Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. The rejected claims satisfy the categorical requirements of Step 1. Regarding Step 2A, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mental process and a method of organizing human activity.
5. Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim, and taking Claim 1 as exemplary.
The claim language recites a competition that players enter into at different location utilizing different pieces of equipment wherein the competition is to be played amongst players using sensory devices that is used to track the player’s progress while utilizing said equipment, wherein the results are displayed through customized user avatars. However, this is an abstract idea because the invention arranges a competition between players and the MPEP identifies such as an abstract idea under the grouping of method of organizing a human activity (MPEP2106.04 “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions”). Here, a game administrator can arrange a competition and perform the limitations regarding to keeping track of player’s progress using paper and pencil, without the need for a computer system. Furthermore, the MPEP dictates that when information is collected from various sources, analyzed, and then outputted in a display, such is a mental process and therefore an abstract idea. Here, information is collected from an accelerometer and GPS, analyzed to determine their placement within the race, and finally outputted to a display. Thus, each part stated by the holding of Electric Power Grid, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48, and the MPEP 2106.05(a) is satisfied, and therefore again the claims represent an abstract idea. The claims also state that information is continuously collected and that information simultaneously transmitted in real time, however Examples 40 and 42 of the USPTO Guidelines discuss collecting and transmitting information in real time and both were deemed to be a within the scope of a mental process. While the claims also describe the manner in which the information is displayed, such is not sufficient enough to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Instead, such limitations, similarly to the earlier limitation of data gathering from the accelerometer and GPS, are in accordance with Extra-Solutionary Activity as discussed in Step 2B below.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims focus on facilitating a competition and not actual improvements to a technical environment. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only a generic computer and sensors are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine. Here, the claimed machine is simply a generic computer that receives information from wireless sensors and displays a result. While, the claims include sub-interfaces, Examiner perceives such as merely being part of a user interface. User interfaces commonly have sub-menus, and sub-windows for displaying information. Thus, there is not a particular machine that is being claimed.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here, only a generic computer, software, a remote server, sensors, a GPS sensor, exercise equipment, and a user interface are used for performing the invention. However, sensory equipment a well-known, common, and routine for recording user biometric data. Also, Examiner takes Official Notice that user interfaces, especially those that display sub-interfaces are generic, well understood, and routine as well. This can be seen in graphic user interfaces that open a new menu when an item on a previous menu is selected. While claims further focus on arranging a challenge, players accepting challenges, receiving challenge sensory information, displaying said information, indicating a winner, accepting challenges, determining the scope of a challenge, and where the challenge takes place, all of these limitations do not produce an inventive concept, but instead further the abstract idea. This is supported in 2106.05 of the MPEP which states “an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” The MPEP also states that “Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” Here, the step of gathering data from player sensors is considered pre-solution extra-solution activity, and the displaying of such is considered post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g): “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”). Also, under the example provided by the MPEP, the first and second exercise equipment are also considered extra-solution activity as it they analogous to the printer in the example, since the exercise equipment is only part of the activity to generate the sensory information. The equipment themselves are not providing the sensory information and are not claimed with enough technicality wherein one would think there is a performance of a machine. This is best exemplified by the equipment being a jump rope or pull up bar.
Additionally, Examiner takes Official Notice that the combination of an accelerometer and global positioning systems are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as said systems have been commercially available in smartwatches such as the Garmin Forerunner 305, cell phones such at the Nokia N95, as well as in pedometers (U.S. Patent No. 7,057,551). Thus, the combination of the two does not represent significantly more. For these reasons, the claims lack teaching significantly more than generic computer components, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to state the users perform exercises at a first and second location, using a first and second piece of athletic equipment. However, this does not further the claims further into patent eligible subject matter. Here the claimed athletic equipment is merely part of the activity that is being performed by the users. For example, in the claims, the sensors are reading biometric information and changing the activity whether that be walking, running, or using exercise equipment, does not change that. Additionally, the claims do not describe said equipment in such a way that would lead one to believe that the equipment creates a particular machine since the equipment may not be technical (e.g. a jump rope and exercise ball). The claims also do not provide a particular arrangement of pieces within the system as the pieces are only activities performed by the user, wherein said pieces do not provide anything technical to the invention such as itself providing biometric feedback. Thus, the argument that said equipment provides a practical application through a technical improvement, a particular machine, or particular arrangement is not supported by the claim amendments.
Applicant also argues that “Such claim features cannot be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper as they are tied to specific structures: an athletic performance module, a collection software tool, a remote server computer comprising a display configuration software tool and a user interface, a challenge module, a first piece of athletic equipment at a first location, and a second piece of athletic equipment at a second location.” However, as stated above, the invention collects information, analyzes said information, and outputs an analysis of said information. This reflects the holding of Electric Power Grid. The added amendments of a first and second exercise equipment, is merely defining the activity in which information is collected from. Again, the claims do not further describe the equipment, and under broadest reasonable interpretation, said equipment can include a pull up bar and push up handles, both which lack any electrical or processing configuration. Secondly, the claims still organize human activity as the claims organizes a physical challenge between the two players who must follow a set of rules to win said challenge. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at . 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights