with observational data that shows why the referral was made so that an external health care professional may treat the user for the identified ailments.”).
Regarding claim 12, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Abdo further discloses wherein at least one of the base physiological data measurements is a measurement of lung performance (Abdo, Para 61; “Other types of client devices may include devices configured to measure your airflow when breathing as well as the level of carbon dioxide expelled when breathing out.”) (Abdo, Para 51; “For example, the calculation services 140 may include the postural health calculation service 124, which is implemented to calculate postural health values for one or more areas on the user's body based upon the location coordinates of the anatomical landmarks of the user. In an embodiment, the health calculation services 142 represent one of more services implemented to calculate health data values related to various body systems including, but not limited to, [..] the respiratory system ”) (Abdo, Para 61; “In another example the health calculation services 142 and the health analysis models 152 are implemented to identify ailments related to a user's respiratory system. In this example, the system 500 may receive input data from client devices 102-106, where client devices 102-106 may represent webcams and other devices that may capture observations related to the user's respiratory system. Other types of client devices may include devices configured to measure your airflow when breathing as well as the level of carbon dioxide expelled when breathing out. The data input may be sent to the application management system 120. The data communication layer 121 may receive the input data and the data processing service 123 may format the input data into a standardized format. The health calculation service 142 may input the standardized input data and calculate one or more health data values associated with evaluating the user's respiratory health. The calculated health data values may represent data points used to determine whether the user is suffering from any possible respiratory disorders. Additionally, the data input may include inputted text or voice from the user. The inputted text or voice may include any subjective information about any breathing issues the user may be feeling. The health data values may then be provided as input into the health analysis model 152. The health analysis model 152 may be configured to compare the health data values to historical health data values of other users identified as having respiratory disorders. The health analysis model 152 may generate one or more user diagnosis reports that may be sent to one or more external health care professionals for follow up treatment.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo and Kaleal (US20160086500).
Regarding claim 5, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the smart device transmits an alert to at least one third party recipient if the monitored physiological data measurements has exceeds the correlated safety limit by a predetermined danger level.
In an analogous exercise monitoring device field of endeavor Kaleal discloses transmitting an alert to at least one third party recipient a monitored physiological data measurements has exceeded a correlated safety limit by a predetermined danger level (Kaleal, Para 179; “In addition to improving or optimizing a user's physical performance of a physical fitness routine/activity, by customizing and automatically responding to changes in the user's physical/physiological data, […] For instance, if the system recognizes certain metrics as leading to bodily harm, the system can instruct the avatar to stop the workout session and contact a health professional or automatically send a notification (e.g., a call, electronic message, etc.) to the health professional. If necessary, the system can additionally or alternatively be configured to contact emergency services, thus saving precious time in the event of a severe or potentiality life threatening injury.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the smart device transmits an alert to at least one third party recipient if the monitored physiological data measurements has exceeds the correlated safety limit by a predetermined danger level in order to reduce bodily harm to the patient and increase the likelihood of rescue if emergency services are needed as taught by Kaleal (Kaleal, Para 179).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo and Sasahara as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (Lee, Y.J., Lee, M., Kim, N. et al. Automatic Left and Right Lung Separation Using Free-Formed Surface Fitting on Volumetric CT. J Digit Imaging 27, 538–547 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9680-5, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 13, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements.
In an analogous patient lung monitoring field of endeavor Lee discloses measuring the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements (Lee, Abstract; “This study presents a completely automated method for separating the left and right lungs using free-formed surface fitting on”) (Lee, Pg 538; “Lung segmentation is essential in computer-guided analyses of parenchymal density, airways and emphysema evaluation, the detection of lung nodules, and lobe-based studies.”) (Lee, Pg 539; “Based on these results, 3D central points between the facing left and right lung boundaries are obtained and subsequently used to generate a free-formed surface by using a surface fitting algorithm. Finally, the left and right lung volumes are smoothly divided by this surface. In the experiments, it was proven that the left and right lungs are effectively separated using the proposed method without the need for repetition of the process and regardless of the number and position of the junctions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements in order to more accurately analysis the patient for lung disease as taught by Lee (Lee, Pg 538).
Regarding claim 15, Abdo as modified by Sasahara and Lee above discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements.
In an analogous patient lung monitoring field of endeavor Lee discloses measuring the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements (Lee, Abstract; “This study presents a completely automated method for separating the left and right lungs using free-formed surface fitting on”) (Lee, Pg 538; “Lung segmentation is essential in computer-guided analyses of parenchymal density, airways and emphysema evaluation, the detection of lung nodules, and lobe-based studies.”) (Lee, Pg 539; “Based on these results, 3D central points between the facing left and right lung boundaries are obtained and subsequently used to generate a free-formed surface by using a surface fitting algorithm. Finally, the left and right lung volumes are smoothly divided by this surface. In the experiments, it was proven that the left and right lungs are effectively separated using the proposed method without the need for repetition of the process and regardless of the number and position of the junctions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements in order to more accurately analysis the patient for lung disease as taught by Lee (Lee, Pg 538).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo and Sasahara as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Khine et al. (US20180129786, hereafter Khine).
Regarding claim 14, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the measurement of lung performance is performed by measuring an elastic strain against a strain sensor the participant must strain against while breathing.
In an analogous patient lung monitoring field of endeavor Khine discloses wherein measurement of lung performance is performed by measuring an elastic strain against a strain sensor a participant must strain against while breathing (Khine, Para 85; “this is advantageous in that the sensor apparatus 100 in certain embodiments includes a strain gauge which senses motion when under a strain”) (Khine, Para 89; “the measuring circuit 32 includes a bridge circuit or any other circuit used for measuring a change in resistance in a strain gauge”) (Khine, Para 8-12; “As discussed below, a stretch sensor can be provided for respiratory monitoring. […] The foregoing embodiments can employ a sensor that is configured to stretch and when stretched to yield a modulated or changed measurable value, such as resistance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the measurement of lung performance is performed by measuring an elastic strain against a strain sensor the participant must strain against while breathing in order to more accurately and continuously monitor breathing in a more unobtrusive manner (Khine, Para 201-203).
Regarding claim 16, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the measurement of lung performance is performed using at least one sensor which can detect a relative movement in space, the relative movement in space corresponding to a chest expansion movement of the participant while breathing.
In an analogous patient lung monitoring field of endeavor Khine discloses wherein a measurement of lung performance is performed using at least one sensor which can detect a relative movement in space, the relative movement in space corresponding to a chest expansion movement of a participant while breathing (Khine, Para 85; “this is advantageous in that the sensor apparatus 100 in certain embodiments includes a strain gauge which senses motion when under a strain”) (Khine, Para 89; “the measuring circuit 32 includes a bridge circuit or any other circuit used for measuring a change in resistance in a strain gauge”) (Khine, Para 8-12; “As discussed below, a stretch sensor can be provided for respiratory monitoring. […] The foregoing embodiments can employ a sensor that is configured to stretch and when stretched to yield a modulated or changed measurable value, such as resistance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the measurement of lung performance is performed using at least one sensor which can detect a relative movement in space, the relative movement in space corresponding to a chest expansion movement of the participant while breathing in order to more accurately and continuously monitor breathing in a more unobtrusive manner (Khine, Para 201-203).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo, Sasahara, and Khine as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Lee, Y.J., Lee, M., Kim, N. et al. Automatic Left and Right Lung Separation Using Free-Formed Surface Fitting on Volumetric CT. J Digit Imaging 27, 538–547 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9680-5, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 17, Abdo as modified by Sasahara and Khine above discloses all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements.
In an analogous patient lung monitoring field of endeavor Lee discloses measuring the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements (Lee, Abstract; “This study presents a completely automated method for separating the left and right lungs using free-formed surface fitting on”) (Lee, Pg 538; “Lung segmentation is essential in computer-guided analyses of parenchymal density, airways and emphysema evaluation, the detection of lung nodules, and lobe-based studies.”) (Lee, Pg 539; “Based on these results, 3D central points between the facing left and right lung boundaries are obtained and subsequently used to generate a free-formed surface by using a surface fitting algorithm. Finally, the left and right lung volumes are smoothly divided by this surface. In the experiments, it was proven that the left and right lungs are effectively separated using the proposed method without the need for repetition of the process and regardless of the number and position of the junctions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements in order to more accurately analysis the patient for lung disease as taught by Lee (Lee, Pg 538).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo and Sasahara as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Nakazawa (US20170367624).
Regarding claim 18, Abdo as modified by Sasahara above discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the measurement of lung performance is performed by comparing a first chest position and a second chest position using a camera.
In an analogous patient monitoring field of endeavor Nakazawa discloses wherein measurement of lung performance is performed by comparing a first chest position and a second chest position using a camera (Nakazawa, Para 80; “The cycle detection unit 14 detects a vital reaction cycle at a photographing site of the object M. For example, in a case where the photographing site is a chest including lungs as in the present embodiment, a respiratory cycle is detected with […] a CCD camera, an optical camera”).
Such a modification amounts to the mere combination of known prior art parts to yield predictable results, which has previously been held to involve no more than routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wherein the measurement of lung performance is performed by comparing a first chest position and a second chest position using a camera as taught by Nakazawa in order to perform measurements with less obtrusiveness.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo, Sasahara, and Nakazawa as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Lee, Y.J., Lee, M., Kim, N. et al. Automatic Left and Right Lung Separation Using Free-Formed Surface Fitting on Volumetric CT. J Digit Imaging 27, 538–547 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9680-5, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 19, Abdo as modified by Sasahara and Nakazawa above discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements.
In an analogous patient lung monitoring field of endeavor Lee discloses measuring the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements (Lee, Abstract; “This study presents a completely automated method for separating the left and right lungs using free-formed surface fitting on”) (Lee, Pg 538; “Lung segmentation is essential in computer-guided analyses of parenchymal density, airways and emphysema evaluation, the detection of lung nodules, and lobe-based studies.”) (Lee, Pg 539; “Based on these results, 3D central points between the facing left and right lung boundaries are obtained and subsequently used to generate a free-formed surface by using a surface fitting algorithm. Finally, the left and right lung volumes are smoothly divided by this surface. In the experiments, it was proven that the left and right lungs are effectively separated using the proposed method without the need for repetition of the process and regardless of the number and position of the junctions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein the measurement of lung performance measures the performance of a right lung and a left lung as separate pulmonary data measurements in order to more accurately analysis the patient for lung disease as taught by Lee (Lee, Pg 538).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo and Sasahara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Barral et al. (US20180276823, hereafter Barral).
Regarding claim 20, Abdo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Abdo does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the base physiological data measurements is a measurement of heart performance using a camera.
In an analogous patient monitoring field of endeavor Barral discloses measurement of heart performance using a camera (Barral, Para 30; “After the video data and the heart rate data from the video camera and the heart rate monitor, respectively, are received with a processor, the localized motion of the blood vessels in the video data may be isolated by the processor using the heart rate of the patient. For example, the heart rate may be used to identify portions of the image that are pulsing/moving at substantially the same rate as the heartbeat of the patient.”).
Such a modification amounts to the mere combination of known prior art parts to yield predictable results, which has previously been held to involve no more than routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdo wherein at least one of the base physiological data measurements and/or the new physiological data measurements is a measurement of heart performance using a camera as taught by Barral in order to perform measurements with less obtrusiveness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor reasonably suggest the limitations set forth in the claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose nor reasonably suggest a system for providing guided and monitored exercise routines comprising: a) a sensor rig configured to be worn on a torso of a participant, the sensor rig comprising a processor, a memory, a wireless transceiver, and a plurality of chest expansion sensors disposed at different positions about the torso, each of the plurality of chest expansion sensors configured to detect a respective chest expansion movement of the participant while breathing; b) the sensor rig configured to collect, from the plurality of chest expansion sensors, a plurality of chest expansion measurements and to derive therefrom a pulmonary data measurement representing an absolute expansion of the participant's lungs; c) a smart device which receives the pulmonary data measurement from the sensor rig via the wireless transceiver; d) a program code stored on the smart device which uses the pulmonary data measurement to select at least one targeted exercise for the participant; e) a display operably connected to the smart device which displays the targeted exercise to the participant such that the participant can follow along and perform the targeted exercise; and f) wherein the program code monitors the pulmonary data measurement against a correlated safety limit, automatically pauses presentation of the targeted exercise on the display if the pulmonary data measurement exceeds the correlated safety limit, and automatically resumes presentation of the targeted exercise after the pulmonary data measurement returns within the correlated safety limit as set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Li whose telephone number is (313)446-4916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday; 5:30 AM to 3:30 PM Eastern.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/JOHN D LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights