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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are herein under examination.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are objected.
Priority
The instant application claims domestic benefit to international application PCT/IB2021/050857, filed 02/03/2021, and claims foreign priority to Indian Application No. IN202021015364, filed 04/08/2020. The claims to domestic and foreign benefit are acknowledged for claims 1-6. As such, the effective filing date for claims 1-6 is 04/08/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 07/15/2022 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered in full. A signed copy of the list of references cited from this IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 07/15/2022 are objected because the view numberings are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). “Figure 1”, Figure 2A”, “Figure 2B”, “Figure 2C” and “Figure 2D” should be amended to “FIG. 1, “FIG. 2A”, “FIG. 2B”, “FIG. 2C” and “FIG. 2D”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the implied phrase “The present disclosures discloses” and because it is over 150 words when the reference characters are counted as words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are described below:
Claim 1, lines 5-9, and claim 6, lines 3-7, recite a rules repository to store a set of first/second/third pre-determined analysis rules and a set of first/second/third pre-determined calculating rules.
Claim 1, lines 10-11, and claim 6, lines 8-10, recite an input model to receive a plurality of primary user details via the user device.
Claim 1, lines 12-14, and claim 6, line 11, recite a user repository to cooperate with the input module to receive and store primary user details.
Claim 1, lines 15-17, and claim 6, lines 14-16, recite a monitoring module to cooperate with the plurality of sensors to receive a plurality of dynamic user data, surroundings data, and user activity data via the user device.
Claim 1, lines 18-26, and claim 6, lines 17-22, recite a first analysis module to cooperate with the monitoring module, user repository, and rules repository to receive analysis and calculating rules. Also to analyze primary user details and user activity data based on analysis rules. Also to calculate a first result using analyzed primary user data and analyzed user activity data based on calculating rules.
Claim 1, lines 27-35, and claim 6, lines 23-35, recite a second analysis module to cooperate with monitoring module and rules repository to receive analysis and calculating rules and user activity data. Also to analyze and bifurcate user activity data based on analysis rules. Also to calculate a second result using bifurcated activity data, user activity data and primary user details by using calculating rules.
Claim 1, lines 36-43, and claim 6, lines 36-45, recite a third analysis module to cooperate with monitoring module and rules repository to receive surroundings data, calculating and analysis rules, and dynamic user data. Also to analyze and calculate a third result based on analyzed surroundings data and analyzed dynamic user data by using analysis and calculating rules.
Claim 1, lines 44-48, and claim 6, lines 46-52, recite a calorie consumption module to cooperate with first/second/third analysis modules to receive first/second/third results and to calculate a final calorie result by adding first/second/third results.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
It appears that the system in claim 1 and method of claim 6 are computer-implemented, as suggested by use of the words “module” and “repository” as well as the phrase “implemented using one or more processors”. As such, the limitations in claims 1 and 6 are computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. The structure for a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation is the algorithm that performs the function (MPEP § 2181.II.B). Below are the algorithms in the instant disclosure that recite structure:
Rules repository, Input model, and User repository: structure is a generic computer processor. The functions of these means are coextensive with generic computer processor functions such as receiving, storing, and processing data. See MPEP 2181.II.B.
Monitoring module: structure is a generic computer processor as recited in claim 1, last 3 lines. The function of the monitoring module is coextensive with generic computer processor functions such as receiving, storing, and processing data. See MPEP 2181.II.B.
First analysis module: structure for receiving is a generic computer processor, as recited in claim 1, last 3 lines. IN202021015364 (hereinafter “App ‘364”) recites an algorithm on pg. 7. However, the algorithm does not provide sufficient structure for either analyzing or calculating using pre-determined rules. Although the algorithm recites specific data types to be used, the algorithm merely reiterates the function without providing explanation for how the analysis or calculating is carried out, particularly using unspecified pre-determined analysis and calculating rules. As such, any algorithm capable of performing the analysis and calculating will read on the structure of the first analysis module.
Second analysis module: structure for receiving is a generic computer processor, as recited in claim 1, last 3 lines. App ‘364 recites an algorithm on bottom of pg. 8. However, the algorithm does not provide sufficient structure for analyzing or bifurcating using analysis rules nor calculating using calculating rules. Although the algorithm recites specific data types to be used, the algorithm merely reiterates the function without providing explanation for how the analysis, bifurcating, or calculating is carried out using unspecified pre-determined analysis and calculating rules. As such, any algorithm capable of performing analysis, bifurcation, and calculating will read on the structure of the second analysis module.
Third analysis module: structure for receiving is a generic computer processor, as recited in claim 1, last 3 lines. App ‘364 recites an algorithm on pg. 7, last line, and top of pg. 8. However, the algorithm does not provide sufficient structure for analyzing or calculating using analysis and calculating rules. Although the algorithm recites specific data types to be used, the algorithm merely reiterates the function without providing explanation for how the analysis or calculating is carried out using unspecified pre-determined analysis and calculating rules. As such, any algorithm capable of performing analysis and calculating functions will read on the structure of the third analysis module.
Calorie consumption module: structure for receiving is a generic computer processor, as recited in claim 1, last 3 lines. Structure for calculating a final calorie result is the algorithm recited in the claim which is “adding said first result, said second result, and said third result”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, recites the phrase “are installed” which should be “installed”.
Claim 1, lines 6-7, recites twice the phrase “analysis rule” which should be “analysis rules”.
Claim 1, line 17, recites the phrase “via user device” which should be “via the user device”.
Claim 1, line 21, recites the phrase “said set of first pre-determined said calculating rules” which should be “said set of first pre-determined calculating rules”.
Claim 1, line 22, recites “analyase” which should be “analyse”.
Claim 1, last three lines, contains spaces before the commas after (112), (114) and (116) that should be deleted.
Claim 1, last line, recites “one or more one processor(s)” which should be “one or more processor(s)”.
Claim 5, line 2, should have “and” after “user,”.
Claim 6, line 11, should have a comma after “(108)”.
Claim 6, line 14, should have a comma after “(110)”.
Claim 6, line 27, recites “user activity” which should be “user activity data”.
Claim 6, line 41, contains a comma after “data” that should be removed.
Claim 6, line 44, contains a comma after “data” that should be removed.
Claim 6, line 46, should have a comma after “(118)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 fail to comply with the written description requirement because they do not adequately link or associate adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in the claim identified to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As discussed in Claim Interpretation, claims 1 and 6 recite functions for the first, second, and third analysis modules that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, neither the specification nor the drawings disclose sufficient algorithms that perform the functions of analyzing, bifurcating, or calculating as discussed in Claim Interpretation. Thus, in accordance with MPEP § 2181.IV, the instant specification does not provide written description support for the first, second, or third analysis module to perform analyzing, bifurcating, or calculating because there is no corresponding sufficient algorithm in the disclosure.
Furthermore, claims 2-5 are also rejected because they depend on claim 1, which is rejected, and because they also fail to adequately describe particular structure.
35 USC 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claims 1 and 6, line 1, recite the following phrase that lacks antecedent basis “the calorie”. To overcome this rejection, change the phrase to “calories”.
Claims 1 and 6, line 2, recite the following phrase the renders the claim indefinite “activities/exercise”. It is unclear if the phrase means (i) activities and exercise, (ii) activities or exercise, or (iii) activities and/or exercise. To overcome this rejection, clarify how the phrase should be interpreted.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “the surface” which lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, provide antecedent basis for the phrase.
Claim 4 recites “the said activity” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which activity is being referenced because claim 1, line 2, recites “activities”. To overcome this rejection, clarify which specific activity is being referenced.
Claims 2 and 4-5 recite the phrase “can be selected from a group” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear whether primary user details, surroundings data, and user activity data is further limited by the group listing, or if the group listing is merely exemplary and thus not required by the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, clarify whether the claims require selecting from the group listing. For examination purposes, claims 2 and 4-5 are being interpreted as requiring a selection from the group listings to further limit the primary user details, surroundings data, and user activity data.
Claim 6, line 12, recites the phrase “(not shown)” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this phrase further limits the claim in some way. To overcome this rejection, remove the phrase.
Claims 1 and 6 recite limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Analyzing, bifurcating, and calculating performed by the first, second, and third analysis modules invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See Claim Interpretation. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, claims 1-5 recite a system and claim 6 recites a method. The instant claims recite the following limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exception:
Claim 1 recites “analyase said primary user details and said user activity data based on said set of first pre-determined analysis rules and further configured to calculate a first result using said analysed primary user details and said analysed user activity data and said set of first pre-determined calculating rules; analyse and bifurcate said user activity data based on said set of second pre-determined analysis rules and further configured to calculate a second result using said bifurcated activity data, said user activity data and said primary user details by using said set of second pre-determined calculating rules; analyse and calculate a third result based on said analysed surroundings data and said analysed dynamic user data by using said set of third pre-determined analysis rules and said set of third pre-determined calculating rules; calculate a final calorie result by adding said first result, said second result and said third result;”
Claim 6 recites “A method (200) to accurately determine the calorie consumed during daily activities/exercise of a user, wherein said method (200) comprising steps of: analysing (209) … said primary user details and said user activity data based on said set of first pre- determined analysis rules; calculating (210) … a first result using said analysed primary user details and said analysed user activity data based on said set of first pre-determined calculating rules; analysing (214) … said user activity by applying said set of second pre-determined analysis rules; bifurcating (216) … said analysed user activity data based on said set of second pre-determined analysis rules; calculating (218) … a second result using said bifurcated activity data, said user activity data and said primary user details using said set of second pre-determined calculating rules; analysing (222) … said surroundings data, and dynamic user data using said set of third pre-determined analysis rules; calculating (224) … a third result using said analysed surroundings data, and said analysed dynamic user data using said set of third pre-determined calculating rules; and calculating (228) … a final calorie result by adding said first result, said second result and said third result.”
Limitations reciting a mental process.
Claims 1 and 6 contain limitations recited at such a high level of generality that they equate to a mental process because they are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), which the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Regarding analyzing and calculating using predetermined analysis and calculating rules, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of these limitations include a human analyzing data based on algorithms and using pen and paper to calculate values based on equations. The BRI of bifurcating data includes organizing data. A human can also calculate a final calorie result by adding.
Limitations reciting a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 6 recite limitations that equate to a mathematical concept because these limitations are similar to the concepts of organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), which the courts have identified as mathematical concepts. The limitations of calculating a first/second/third result includes performing a calculation to derive a value. The BRI of calculating a final result includes adding the first/second/third result values.
As such, claims 1-6 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.5(a)), require a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), implement the recited judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), nor provide some other meaningful limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Rather, the claims include limitations that equate to an equivalent of the words “apply it” and/or to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites “A system (100) to accurately determine the calorie consumed during daily activities/exercise of a user, wherein said user is associated with a user device (102) and said user device having a plurality of sensors are installed in it, said system (100) comprising: a rules repository (104) configured to store a set of first pre-determined analysis rule, a set of second pre-determined analysis rule, a set of third pre-determined analysis rules, a set of first pre-determined calculating rules, a set of second pre-determined calculating rules and a set of third pre-determined calculating rules; an input module (106) configured to receive a plurality of primary user details via said user device (102) associated with said user; a user repository (108) configured to cooperate with said input module to receive said primary user details and further configured to store said primary user details; a monitoring module (110) configured to cooperate with said sensors to receive a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data via user device (102); a first analysis module (112) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110), said user repository (108) and said rules repository (104) to receive said set of first pre-determined analysis rules, said set of first pre-determined said calculating rules, said primary user details and said user activity data and further configured to … ; a second analysis module (114) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) to receive said set of second pre-determined analysis rules, said set of second pre- determined calculating rules and said user activity data and further configured to … ; a third analysis module (116) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) to receive said surroundings data, said set of third pre-determined calculating rules, said set of third pre-determined analysis rules and said dynamic user data and further configured to … ; and a calorie consumption module (118) configured to cooperate with said first analysis module (112), said second analysis module (114), and said third analysis module (116) to receive said first result, said second result and said third result and further configured to … ; wherein said monitoring module (110), said first analysis module (112) , said second analysis module (114) , said third analysis module (116) , said calorie consumption module (118) are implemented using one or more one processor(s).”
Claim 2 recites “wherein said primary user details can be selected from a group of name, gender, height, present weight and time of inputting weight.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein said dynamic user data is body temperature.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein said surroundings data can be selected from a group of ambient temperature, gravity and incline of the surface on which said user is doing the said activity.”
Claim 5 recites “wherein said user activity data can be selected from a group of running speed, steps taken by said user, distance covered by said user.”
Claim 6 recites “storing (202), by a rules repository (104), a set of pre-determined first calculating rules, a set of second pre-determined calculating rules, a set of third pre-determined calculating rules, a set of pre-determined first analysis rules, a set of second pre-determined analysis rules and a set of third pre-determined analysis rules; receiving (204), by an input module (106), a plurality of primary user details from said user associated with a user device (102) having a plurality of sensors; storing (206), by a user repository (108) said primary user details; sensing (207), by said sensors (not shown), a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data; receiving (208), by a monitoring module (110) said plurality of dynamic user data, said plurality of surroundings data and said plurality of user activity data; receiving (212), by a second analysis module (114), from said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) said set of second pre-determined analysis rules, said set of second pre-determined calculating rules and said user activity data; receiving (220), by a third analysis module (116), from monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) said surroundings data, said set of third pre-determined calculating rules, said set of third pre- determined analysis rules and said dynamic user data; receiving (226), by a calorie consumption module (118) from said first analysis module (112), said second analysis module (114), and said third analysis module (116) said first result, said second result and said third result;”
The system in claim 1 comprising the rules repository, input module, user repository, monitoring module, first/second/third analysis modules, and calorie consumption module is being interpreted as a computer-implemented system, as discussed in Claim Interpretation. The user device (102) is not being interpreted as part of the system because claim 1 does not recite that the system comprises the user device. There are no limitations that require anything other than a generic computer. Therefore, the system equates to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. Furthermore, the system also equates to invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1 and 6 of receiving data, these limitations equate to insignificant, extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering because they gather data necessary to perform the judicial exceptions in claims 1 and 6. Furthermore, claims 2-5 also equate to necessary data gathering because they further limit the gathered data necessary to perform the judicial exceptions in claim 1.
Regarding the limitations in claim 6 of the rules repository, input module, user repository, monitoring module, first/second/third analysis module, and calorie consumption module, these limitations are being interpreted as computer-implemented. There are no limitations that require anything other than a generic computer. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer as well as to using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The following limitation in claim 6 equates to insignificant, extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering: “sensing (206), by said sensors (not shown), a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data”. This limitation gathers data necessary to perform the judicial exceptions performed by the first/second/third analysis modules.
As such, claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: No).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these claims recite additional elements that equate to instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way and/or in a generic computing environment (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites “A system (100) to accurately determine the calorie consumed during daily activities/exercise of a user, wherein said user is associated with a user device (102) and said user device having a plurality of sensors are installed in it, said system (100) comprising: a rules repository (104) configured to store a set of first pre-determined analysis rule, a set of second pre-determined analysis rule, a set of third pre-determined analysis rules, a set of first pre-determined calculating rules, a set of second pre-determined calculating rules and a set of third pre-determined calculating rules; an input module (106) configured to receive a plurality of primary user details via said user device (102) associated with said user; a user repository (108) configured to cooperate with said input module to receive said primary user details and further configured to store said primary user details; a monitoring module (110) configured to cooperate with said sensors to receive a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data via user device (102); a first analysis module (112) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110), said user repository (108) and said rules repository (104) to receive said set of first pre-determined analysis rules, said set of first pre-determined said calculating rules, said primary user details and said user activity data and further configured to … ; a second analysis module (114) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) to receive said set of second pre-determined analysis rules, said set of second pre- determined calculating rules and said user activity data and further configured to … ; a third analysis module (116) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) to receive said surroundings data, said set of third pre-determined calculating rules, said set of third pre-determined analysis rules and said dynamic user data and further configured to … ; and a calorie consumption module (118) configured to cooperate with said first analysis module (112), said second analysis module (114), and said third analysis module (116) to receive said first result, said second result and said third result and further configured to … ; wherein said monitoring module (110), said first analysis module (112) , said second analysis module (114) , said third analysis module (116) , said calorie consumption module (118) are implemented using one or more one processor(s).”
Claim 2 recites “wherein said primary user details can be selected from a group of name, gender, height, present weight and time of inputting weight.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein said dynamic user data is body temperature.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein said surroundings data can be selected from a group of ambient temperature, gravity and incline of the surface on which said user is doing the said activity.”
Claim 5 recites “wherein said user activity data can be selected from a group of running speed, steps taken by said user, distance covered by said user.”
Claim 6 recites “storing (202), by a rules repository (104), a set of pre-determined first calculating rules, a set of second pre-determined calculating rules, a set of third pre-determined calculating rules, a set of pre-determined first analysis rules, a set of second pre-determined analysis rules and a set of third pre-determined analysis rules; receiving (204), by an input module (106), a plurality of primary user details from said user associated with a user device (102) having a plurality of sensors; storing (206), by a user repository (108) said primary user details; sensing (207), by said sensors (not shown), a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data; receiving (208), by a monitoring module (110) said plurality of dynamic user data, said plurality of surroundings data and said plurality of user activity data; receiving (212), by a second analysis module (114), from said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) said set of second pre-determined analysis rules, said set of second pre-determined calculating rules and said user activity data; receiving (220), by a third analysis module (116), from monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) said surroundings data, said set of third pre-determined calculating rules, said set of third pre- determined analysis rules and said dynamic user data; receiving (226), by a calorie consumption module (118) from said first analysis module (112), said second analysis module (114), and said third analysis module (116) said first result, said second result and said third result;”
The system in claim 1 comprising the rules repository, input module, user repository, monitoring module, first/second/third analysis modules, and calorie consumption module is being interpreted as a computer-implemented system, as discussed in Claim Interpretation. The user device (102) is not being interpreted as part of the system because claim 1 does not recite that the system comprises the user device. There are no limitations that require anything other than a generic computer. Therefore, the system equates to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the limitations in claims 1 and 6 of the rules repository, input module, user repository, monitoring module, first/second/third analysis modules, and calorie consumption module performing receiving and storing. These limitations equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 2-5, these limitations also equate to transmitting/receiving data over a network because they limit the type of data but do not change the fact that data is being transmitted/received.
Regarding the limitations in claim 6 of the rules repository, input module, user repository, monitoring module, first/second/third analysis module, and calorie consumption module, these limitations are being interpreted as computer-implemented. See discussion in Claim Interpretation. There are no limitations that require anything other than a generic computer. Therefore, these limitations equate to implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitation in claim 6 of “sensing (206), by said sensors (not shown), a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data”. This limitation is WURC because such a user device with sensors was commercially available before the effective filing date of the instant invention. Winn (“Which Garmin Forerunner Should I Get?”; published online 12 September 2019) discusses that in 2019 Garmin released the Forerunner 945 equipped with the following sensors (pg. 1, para. 1): heartrate monitor (dynamic user data) (pg. 3, bullet points), GPS (surroundings data) (pg. 1, para. 1), and an activity monitor that tracks steps and calories (user activity data) (pg. 3, bullet points). Forerunner 945 also connects to the internet and synchronizes with apps on a phone (pg. 2, bullet points) (pg. 5, last para.), indicating that it is WURC in combination with a generic computer. Furthermore, the instant specification recites that many of the apparatuses in the disclosure are well-known, indicating that the sensor in claim 6 is WURC (pg. 5, lines 20-22).
When these additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept because they all equate to WURC functions/components of a generic computer. They also equate to WURC functions/components of a generic computer in combination with a user device comprising sensors as taught above by Winn. Therefore, these additional elements do not transform the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No).
As such, claims 1-6 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuen et al. (“Yuen”; US 11,676,717 B2; effective filing date 09/28/2017).
The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims.
Claims 1 and 6:
A system (100) to accurately determine the calorie consumed during daily activities/exercise of a user, wherein said user is associated with a user device (102) and said user device having a plurality of sensors are installed in it, said system (100) comprising:
A method (200) to accurately determine the calorie consumed during daily activities/exercise of a user, wherein said method (200) comprising steps of:
Yuen discloses a portable monitoring device 10 fixed to a user that contains sensors used to calculate/assess calories burned and other activity-related quantities (col. 1, lines 43-55). Figure 1B shows the monitoring device 10 which contains sensors 12, 14 and 20.
(claim 1): a rules repository (104) configured to store a set of first pre-determined analysis rule, a set of second pre-determined analysis rule, a set of third pre-determined analysis rules, a set of first pre-determined calculating rules, a set of second pre-determined calculating rules and a set of third pre-determined calculating rules;
(claim 6): storing (202), by a rules repository (104), a set of pre-determined first calculating rules, a set of second pre-determined calculating rules, a set of third pre-determined calculating rules, a set of pre-determined first analysis rules, a set of second pre-determined analysis rules and a set of third pre-determined analysis rules;
Figure 1A and Figure 2 show processing circuitry 16 (rules repository) that assesses and calculates calories burned based on sensor data. The processing circuity 16 includes memory to store sensor data and contains programmed processors (col. 3, lines 1-10). The processors execute stored programs that implement methods, techniques, tasks or operations described in the disclosure (col. 7, lines 38-59). As discussed below, the processing circuitry 16 contains the claimed pre-determined first/second/third analysis and calculating rules within its programmed processors and memory.
(claim 1): an input module (106) configured to receive a plurality of primary user details via said user device (102) associated with said user; a user repository (108) configured to cooperate with said input module to receive said primary user details and further configured to store said primary user details;
(claim 6): receiving (204), by an input module (106), a plurality of primary user details from said user associated with a user device (102) having a plurality of sensors; storing (206), by a user repository (108) said primary user details;
User specific parameters such as height, weight, and gender (primary user details) can be inputted into the portable monitoring device 10 (user device), which is received and stored by the processing circuitry 16 (input module and user repository) (col. 9, lines 56-57) (col. 33, lines 26-43). The processing circuitry 16 may be external to the portable monitoring device 10 as shown in Figure 12A, indicating that data from the portable monitoring device 10 is received and stored by the processing circuitry 16.
(claim 1): a monitoring module (110) configured to cooperate with said sensors to receive a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data via user device (102);
(claim 6): sensing (207), by said sensors (not shown), a plurality of dynamic user data, a plurality of surroundings data and a plurality of user activity data; receiving (208), by a monitoring module (110) said plurality of dynamic user data, said plurality of surroundings data and said plurality of user activity data;
The sensors of the portable monitoring device 10 (user device) can measure heart rate and body temperature (dynamic user data) (col. 1, line 61); ambient temperature and elevation gain/loss from ambulatory and/or non-ambulatory locomotion (surroundings data) (col. 1, lines 54-55) (col. 41, lines 35-36); and number of steps taken, distance traveled, and pace (user activity data) (col. 1, lines 53-58).
The processing circuitry 16 (monitoring module) receives data from the sensors, and there is an embodiment where the processing circuitry is external to the portable monitoring device and receives sensor data from the portable monitoring device (Figures 1 and 2) (col. 2, lines 14-20) (Figure 12A).
(claim 1): a first analysis module (112) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110), said user repository (108) and said rules repository (104) to receive said set of first pre-determined analysis rules, said set of first pre-determined said calculating rules, said primary user details and said user activity data and further configured to analyase said primary user details and said user activity data based on said set of first pre-determined analysis rules and further configured to calculate a first result using said analysed primary user details and said analysed user activity data and said set of first pre-determined calculating rules;
(claim 6): analysing (209), by a first analysis module (112), said primary user details and said user activity data based on said set of first pre- determined analysis rules; calculating (210), by said first analysis module (112), a first result using said analysed primary user details and said analysed user activity data based on said set of first pre-determined calculating rules;
The processing circuitry 16 is the first analysis module, monitoring module, user repository, and rules repository. As discussed above, this is because the processing circuitry 16 contains memory and programmed processors that perform functions of the portable monitoring device 10 (col. 3, lines 1-10) (col. 7, lines 38-59).
Processing circuitry receives user information such as height and weight (primary user details) (col. 9, lines 56-57) as well as activity information such as speed (user activity data) (col. 2, lines 53-60). Yuen teaches “Calorie expenditure may be calculated directly based on speed and one or more physiological parameters of the user such as age, gender, height, weight, and/or athletic ability” (col. 11, lines 26-29) (Figure 5A). Algorithms and functions for this analysis and calculation are disclosed (col. 10, line 63 – col 11, line 24) (a set of first predetermined analysis/calculating rules).
(claim 1): a second analysis module (114) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) to receive said set of second pre-determined analysis rules, said set of second pre- determined calculating rules and said user activity data and further configured to analyse and bifurcate said user activity data based on said set of second pre-determined analysis rules and further configured to calculate a second result using said bifurcated activity data, said user activity data and said primary user details by using said set of second pre-determined calculating rules;
(claim 6): receiving (212), by a second analysis module (114), from said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) said set of second pre-determined analysis rules, said set of second pre-determined calculating rules and said user activity data; analysing (214), by said second analysis module (114), said user activity by applying said set of second pre-determined analysis rules; bifurcating (216), by said second analysis module (114), said analysed user activity data based on said set of second pre-determined analysis rules; calculating (218), by said second analysis module (114), a second result using said bifurcated activity data, said user activity data and said primary user details using said set of second pre-determined calculating rules;
The processing circuitry 16 is the second analysis module, monitoring module, and rules repository. This is because the processing circuitry 16 contains memory and programmed processors that perform functions of the portable monitoring device 10 (col. 3, lines 1-10) (col. 7, lines 38-59).
In addition to calculating calories burned using speed, burned calories can be calculated using data representative of intensity of user motion (col. 12, lines 29-34). Yuen teaches “signals from the one or more accelerometers may be filtered using time domain or frequency domain filtering techniques to produce a parameter indicative of the intensity of user motion, often referred to as a ‘count’” (analyze and bifurcate said user activity data). Burned calories are calculated as a function of a current count value, which uses variables such as speed and user’s height and weight (calculate a second result using said bifurcated activity data, said user activity data and said primary user details) (col. 12, lines 50-64). Equations and algorithms for calculating calories based on intensity, speed, and height/weight are disclosed (col. 12, lines 50-67) (a set of second pre-determined analysis/calculating rules).
(claim 1): a third analysis module (116) configured to cooperate with said monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) to receive said surroundings data, said set of third pre-determined calculating rules, said set of third pre-determined analysis rules and said dynamic user data and further configured to analyse and calculate a third result based on said analysed surroundings data and said analysed dynamic user data by using said set of third pre-determined analysis rules and said set of third pre-determined calculating rules;
(claim 6): receiving (220), by a third analysis module (116), from monitoring module (110) and said rules repository (104) said surroundings data, said set of third pre-determined calculating rules, said set of third pre- determined analysis rules and said dynamic user data; analysing (222), by said third analysis module (116), said surroundings data, and dynamic user data using said set of third pre-determined analysis rules; calculating (224), by said third analysis module (116), a third result using said analysed surroundings data, and said analysed dynamic user data using said set of third pre-determined calculating rules;
The processing circuitry 16 is the third analysis module, monitoring module, and rules repository. This is because the processing circuitry 16 contains memory and programmed processors that perform functions of the portable monitoring device 10 (col. 3, lines 1-10) (col. 7, lines 38-59).
Burned calories are calculated based on heart rate (dynamic user data) (col. 13, lines 7-24). Yuen discusses augmenting calorie calculations using altitude data (col. 15, lunes 26-35). The altitude data may be written as a function of a surface slope (surroundings data) (col. 16, lines 1-3). An equation is given for calculating burned calories using speed and surface slope (col. 16, lines 7-13) (a set of second pre-determined analysis/calculating rules). Any equation used to calculate burned calories can incorporate altitude (col. 25, lines 61-65). Thus, the heart rate burned calorie equation can be modified to include altitude as a parameter (calculate a third result based on said analysed surroundings data and said analysed dynamic user data).
(claim 1): and a calorie consumption module (118) configured to cooperate with said first analysis module (112), said second analysis module (114), and said third analysis module (116) to receive said first result, said second result and said third result and further configured to calculate a final calorie result by adding said first result, said second result and said third result;
(claim 6): receiving (226), by a calorie consumption module (118) from said first analysis module (112), said second analysis module (114), and said third analysis module (116) said first result, said second result and said third result; and calculating (228), by said calorie consumption module (118), a final calorie result by adding said first result, said second result and said third result.
The processing circuitry 16 is the calorie consumption module and the first/second/third analysis module. This is because the processing circuitry 16 contains memory and programmed processors that perform functions of the portable monitoring device 10 (col. 3, lines 1-10) (col. 7, lines 38-59).
A combined calorie consumption calculation is disclosed as a linear combination of calories calculated for speed (first result), accelerometry (second result), and heart rate (third result).
(claim 1): wherein said monitoring module (110), said first analysis module (112), said second analysis module (114), said third analysis module (116), said calorie consumption module (118) are implemented using one or more one processor(s).
As discussed above, these modules are implemented by the processing circuitry 16, which contains memory and programmed processors (col. 3, lines 1-17).
Claim 2:
The processing circuitry can receive and store in memory user specific parameters such as height, weight, and gender (col. 13, lines 20-23).
Claim 4:
Ambient temperature and elevation gain/loss from ambulatory and/or non-ambulatory locomotion are sensed (col. 1, lines 54-55) (col. 41, lines 35-36). Calorie calculations can be augmented using altitude data (col. 15, lunes 26-35), which may be written as a function of a surface slope (col. 16, lines 1-3).
Claim 5:
Calorie expenditure is calculated directly based on running speed (Table 1) (col. 11, lines 26-29) (Figure 5A).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen et al. (“Yuen”; US 11,676,717 B2; effective filing date 09/28/2017), as applied to claim 1 in the rejection under 35 USC 102, in view of Welles et al. (“Welles”; Journal of Thermal Biology 72 (2018): 44-52).
The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims.
The limitations in claim 1 have been taught above by Yuen in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102.
Claim 3:
Yuen teaches sensing body temperature using the portable monitoring device (col. 1, line 61). However, Yuen does not teach calculating burned calories using body temperature.
Welles discloses a SCENARIO model that estimates metabolic rate from core body temperature (abstract). Air temperature is also a variable in the calculation (pg. 45, sec. 2.3) (pg. 47, sec. 2.5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Yuen by incorporating already measured body temperature into a metabolic rate calculation as taught by Welles. Welles teaches motivation by stating that metabolic rate can be used to maintain energy balance during athletics (pg. 44, sec. 1), wherein Yuen is directed toward calculating burned calories during exercise (col. 1, lines 43-47). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the portable monitoring device of Yuen contains sensors for body temperature and ambient temperature (col. 14, line 51) (col. 41, lines 34-38), which are variables used in Welles to calculate metabolic rate (pg. 47, sec. 2.5).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah A. Auger whose telephone number is (703)756-4518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047. 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.
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685