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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 29 has been withdrawn. However, the objection to Claim 26 was not amended as requested and a new objection has been made to Claim 31 and 36.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the interpretation of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of independent Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. The corresponding rejection of dependent Claims 18, 20-26, 28-32, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has also been withdrawn. However, the rejection of Claim 27 was not amended as requested and therefore this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) remains. The Examiner reminds the applicant that claim 27, which is directly dependent on Claim 17, still recites “the baseline of the one or more baselines”, and no mention of any baseline appears anywhere in Claim 17. Until Claim 17 is amended to recite a baseline of one or more baselines, or Claim 27 is amended to be dependent on Claim 26, this rejection will remain.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-17, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 17-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments in light of the Interview Summary mailed 04/24/2026 as being persuasive. The Applicant has further defined the meaning of the term “low-latency” in Claim 17 which now recites “the feedback comprising low-latency feedback based on the assessment, such that any delay between respiration by the user and the providing of feedback is negligibly perceptible to the user”. The amendment is supported by the specification which recites “the feedback can include a visual representation of the user’s breath (“breath visualization”) as they are breathing that can be perceived by the user as if it were their actual breath” in [0069]. Furthermore, Fig. 4 and [0053] provide specific examples of real-time graphics created from assessed breath data such that the visual feedback of a breath is substantially instantaneous to the breath itself. This is not practically performed in the human mind and thus the amendments to independent Claim 17 overcomes the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under Step 2A, Prong One. The rejection of Claims 17-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-19, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 17, 20-24, 26-29, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hale et al (US 20240370098 Al, hereinafter Hale) have been fully considered and are persuasive as Hale does not disclose a wearable electronic device that incorporates at least one reference motion sensor nor approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee and Gwak. All other rejections have been updated accordingly.
In addition, the Applicant’s arguments regarding the use of Hale as prior art are not fully persuasive, and Hale will still be relied upon as a secondary reference.
Regarding Hale, the Applicant has argued “Hale, by design, does not care about the extent of movement of the user's head, only the position of the head relative to the microphone. The audio input is the primary driver of the breath assessment, and position and orientation are collected essentially to confirm the position of the user's mouth and nares. Hale's audio-based breath detection is accordingly separate from its position tracking; the position data is not used to detect or assess breathing but only to validate whether detected audio should be accepted as input. Hale thus does not take into account an extent of movement in assessing breath...” (pages 18-19). However, in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims that recite “assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined extent of at least one of longitudinal movement”, the Examiner believes the Applicant is making a distinction without a patentable difference. Hale discloses determining an extent of longitudinal movement of the head (“for example, the position may be provided as xyz co-ordinates relative to the device 14”, [0133]; a provided x-axis data point is a quantitative extent of longitudinal movement from a predetermined baseline). The xyz position data in Hale is used to validate breath data, as admitted by the Applicant—under broadest reasonable interpretation, this is still assessing breathing “based” on a determined extent of longitudinal data. Therefore, Hale will be considered to still anticipate claims limitations that recite “assess the user's breathing based on...the determined extent of at least one of longitudinal movement”.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 31, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 26, “The system of claim 17, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to establish one or more baselines for elements of the user's pose” should read “The system of claim 17, [[and]] wherein the at least one processor is further configured to establish one or more baselines for elements of the user's pose”.
In Claim 31, “magnetoometer” should be spelled “magnetometer”.
In Claim 36, “assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined extent of movement” should read “assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined extent of at least longitudinal movement”
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.
Claim 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation " The system of claim 17, wherein the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines is iteratively adjusted during the user's breathing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention in Claim 17 of a baseline or one or more baselines. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “The system of claim [[17]] 26, wherein the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines is iteratively adjusted during the user's breathing”.
Claim 30 recites “The system of claim 26, wherein the approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform includes creating a DC-balanced waveform using the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines; andof movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the waveform”. It is unclear if the word “waveform” in the clause “identifying a change in the direction of movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the waveform” is referring to the respiration waveform, the DC-balanced waveform, or a different waveform that has a lack of antecedent basis. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim as “The system of claim 26, wherein the approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform includes creating a DC-balanced waveform using the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines; andDC-balanced waveform”.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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 17-18, 21-22, 26-27, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180272189 A1, hereinafter Lee) in view of Gwak et al (US 20240268711 A1, hereinafter Gwak).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Figs. 1-4), the system comprising:
a wearable electronic device (Elements 310, 320, and 330, Fig. 2), worn by the user (See Fig. 2), including one or more pose tracking systems (Element 110, Fig. 1), wherein the one or more pose tracking systems incorporate at least one reference motion sensor (Element 112, Fig. 1; “In an example embodiment, IMU sensors 112 can include one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer, global positioning system (GPS) receiver, position and orientation detection trackers, and the like”, [0037]) on or within the wearable electronic device (See Fig. 2) and are configured to detect the position and orientation of the user's head, the position and orientation defining pose data (“the user's head movement and/or gaze position can be measured relative to a plane 605 corresponding to a natural/neutral gazing position (e.g., a typical line-of-sight or level head position)”, [0054]);
at least one processing device (Element 120, Fig. 1) configured to:
collect pose data about the user's breathing in a first breathing cycle of the one or more breathing cycles (“For example, during a deep inhaling cycle, most people naturally: (1) raise their head, (2) inflate their chest, (3) straighten their spine, and (4) open up their shoulders. These actions, which are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment, are shown in FIG. 6. During a deep exhaling cycle, most people naturally: (1) lower their head, (2) deflate their chest, (3) bow their spine, and (4) relax their shoulders. These actions, which are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment, are shown in FIG. 7”, [0054]) from the one or more pose tracking systems (“Again, these user actions are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment”, [0054]), isolate spatial components of the pose data in a fixed coordinate system (See Figs. 6-7; the user’s head position/line of sight relative to plane 605 is isolated—see [0054]), and determine an extent of movement of the user's head during the first breathing cycle from the pose data (“In particular, the user's head movement and/or gaze position can be measured relative to a plane 605 corresponding to a natural/neutral gazing position (e.g., a typical line-of-sight or level head position) when the user is in a static position. As shown in FIG. 6, the user's head position typically moves upward above the level plane 605 when the user is inhaling. Conversely, as shown in FIG. 7, the user's head position typically moves downward below the level plane 605 when the user is exhaling. Again, these user actions are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment”, [0054]);
produce a first signal representative of the user's breathing (“If the user wearable system 300 of a particular embodiment is equipped with a breath sensor 312, the user wearable system 300 can use the sensor data directly from the breath sensor 312 to determine the user's current breathing status, such as: inhaling, exhaling, or holding breath. Secondly, the user wearable system 300 can use the sensor data directly from the breath sensor to determine the volume of air being inhaled or exhaled and the duration of each breathing cycle”, [0053]);
assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined extent of movement, wherein assessing the user's breathing comprises identifying a breath state (“the breath sensor may not be supplying accurate or reliable data. In this case, the user wearable system 300 can monitor and track the user's movements or posture to infer or estimate a breathing status and performance”, [0054]; the clear implication of paragraph [0054] is that the processor 120 uses the posture information of the head and the information from the breath sensor 312 together to assess breath state more accurately); and
provide feedback regarding the user's breathing (Step 510, Fig. 5; “Based on the indicators generated by the control unit 100, the control unit 100 causes the output unit 130 to generate user feedback via the multi-sensory output devices to simulate the effect or outcome of the user's physical movement (e.g., simulating breathed air coming in or out from the user's nose as shown in the virtual environment) (process operation 510”, [0048]), the feedback comprising low-latency feedback based on the assessment, such that any delay between respiration by the user and the providing of feedback is negligibly perceptible to the user (“Use the multi-sensory output devices of output unit 130 to present a visual simulated image and corresponding audio of air being inhaled and exhaled from a user's avatar in the virtual environment”, [0063]; “Use the multi-sensory output device of output unit 130 to present the user's influence or effect on the virtual environment. For example, the simulated tree leaves in the virtual environment can be moved when the user inhales and exhales”, [0064]; to control an avatar in a virtual environment in real life, the latency of the feedback should be negligibly perceptible to the user; Also see Figs. 11-13).
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the at least one processing device configured to:
produce a first signal representative of the user's breathing by approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform.
However, Gwak, which is also directed towards a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Figs. 4A-4B), teaches the at least one processing device (Element 120, Fig. 1) configured to (“Note that the operations and functions shown in or described with respect to FIGS. 2 through 6 can be implemented in an electronic device 101, 102, 104, server 106, or other device(s) in any suitable manner.”, [0087]):
produce a first signal representative of the user's breathing by approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform (Step 240, Fig. 2; See the motion-based respiratory signal in Fig. 4A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first signal representative of the user's breathing of Lee by approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform, as taught by Gwak, because the peaks and troughs of the respiration waveform, as well as the width, skewness, and time stamps of the waveform hold additional information on the user’s breathing (For example, see Gwak [0067]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more pose tracking systems further determine pitch of the user's head (“In particular, the user's head movement and/or gaze position can be measured relative to a plane 605 corresponding to a natural/neutral gazing position (e.g., a typical line-of-sight or level head position) when the user is in a static position. As shown in FIG. 6, the user's head position typically moves upward above the level plane 605 when the user is inhaling. Conversely, as shown in FIG. 7, the user's head position typically moves downward below the level plane 605 when the user is exhaling”, [0054]), and wherein the at least one processing device is configured to correlate changes in pitch with the determined(“In particular, the user's head movement and/or gaze position can be measured relative to a plane 605 corresponding to a natural/neutral gazing position (e.g., a typical line-of-sight or level head position) when the user is in a static position. As shown in FIG. 6, the user's head position typically moves upward above the level plane 605 when the user is inhaling. Conversely, as shown in FIG. 7, the user's head position typically moves downward below the level plane 605 when the user is exhaling. Again, these user actions are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment”, [0054]) and assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined pitch (“the breath sensor may not be supplying accurate or reliable data. In this case, the user wearable system 300 can monitor and track the user's movements or posture to infer or estimate a breathing status and performance”, [0054]; the clear implication of paragraph [0054] is that the processor 120 uses the posture information of the head and the information from the breath sensor 312 together to assess breath state more accurately), and wherein assessing the user's breathing produces a second signal representative of the user's breathing (“Use the multi-sensory output device of output unit 130 to present the user's influence or effect on the virtual environment. For example, the simulated tree leaves in the virtual environment can be moved when the user inhales and exhales”, [0064]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to provide a cue to the user prior to gathering data about the user's breathing, wherein the cue is one of a cue type (“the user wearable system 300 can be configured to display more than two pointing targets via the multi-sensory display device of the output unit 130. The multiple pointing targets can be used to prompt the user to gaze at each of the targets, one after another, while breathing. When the user successfully gazes at the first target while inhaling, the user wearable system 300 can be configured to highlight the next target and so forth. At the second target, the user can be prompted to hold their breath. The user wearable system 300 can be configured to highlight the next target and prompt the user to exhale. The user wearable system 300 can then be configured to highlight the next target and prompt the user to hold their breath again”, [0058]).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 21, wherein assessing the user's breathing comprises assessing compliance with the cue type (“When the user successfully gazes at the first target while inhaling...”, [0058]), and wherein the cue type is one of inhale, exhale (“The user wearable system 300 can be configured to highlight the next target and prompt the user to exhale”, [0058]), or hold (“At the second target, the user can be prompted to hold their breath”, [0058]), and wherein the cue represents a rule set of the one or more rule sets (See [0058]; under broadest reasonable interpretation, the prompts to inhale, exhale, and hold breath can be considered a rule set).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to establish one or more baselines for elements of the user's pose (Element 605, Figs. 6-7), with at least one baseline of the one or more baselines represents a neutral midpoint of respiration waveform (“In particular, the user's head movement and/or gaze position can be measured relative to a plane 605 corresponding to a natural/neutral gazing position (e.g., a typical line-of-sight or level head position) when the user is in a static position. As shown in FIG. 6, the user's head position typically moves upward above the level plane 605 when the user is inhaling. Conversely, as shown in FIG. 7, the user's head position typically moves downward below the level plane 605 when the user is exhaling. Again, these user actions are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment”, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17. Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines is iteratively adjusted during the user's breathing. However, Gwak teaches wherein the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines (“the electronic device 101 uses a motion tracking algorithm to track the horizontal (X-axis) and vertical (Y-axis) movements of the facial landmarks 315 by detecting the X and Y coordinates of the center point of each facial landmark 315 in each frame of the video 210”, [0056]) is iteratively adjusted during the user's breathing (“In general, face motion signals can be vulnerable to noise or motion artifacts due to sudden voluntary or involuntary movements of the person during recording of the video 210. Thus, after the motion extraction operation 225, the electronic device 101 performs a motion artifact removal operation 230 to remove the motion artifacts from the motion signal”, [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with Gwak, because face motion signals not related to breathing can be vulnerable to noise or motion artifacts due to sudden voluntary or involuntary movements of the person and the noise removal of Gwak removes this unnecessary data while preserving the face motion relevant to breathing (Gwak, [0057]).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the breath state is determined by identifying a change in the direction of movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the breathing cycle (“As shown in FIG. 6, the user's head position typically moves upward above the level plane 605 when the user is inhaling. Conversely, as shown in FIG. 7, the user's head position typically moves downward below the level plane 605 when the user is exhaling”, [0054]). Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform includes creating a DC-balanced waveform using the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines; and
wherein the breath state is determined by identifying a change in the direction of movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the waveform.
However, Gwak teaches wherein the approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform (Step 240, Fig. 2; See the motion-based respiratory signal in Fig. 4A) includes creating a DC-balanced waveform (Step 230, Fig. 2; “In general, face motion signals can be vulnerable to noise or motion artifacts due to sudden voluntary or involuntary movements of the person during recording of the video 210. Thus, after the motion extraction operation 225, the electronic device 101 performs a motion artifact removal operation 230 to remove the motion artifacts from the motion signal”, [0057]; the examiner notes this description corresponds to [0114] of the applicant’s specification, which explains that a DC balanced waveform is free of positional bias) using the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines (“the electronic device 101 uses a motion tracking algorithm to track the horizontal (X-axis) and vertical (Y-axis) movements of the facial landmarks 315 by detecting the X and Y coordinates of the center point of each facial landmark 315 in each frame of the video 210”, [0056]); and
wherein the breath state is determined by identifying a change in the direction of movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the waveform (“As shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B, SNR, number of peaks, and skewness can be identified from the signals 240 and 275... The number of peaks on a periodic respiratory signal can be directly associated with RR”, [0067]; the Examiner notes that the maximum and minimum peaks in the motion based respiratory signal 240 will correspond to breath states of inhaling and exhaling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with Gwak, because face motion signals not related to breathing can be vulnerable to noise or motion artifacts due to sudden voluntary or involuntary movements of the person and the noise removal of Gwak removes this unnecessary data while preserving the face motion relevant to breathing (Gwak, [0057]).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the first breathing cycle includes a plurality of windows (See Figs. 10-11; the breath states in each figure can be considered a single window under broadest reasonable interpretation; in [0057], multiple inhale/exhale cycles, i.e. a plurality of windows are recited), and wherein the at least one processing device is configured to assess the users' breathing (“When the user successfully gazes at the first target while inhaling...”, [0058]), determine a breath state (“Inhale”, “Exhale”, in Fig. 10; “Inhale”, “Exhale”, and “Hold” in Fig. 11), and provide feedback to the user relating to breath state within a same window of the plurality of windows (See “Gaze Point” in Figs. 10-11; “When the user successfully gazes at the first target while inhaling, the user wearable system 300 can be configured to highlight the next target and so forth”, [0058]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gwak, and further in view of Djokovic et al (US 20190258315 A1, hereinafter Djokovic).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising a microphone (Element 114, Fig. 1; “ The environmental sensors 114 can include an array of environmental sensing devices for measuring one or more of a variety of environmental conditions including light, sound...”, [0037]). Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the microphone tracks audio input associated with breathing of the user, and wherein the at least one processing device is configured to collect audio from the microphone, and wherein assessment of the user's breathing includes utilizing the audio input in combination with the pose data to determine the breath state.
However, Djokovic, which also discloses a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Abstract), teaches wherein the microphone (Element 282, Fig. 2) tracks audio input associated with breathing of the user (Step 1130, Fig. 11; “For example, breathing rate may be detected from audio data”, [0024]), and wherein the at least one processing device (Element 250, Fig. 2) is configured to collect audio from the microphone user (“The microphone 282 captures ambient audio by converting sound into an electrical signal that can be stored or processed by the media processing device 110”, [0023]), and wherein assessment of the user's breathing includes utilizing the audio input in combination with the pose data to determine the breath state (“In another alternative embodiment, a combination of IMU data and audio data may be used to identify the breathing pattern”, [0032]; “In an embodiment, instead of only detecting inhales, the media processing device 110 may separately detect inhales and exhales and only detect a breath when both are detected in relative time proximity”, [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the microphone functionality and audio input of Djokovic to the system of Lee, because redundant sensors used in combination with each other can make the breath assessment functionality of the system more reliable and accurate.
Claims 23-24, 28-29, 31-32, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gwak, and further in view of Hale et al (US 20240370098 A1, hereinafter Hale).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 22. Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein assessing compliance with cue type includes comparing the breath state to the cue type. However, Hale, which also discloses a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Figs. 1-4 and 5C), teaches wherein assessing compliance with cue type (See Figs. 17A-17B; “ An example of a foreground graphic visual indicator is an animation which shows a shape such as a triangle which fills up with successful breath input over time. For example, the shape or triangle may fill up with breath exhalation input being detected to be a certain magnitude, or dependent on the determined flow rate of breath exhalation”, [0170]) includes comparing the breath state to the cue type (“In some embodiments, a rippling out of colour outwards may provide a visual cue regarding how characteristics of a user's breath is being detected by the electronic device and, in some embodiments, checked for conformity with a target type of breath input”, [0174]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with comparing the breath state to the cue type as taught by Hale for the advantage of providing more comprehensive feedback to the user regarding the effectiveness of their breathing performance.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the wearable includes a graphical display (Element 132, Fig. 1; “Visual output unit 132 can further include various types of other display devices such as, for example, a display panel, monitor, television, projector, or any other display device”, [0040]), and wherein feedback includes a visual representation of breathing on the graphical display (“For example, the simulated tree leaves in the virtual environment can be moved when the user inhales and exhales”, [0064]). Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the visual representation changes if a breath state is not in compliance with a cue type. However, Hale, which also discloses a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Figs. 1-4 and 5C), teaches wherein the visual representation (“FIGS. 21 to 24 each illustrate schematically other examples of screenshots sequence in a breath input enabled user interface configured to train a user to provide a breath input to a breath input enabled user interface input by exhaling which provide examples of foreground and background visual indicators of a BIEUI 18 on a display 22, for example, by a device 14 performing a method of providing a BIEUI for training a user to provide more acceptable intentional breath input in some embodiments of the invention”, [0169]) changes if a breath state is not in compliance with a cue type (“In some embodiments, a rippling out of colour outwards may provide a visual cue regarding how characteristics of a user's breath is being detected by the electronic device and, in some embodiments, checked for conformity with a target type of breath input”, [0174]; under broadest reasonable interpretation, this would also include instances where breath characteristics are not in conformity with a target type of breath input).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee wherein the visual representation changes if a breath state is not in compliance with a cue type, because this would make the system of Lee more effective by providing more comprehensive feedback to the user regarding the effectiveness of their breathing performance.
Regarding Claim 28, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the fixed coordinate system includes a vertical axis (Element 605, Figs. 6-7), and wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to determine at least one of the longitudinal movement (As this claim limitation is part of an alternative list, it does not need to be taught by the reference in order for the claim to be anticipated) and vertical movement of the user's head (“In particular, the user's head movement and/or gaze position can be measured relative to a plane 605 corresponding to a natural/neutral gazing position (e.g., a typical line-of-sight or level head position) when the user is in a static position”, [0054]) during the first breathing cycle from the pose data (“As shown in FIG. 6, the user's head position typically moves upward above the level plane 605 when the user is inhaling. Conversely, as shown in FIG. 7, the user's head position typically moves downward below the level plane 605 when the user is exhaling. Again, these user actions are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment”, [0054]), wherein the at least one processing device is configured to assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined extent of at least one of longitudinal movement (As this claim limitation is part of an alternative list, it does not need to be taught by the reference in order for the claim to be anticipated) and vertical movement (“the breath sensor may not be supplying accurate or reliable data. In this case, the user wearable system 300 can monitor and track the user's movements or posture to infer or estimate a breathing status and performance”, [0054]; the clear implication of paragraph [0054] is that the processor 120 uses the posture information of the head and the information from the breath sensor 312 together to assess breath state more accurately). Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the fixed coordinate system includes a longitudinal axis. However, Hale teaches wherein the fixed coordinate system includes a longitudinal axis (“ FIG. 4E shows schematically an example of a reference co-ordinate system which may be used by the electronic device 14 to implement an embodiment of the method of breath recognition”, [0120]; Fig. 4E shows a longitudinal axis and a vertical axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the longitudinal axis of Hale to the fixed coordinate system of modified Lee because the longitudinal movement of the head can be used to filter out low-quality breath data (i.e. validate candidate breaths as a usable breath input for analysis) as taught by Hale ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 28. Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the at least one processing device is configured to determine the longitudinal movement of the user's head during the first breathing cycle from the pose data, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined extent of longitudinal movement. However, Hale teaches wherein the at least one processing device (Element 68, Fig. 5C; [0047]-[0048]) is configured to determine the longitudinal movement of the user's head during the first breathing cycle from the pose data (“for example, the position may be provided as xyz co-ordinates relative to the device 14”, [0133]), wherein the at least one processing device is configured to assess the user's breathing based on the first signal (“The output of the breath input controller module 128 comprises accepted breath input 36 which is then processed by the electronic device, for example, by using one or more processors 68”, [0137]) and the determined extent of longitudinal movement (“by determining if the detected audio signal is a breath input to the BIEUI based on the audio signal and the detected position of the head of the user based not just on whether the audio characteristics indicate a candidate breath input to a BIEUI, but also dependent on the user's head position relative to the displayed BIEUI or microphone, validates that candidate breath as a probably breath input, unintentional, unauthorised and/or otherwise unacceptable audio input which could otherwise end up being treated as intentional breath input to the BIEUI is reduced”, [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with Hale, because the extent of the longitudinal movement of the head can be used to filter out low-quality breath data (i.e. validate candidate breaths as a usable breath input for analysis) as taught by Hale ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the at least one reference motion sensor includes at least one of an accelerometer, magnetometer, and a gyroscope (“In an example embodiment, IMU sensors 112 can include one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer, global positioning system (GPS) receiver, position and orientation detection trackers, and the like”, [0037]). Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the pose tracking system further includes an external reference sensor. However, Hale teaches wherein the pose tracking system includes an external reference sensor (“The display controller may be configured to a combination of one or more of the optical sensors 18, 122, along with the proximity sensor 112 and/or the accelerometer 114 in some embodiments to determine one or more of a user's head position, facial characteristics of the user's face, the orientation of a user's face relative to the display and/or camera and/or microphone and also, optionally, to track a user's gaze”, [0223]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the external reference sensor of Hale to the system of modified Lee for the advantage of providing a more robust pose data set to the processor regarding the position and orientation of the head for more accurate analysis.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 31. Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the external reference sensor is selected from the group consisting of a camera, passive infrared sensors, LIDAR sensors, and ultrasonic sensors. However, Hale teaches wherein the external reference sensor is selected from the group consisting of a camera, passive infrared sensors (“The detected head position of the user is provided using a camera 18 ... but may also be determined in some embodiments instead or in addition by using one or more image sensors 122 such as other optical or infra-red sensors 122 are configured to feed images in the form of video data input to facial tracking module 30”, [0105]), LIDAR sensors (“Examples of suitable smartphones and other types of electronic devices such as a tablet on which a method of breath input recognition or any of the other methods disclosed herein include... a LIDAR sensor”, [0131]), and ultrasonic sensors (The Examiner notes this element is listed as part of an alternative list and does not have to be disclosed by the reference in order for the limitation to be anticipated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the external reference sensor of Hale to the system of modified Lee for the advantage of providing a more robust pose data set to the processor regarding the position and orientation of the head for more accurate analysis.
Regarding Claim 36, Lee discloses a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Figs. 1-4), the system comprising:
a wearable electronic device (Elements 310, 320, and 330, Fig. 2), worn by the user(See Fig. 2), including one or more pose tracking systems (Element 110, Fig. 1), wherein the one or more pose tracking systems incorporate at least one reference motion sensor (Element 112, Fig. 1; “In an example embodiment, IMU sensors 112 can include one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer, global positioning system (GPS) receiver, position and orientation detection trackers, and the like”, [0037]) on or within the wearable electronic device (See Fig. 2) and are configured to detect the position and orientation of the user's head, the position and orientation defining pose data (“the user's head movement and/or gaze position can be measured relative to a plane 605 corresponding to a natural/neutral gazing position (e.g., a typical line-of-sight or level head position)”, [0054]);
at least one processing device (Element 120, Fig. 1) configured to:
collect pose data about the user's breathing in a first breathing cycle of the one or more breathing cycles (“For example, during a deep inhaling cycle, most people naturally: (1) raise their head, (2) inflate their chest, (3) straighten their spine, and (4) open up their shoulders. These actions, which are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment, are shown in FIG. 6. During a deep exhaling cycle, most people naturally: (1) lower their head, (2) deflate their chest, (3) bow their spine, and (4) relax their shoulders. These actions, which are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment, are shown in FIG. 7”, [0054]) from the one or more pose tracking systems (“Again, these user actions are measurable with the sensors of the user wearable system 300 of an example embodiment”, [0054]), isolate spatial components of the pose data in a fixed coordinate system (See Figs. 6-7; the user’s head position/line of sight relative to plane 605 is isolated—see [0054]);
produce a first signal representative of the user's breathing (“If the user wearable system 300 of a particular embodiment is equipped with a breath sensor 312, the user wearable system 300 can use the sensor data directly from the breath sensor 312 to determine the user's current breathing status, such as: inhaling, exhaling, or holding breath. Secondly, the user wearable system 300 can use the sensor data directly from the breath sensor to determine the volume of air being inhaled or exhaled and the duration of each breathing cycle”, [0053]);
assess the user's breathing based on the first signal and the determined extent of movement, wherein assessing the user's breathing comprises identifying a breath state (“the breath sensor may not be supplying accurate or reliable data. In this case, the user wearable system 300 can monitor and track the user's movements or posture to infer or estimate a breathing status and performance”, [0054]; the clear implication of paragraph [0054] is that the processor 120 uses the posture information of the head and the information from the breath sensor 312 together to assess breath state more accurately), and wherein the time it takes to perform the assessment is negligibly perceptible to the user (“Use the multi-sensory output devices of output unit 130 to present a visual simulated image and corresponding audio of air being inhaled and exhaled from a user's avatar in the virtual environment”, [0063]; “Use the multi-sensory output device of output unit 130 to present the user's influence or effect on the virtual environment. For example, the simulated tree leaves in the virtual environment can be moved when the user inhales and exhales”, [0064]; to control an avatar in a virtual environment in real life, the time it takes to perform the assessment needed to provide any feedback should be negligibly perceptible to the user; Also see Figs. 11-13).
Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the at least one processing device configured to:
determine an extent of at least longitudinal movement of the user's head during the first breathing cycle from the pose data; and
produce a first signal representative of the user's breathing by approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform.
However, Gwak, which is also directed towards a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Figs. 4A-4B), teaches the at least one processing device (Element 120, Fig. 1) configured to (“Note that the operations and functions shown in or described with respect to FIGS. 2 through 6 can be implemented in an electronic device 101, 102, 104, server 106, or other device(s) in any suitable manner.”, [0087]):
produce a first signal representative of the user's breathing by approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform (Step 240, Fig. 2; See the motion-based respiratory signal in Fig. 4A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first signal representative of the user's breathing of Lee by approximating the first breathing cycle as a respiration waveform, as taught by Gwak, because the peaks and troughs of the respiration waveform, as well as the width, skewness, and time stamps of the waveform hold additional information on the user’s breathing (For example, see Gwak [0067]).
Hale, which also discloses a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Figs. 1-4 and 5C), teaches the at least one processing device (Element 68, Fig. 5C; [0047]-[0048]) configured to:
determine an extent of at least longitudinal movement of the user's head during the first breathing cycle from the pose data (“for example, the position may be provided as xyz co-ordinates relative to the device 14”, [0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with Hale, because the extent of the longitudinal movement of the head can be analyzed to filter out low-quality breath data (i.e. validate candidate breaths as a usable breath input for analysis) as taught by Hale ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 37, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 36, wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to provide information regarding the user's breathing based on the assessment (“By positioning the displayed targets in this manner, the user wearable system 300 can prompt and train the user to move their core muscle group to an ideal posture for optimal square breathing performance. Further, the user wearable system 300 can be configured to demonstrate for the user the duration and consistency of their breathing cycles and thus show the user the effectiveness of their breathing performance”, [0058]).
Regarding Claim 38, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to:
establish one or more baselines for elements of the user's pose, with at least one baseline of the one or more baselines represents a neutral midpoint of the respiration waveform, create a DC-balanced waveform as the respiration waveform using the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines; and wherein the breath state is determined by identifying a change in the direction of movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the waveform.
Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to: create a DC-balanced waveform as the respiration waveform using the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines; and wherein the breath state is determined by identifying a change in the direction of movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the waveform.
However, Gwak teaches wherein the at least one processing device (Element 120, Fig. 1) is further configured to: create a DC-balanced waveform (Step 230, Fig. 2; “In general, face motion signals can be vulnerable to noise or motion artifacts due to sudden voluntary or involuntary movements of the person during recording of the video 210. Thus, after the motion extraction operation 225, the electronic device 101 performs a motion artifact removal operation 230 to remove the motion artifacts from the motion signal”, [0057]; the examiner notes this description corresponds to [0114] of the applicant’s specification, which explains that a DC balanced waveform is free of positional bias) as the respiration waveform (Step 240, Fig. 2; See the motion-based respiratory signal in Fig. 4A) using the at least one baseline of the one or more baselines (“the electronic device 101 uses a motion tracking algorithm to track the horizontal (X-axis) and vertical (Y-axis) movements of the facial landmarks 315 by detecting the X and Y coordinates of the center point of each facial landmark 315 in each frame of the video 210”, [0056]); and
wherein the breath state is determined by identifying a change in the direction of movement of a user's head at or near a peak of the waveform (“As shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B, SNR, number of peaks, and skewness can be identified from the signals 240 and 275... The number of peaks on a periodic respiratory signal can be directly associated with RR”, [0067]; the Examiner notes that the maximum and minimum peaks in the motion based respiratory signal 240 will correspond to breath states of inhaling and exhaling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with Gwak, because face motion signals not related to breathing can be vulnerable to noise or motion artifacts due to sudden voluntary or involuntary movements of the person and the noise removal of Gwak removes this unnecessary data while preserving the face motion relevant to breathing (Gwak, [0057]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gwak, and further in view of Ahmadi Noorbakhsh (US 20240050674 A1, hereinafter Ahmadi Noorbakhsh).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 21. Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the feedback includes a score and wherein the score is calculated by dividing a percentage of breath operations performed by the user matching corresponding cues by a total number of cues. However, Ahmadi Noorbakhsh, which is also directed towards a system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (“An exemplary processing unit may be configured to receive an exemplary output signal from an exemplary sensor assembly and calculate breathing parameters”, [0063]), teaches wherein the feedback includes a score (“processing unit 702 may further be configured to calculate a user's score , [0135]) and wherein the score is calculated by dividing a percentage of breath operations performed by the user matching corresponding cues by a total number of cues (“processing unit 702 may further be configured to calculate a user's score, based at least in part on the relative percentage of a number of properly given breaths divided by a total number of the given breaths within a certain time interval. For example, if a total of 100 breaths are given within a 600 second time interval, and in which 90 breaths are counted as properly given breaths, then the processing unit 702 may calculate a 90% user's score”, [0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a quantitative assessment of a user’s breathing such as the score of Ahmadi Noorbakhsh to the system of modified Lee, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gwak, and further in view of Platt et al (US 20230263423 A1, hereinafter Platt).
Regarding Claim 35, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 34. Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the plurality of windows includes a Settle-in window, a Settled window, and a Settle-out window. However, Platt, which also discloses A system for assessing a user's breathing in one or more breathing cycles (See Abstract), teaches wherein the plurality of windows includes a Settle-in window, a Settled window, and a Settle-out window (“The algorithm treats wheeze-like segments as being part of a true wheeze episode if they satisfy a proximity criterion of occurring near other wheeze-like segments. In this example, if there are at least two consecutive wheeze-like segments. This is because wheeze has to be at least 100 ms long and the algorithm uses a 50 ms sampling window”, [0062]; under broadest reasonable interpretation, a 50 ms sampling window is short enough to be covered by a phase is when a user is to begin an inhalation or exhalation, when the user is following through with inhalation or exhalation, or when the user is approaching an inspiratory or expiratory pause or change in direction; this corresponds to the applicant’s definition of a Settle-in window, a Settled window, and a Settle-out window in [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with Platt, because a greater sampling frequency leads to a more robust data set.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Tzvieli et al (US 20180104439 A1; [0227]).
See Denault et al (US 20220215926 A1; Fig. 12, [0084])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights