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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 9-15, filed 09/01/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, and 13-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claims should be found to be eligible subject matter at step 2A prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended steps and how they are being interpreted as mental processes and/or mathematical concepts are detailed below (see 35 USC 101 rejection below). However, the examiner notes that any step that is acquiring/outputting data is NOT being interpreted as the judicial exception, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to mere data gathering/output.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claims should be found to be eligible subject matter at step 2A prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant asserts that the judicial exception is drawn into a practical application that uses the determined state to control a particular notification and interface sequence. The examiner contends that the claim limitations are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The examiner is interpreting the “notifying” and/or “displaying” step as an output step (and thus insignificant extra solution activity). However, en arguendo, if the “notifying” step is being misinterpreted as an output step, the examiner notes that “notifying” is still reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, the human mind is capable of notifying oneself or others whether an individual that is under observation is walking normally, at rest, walking erratically, etc.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claimed solution allegedly provides an improvement to computer functionality or to any other technology/technical field, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant alleges, for example, that the specification of the applicant’s present invention discloses how the system creates a “more efficient human-machine interface” by reducing cognitive burden on a user. The examiner fails to see how this is an improvement to a technology as humans have used computers as tools to reduce cognitive load in a variety of applications for decades. Further, the examiner contends the claims, when considered as a whole, are similar in scope to those described in example iii. of examples the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
In response to the applicant’s argument that the amended claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant alleges that the additional elements comprise a particular ordered combination. However, the examiner contends that the additional elements are general in nature and perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (e.g., a memory that stores data, a display that provides a visualization of data).
Therefore, for the reasons provided above, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, and 13-25 is maintained.
Specification
The use of the terms “Bluetooth” and “Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi)”, which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, and 13-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A computer system configured to communicate with one or more output generation components and one or more input devices, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement data associated with movement of a user of the computer system;
determining a walking steadiness state based on the detected movement data;
in response to determining the walking steadiness state:
in accordance with a determination that a first set of conditions is met, outputting, via the one or more output generation components, a notification associated with the walking steadiness state, wherein outputting the notification associated with the walking steadiness state includes displaying the notification via a display generation component, and wherein the first set of conditions includes:
a baseline condition that is met when the walking steadiness state is different from a baseline walking steadiness state, wherein the baseline walking steadiness state is a walking steadiness state of the user determined over a duration that transpired prior to the computer system being enabled to provide notifications of walking steadiness state; and
a duration condition that is met when the walking steadiness state is maintained in a first state of walking steadiness for a first duration; and
in accordance with a determination that a second set of conditions, different from the first set of conditions, is met, forgoing outputting a notification associated with the walking steadiness state, wherein the second set of conditions includes a duration condition that is met when the walking steadiness state has been maintained in a second state of walking steadiness, different from the first state of walking steadiness, for a second duration that is less than the first duration;
receiving, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs directed to the displayed notification associated with the walking steadiness state; and
in response to receiving the one or more user inputs directed to the displayed notification associated with the walking steadiness state, displaying, via the display generation component, a walking steadiness user interface that includes an indication of the walking steadiness state.
Independent Claim 24 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with one or more output generation components and one or more input devices, the one or more programs including instructions for:
detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement data associated with movement of a user of the computer system;
determining a walking steadiness state based on the detected movement data;
in response to determining the walking steadiness state:
in accordance with a determination that a first set of conditions is met, outputting, via the one or more output generation components, a notification associated with the walking steadiness state, wherein outputting the notification associated with the walking steadiness state includes displaying the notification via a display generation component, and wherein the first set of conditions includes:
a baseline condition that is met when the walking steadiness state is different from a baseline walking steadiness state, wherein the baseline walking steadiness state is a walking steadiness state of the user determined over a duration that transpired prior to the computer system being enabled to provide notifications of walking steadiness state; and
a duration condition that is met when the walking steadiness state is maintained in a first state of walking steadiness for a first duration; and
in accordance with a determination that a second set of conditions, different from the first set of conditions, is met, forgoing outputting a notification associated with the walking steadiness state, wherein the second set of conditions includes a duration condition that is met when the walking steadiness state has been maintained in a second state of walking steadiness, different from the first state of walking steadiness, for a second duration that is less than the first duration;
receiving, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs directed to the displayed notification associated with the walking steadiness state; and
in response to receiving the one or more user inputs directed to the displayed notification associated with the walking steadiness state, displaying, via the display generation component, a walking steadiness user interface that includes an indication of the walking steadiness state.
Independent claim 25 recites:
A method, comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with one or more output generation components and one or more input devices:
detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement data associated with movement of a user of the computer system;
determining a walking steadiness state based on the detected movement data;
in response to determining the walking steadiness state:
in accordance with a determination that a first set of conditions is met, outputting, via the one or more output generation components, a notification associated with the walking steadiness state, wherein outputting the notification associated with the walking steadiness state includes displaying the notification via a display generation component, and wherein the first set of conditions includes:
a baseline condition that is met when the walking steadiness state is different from a baseline walking steadiness state, wherein the baseline walking steadiness state is a walking steadiness state of the user determined over a duration that transpired prior to the computer system being enabled to provide notifications of walking steadiness state; and
a duration condition that is met when the walking steadiness state is maintained in a first state of walking steadiness for a first duration; and
in accordance with a determination that a second set of conditions, different from the first set of conditions, is met, forgoing outputting a notification associated with the walking steadiness state, wherein the second set of conditions includes a duration condition that is met when the walking steadiness state has been maintained in a second state of walking steadiness, different from the first state of walking steadiness, for a second duration that is less than the first duration;
receiving, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs directed to the displayed notification associated with the walking steadiness state; and
in response to receiving the one or more user inputs directed to the displayed notification associated with the walking steadiness state, displaying, via the display generation component, a walking steadiness user interface that includes an indication of the walking steadiness state.
Step 1:
The examiner finds claims 1 and 24 are drawn to machines and claim 25 is drawn to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed steps of determining and storing recite mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind.
The steps of “determining” a walking steadiness state in independent Claims 1, 24, and 25 are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of determining whether a child is shuffling their feet, at rest, or walking with their normal gait. The examiner notes that the step of “detecting” movement data can potentially be determined as a mental process (e.g., the human mind can detect an object in motion) or as insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to necessary data gathering. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the step of “detecting” movement data as insignificant extra-solution activity and thus not part of the judicial exception. The steps of “storing” data is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of storing memories of past experiences.
The claimed steps of determining and storing can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for estimation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind,
University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims 2, 5, 8-11, and 13-23, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, and 13-25 is not integrated into a practical application because:
• The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computing device. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for determining and storing merely invoke a computer as a tool.
• The data-gathering step (detecting, receiving) and the data-output step (outputting, notifying, displaying, indicating) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
• There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computing device that is used as a tool for determining and storing.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to estimate bio-information.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computing device for determining and storing. The claims do not apply the obtained prediction to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
Step 2B:
The additional elements are identified as follows: processor, memory, input device, computer system, display, programs.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. par. 0042) which discloses that the processor(s) are configured to perform the generic processor functions (e.g. determining) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry;
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. par. 0135) which discloses that the memory comprises generic storage components and are configured to perform the generic memory functions (e.g. storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry;
• Jackson (US 20170258398 A1) par. 0028 which discloses the conventional use of input devices (e.g., a motion sensor, a camera with computer vision, a low-power radar, electrodes, a thermometer, a microphone) in patient monitoring systems;
• Liu (US 20180242922 A1) par. 0022 discloses the common use of a display (e.g., a touch display) with a patient monitoring system;
• Applicant’s Background in the specification which disclose computers can be used to provide a user with feedback about the health of the user [see par. 0003]; and
• The non-patent literature of record in the application.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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 M HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
