DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 12/11/2025
Claims 17-20 have been cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-6 and 21-24 are pending for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15, 21 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (US 2017/0361891) in view of McCartin (US 10,456,657)
Regarding claim 1: Crowell disclose a communication device used as a power meter, the communication device comprising:
circuitry configured to determine values of a plurality of forces (¶0041, ¶0051); and
a processor configured to:
determine a combined force by combining the values of the plurality of forces (¶0055); and
determine a value of a power based on the combined force, a speed and a loss factor (¶0060),
wherein the communication device is used by a user to measure the power, the power is generated by the user when engaged in an activity, and the plurality of forces affect a movement of the user (¶0060-0084).
Crowell does not explicitly disclose wherein the values of the plurality of forces are determined, at least in part, by applying stored calibrations parameter generated during one or more calibrations previously performed using the communication device.
In analogous art regarding communication devices, McCartin disclose a communication device wherein the values of the plurality of forces are determined, at least in part, by applying stored calibrations parameter generated during one or more calibrations previously performed using the communication device.(Claim 1)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the values of the plurality of forces are determined, at least in part, by referencing one or more calibrations previously performed using the communication device, as disclose by McCartin, to the system of Crowell. The motivation is to make the system more accurate.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the communication device of claim 1, wherein the activity includes cycling, walking, running, and swimming (Crowell: ¶0002).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the communication device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of forces comprises a gravity resistance force, a rolling resistance force and an aerodynamic drag force.(Crowell: ¶0060)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the communication device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to determine the gravity resistance force induced when riding uphill or downhill based on a path slope parameter measured using a steepness sensor (grade or slope of the incline) of the communication device.( Crowell: ¶0074-0078)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the communication device of claim 3, wherein the speed comprises a user speed, and wherein the processor is configured to measure the user speed using a GPS of the communication device.(Crowell: ¶0054)
Regarding claim 9: Crowell disclose a power metering system, comprising:
a portable communication device including one or more sensors and a processor (Crowell: Figs. 1-6),
wherein the one or more sensors and the processor are configured to determine a power generated by a user, when the user is engaged in an activity, by estimating values of a plurality of forces that affect a movement of the user and providing inputs by the one or more sensors for determining additional parameters for determining the power (Crowell: ¶0041, ¶0051, ¶0055, ¶0060-0084).
Crowell does not explicitly disclose wherein the values of the plurality of forces are determined, at least in part, by referencing one or more calibrations previously performed using the communication device.
In analogous art regarding communication devices, McCartin disclose a communication device wherein the values of the plurality of forces are determined, at least in part, by referencing one or more calibrations previously performed using the communication device.(claim 1)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the values of the plurality of forces are determined, at least in part, by referencing one or more calibrations previously performed using the communication device, as disclose by McCartin, to the system of Crowell. The motivation is to make the system more accurate.
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to estimate values of a gravity resistance force, a rolling resistance force and an aerodynamic drag force.(Crowell: ¶0060)
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to determine the gravity resistance force induced when riding uphill or downhill based on a path slope parameter measured using a steepness sensor (grade or slope of the incline) of the communication device.(Crowell: ¶0074-0078)
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 9, wherein the additional parameters include a rolling resistance factor (Crowell: Fig. 7: FRolling Resistance), a path condition (Crowell: Fig. 7: angle (Ɵ)), a drag coefficient (Crowell: Fig. 7: Fair), a frontal area (Crowell: ¶0089 disclose a forward facing camera which inherently provide frontal area information (i.e. parameter), a position of the user (Crowell: ¶0007: GPS).
Regarding claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected essentially for the same reasons of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Crowell and McCartin the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the plurality of forces comprises a gravity resistance force, a rolling resistance force and an aerodynamic drag force (Crowell: ¶0060), wherein the operations further comprise determining the gravity resistance force induced when riding uphill or downhill based on a path slope parameter measured using a steepness sensor (grade or slope of the incline) of the communication device.( Crowell: ¶0074-0078)
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, 16 & 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (US 2017/0361891) in view of McCartin (US 10,456,657) and further in view of Heckerman (US 2009/0240113).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the communication device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to determine the rolling resistance force based on a path slope parameter using a steepness sensor of the communication device and a rolling resistance factor (Crowell: ¶0074-0078), and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the rolling resistance factor using inputs from at least some of a camera (Crowell: ¶0054: camera 54), a motion sensor (Crowell: ¶0054: speedometer), a global-positioning system (GPS) of the communication device (Crowell: ¶0054: GPS 62) but does not explicitly disclose a neural network implemented by the processor of the communication device.
In analogous art regarding motion analysis, Heckerman disclose a system that gather information such as heart rate, body temperature, skin resistance, motion/acceleration sensing (e.g., pedometer, accelerometer), velocity sensing (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)), and an intelligent, integrated exercise machine (e.g., treadmill, exercise bike, etc.) and apply neural networks to determine a caloric output (abstract).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of applying neural network to the system of Crowell and McCartin, in view of the teachings of Heckerman. The motivation is to have quicker and accurate prediction of the power output.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the communication device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to determine the aerodynamic drag force based on a frontal area and a relative speed of the user with respect to a wind speed, and wherein the frontal area is determined using inputs from a camera of the communication device (Crowell: ¶0058-0084) but does not explicitly disclose a neural network implemented by the processor of the communication device.
In analogous art regarding motion analysis, Heckerman disclose a system that gather information such as heart rate, body temperature, skin resistance, motion/acceleration sensing (e.g., pedometer, accelerometer), velocity sensing (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)), and an intelligent, integrated exercise machine (e.g., treadmill, exercise bike, etc.) and apply neural networks to determine a caloric output (abstract).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of applying neural network to the system of Crowell and McCartin, in view of the teachings of Heckerman. The motivation is to have quicker and accurate prediction of the power output.
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Crowell, McCartin and Heckerman disclose the communication device of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to measure the wind speed using an anemometer of the communication device.(Crowell: ¶0087)
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 9, wherein the additional parameters include disclose the power metering system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to determine the rolling resistance force based on a path slope parameter using a steepness sensor of the communication device and a rolling resistance factor .(Crowell: ¶0074-0078), and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the rolling resistance factor using inputs from at least some of a camera (Crowell: ¶0054: camera 54), a motion sensor (Crowell: ¶0054: speedometer), a global-positioning system (GPS) of the communication device (Crowell: ¶0054: GPS 62) but does not explicitly disclose a neural network implemented by the processor of the communication device.
In analogous art regarding motion analysis, Heckerman disclose a system that gather information such as heart rate, body temperature, skin resistance, motion/acceleration sensing (e.g., pedometer, accelerometer), velocity sensing (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)), and an intelligent, integrated exercise machine (e.g., treadmill, exercise bike, etc.) and apply neural networks to determine a caloric output (abstract).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of applying neural network to the system of Crowell and McCartin, in view of the teachings of Heckerman. The motivation is to have quicker and accurate prediction of the power output.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 9, wherein the additional parameters include disclose the power metering system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to determine the aerodynamic drag force based on a frontal area and a relative speed of the user with respect to a wind speed, and wherein the frontal area is determined using inputs from a camera of the communication device (Crowell: ¶0058-0084) but does not explicitly disclose a neural network implemented by the processor of the communication device.
In analogous art regarding motion analysis, Heckerman disclose a system that gather information such as heart rate, body temperature, skin resistance, motion/acceleration sensing (e.g., pedometer, accelerometer), velocity sensing (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)), and an intelligent, integrated exercise machine (e.g., treadmill, exercise bike, etc.) and apply neural networks to determine a caloric output (abstract).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of applying neural network to the system of the combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 9, wherein the additional parameters include l and McCartin, in view of the teachings of Heckerman. The motivation is to have quicker and accurate prediction of the power output.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Crowell, McCartin and Heckerman the power metering system of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to measure the wind speed using an anemometer of the communication device.(Crowell: ¶0087)
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 9, wherein the additional parameters are estimated using inputs from a camera (Crowell: Fig. 5, item 34, ¶0048,), the one or more sensors including a global-positioning system (GPS) (Crowell: Fig. 6, item 62), a gyro, an anemometer (Crowell: ¶0087), an ultrawideband (UWB) sensor and a motion sensor (Crowell: ¶0054), and online applications operating on the portable communication device (Crowell: ¶0037).
Crowell does not explicitly disclose the use of a gyro or UWB sensor. However it does disclose other type of motion sensor such as accelerometers (Crowell: ¶0085) and it is well known in the art that gyros are common example of motion/positioning sensor. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include a gyro or UWB as one of the motion/positioning sensors of Crowell since having a limited universe of potential options (motion/positioning sensors), the selection of any particular option (gyro, UWB sensors) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of production motion/positioning data, either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Crowell does not explicitly disclose a neural network implemented by the processor of the communication device.
In analogous art regarding motion analysis, Heckerman disclose a system that gather information such as heart rate, body temperature, skin resistance, motion/acceleration sensing (e.g., pedometer, accelerometer), velocity sensing (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)), and an intelligent, integrated exercise machine (e.g., treadmill, exercise bike, etc.) and apply neural networks to determine a caloric output (abstract).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of applying neural network to the system of Crowell and McCartin, in view of the teachings of Heckerman. The motivation is to have quicker and accurate prediction of the power output.
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Crowell and McCartin the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the rolling resistance force based on a path slope parameter using a steepness sensor of the communication device and a rolling resistance factor ( Crowell: ¶0074-0078),
and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the rolling resistance factor using inputs from at least some of a camera (Crowell: ¶0054: camera 54), a motion sensor (Crowell: ¶0054: speedometer), a global-positioning system (GPS) of the communication device (Crowell: ¶0054: GPS 62) but does not explicitly disclose a neural network implemented by the processor of the communication device.
In analogous art regarding motion analysis, Heckerman disclose a system that gather information such as heart rate, body temperature, skin resistance, motion/acceleration sensing (e.g., pedometer, accelerometer), velocity sensing (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)), and an intelligent, integrated exercise machine (e.g., treadmill, exercise bike, etc.) and apply neural networks to determine a caloric output (abstract).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of applying neural network to the system of the combination of Crowell and McCartin, in view of the teachings of Heckerman. The motivation is to have quicker and accurate prediction of the power output.
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Crowell and McCartin disclose the power metering system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to determine the aerodynamic drag force based on a frontal area and a relative speed of the user with respect to a wind speed, and wherein the frontal area is determined using inputs from a camera of the communication device (Cropwell: ¶0058-0084) but does not explicitly disclose a neural network implemented by the processor of the communication device.
In analogous art regarding motion analysis, Heckerman disclose a system that gather information such as heart rate, body temperature, skin resistance, motion/acceleration sensing (e.g., pedometer, accelerometer), velocity sensing (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)), and an intelligent, integrated exercise machine (e.g., treadmill, exercise bike, etc.) and apply neural networks to determine a caloric output (abstract).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of applying neural network to the system of the combination of Crowell and McCartin, in view of the teachings of Heckerman. The motivation is to have quicker and accurate prediction of the power output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689