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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on August 18, 2025 for the patent application 17/806,682 filed on June 13, 2022. Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are amended. Claim 11 is new. Claims 1-11 are pending. The first office action of May 19, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 is directed to “a real-time fitness coaching system” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “fitness coaching,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1, “receive the reference position information, wherein the reference position information is related to a fixed value calculated from the position,
receives motion position information, wherein the motion position information is a changing value that varies according to the user’s real-time exercise posture,
compute, based on the relative value of the motion position information with respect to the reference position information, fitness correction information in real-time which indicates information to correct imbalances of the user’s real-time exercise posture, and
provide the fitness correction information to a user, in rea-time, wherein the fitness correction information includes real-time feedback to correct the user’s exercise posture during physical exercise.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a smart health sensor,” “smart fitness equipment including a reference position sensor,” “a smart wearable band which includes a motion position sensor,” “a server,” “a network,” and “a user terminal,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “fitness coaching,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a smart health sensor,” “smart fitness equipment including a reference position sensor,” “a smart wearable band which includes a motion position sensor,” “a server,” “a network,” and “a user terminal,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a smart health sensor,” are not described with any detail in the written description of the specification as originally filed. However, they are depicted in FIG. 2, and described in para. [0036] as follows: “[0036] A smart health sensor is attached to the smart fitness equipment 100, and a detailed configuration thereof will be described below with reference to FIG. 2.” As such, this element is reasonably interpreted as ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
The Applicant’s claimed “smart fitness equipment including a reference position sensor,” is described in paras. [0081] and [0049] as follows: “[0081] FIG. 5 illustrates a case in which the first smart fitness equipment 120 is a butterfly mechanism for chest exercise, and an example in which three of the reference position sensors 123 are provided.”
“[0049] The reference position sensor 123 is a sensor disposed to measure three-dimensional (3D) position information. The reference position sensor 123 may be composed of a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto, and the reference position sensor 123 may be composed of any one of various sensors such as an ultrasonic sensor, an optical sensor, and the like.” As such, the written description of the specification as originally filed provides no specific details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a smart wearable band which includes a motion position sensor,” is described in paras. [0038] and [0056] as follows: “[0038] The smart wearable band 200 may be configured in a band type as the name suggests, but the present is not limited thereto, and the smart wearable band 200 may be configured in various types such as fitness gloves and the like.”
“[0056] The motion position sensor 220 serves to measure position information or motion information on the smart wearable band 200. The motion position sensor 220 may include any one of a GPS sensor, a gyro sensor, an acceleration sensor, a motion sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical sensor, or a combination thereof.” As such, the written description of the specification as originally filed provides no specific details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “a server,” is described in para. [0039] as follows: “[0039] The server 400 is configured in the form of a computer for a server and is directly or indirectly connected to the smart fitness equipment 100, the smart wearable band 200 and the user terminal 300 via the network.” This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which again provides no specific details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a network” and “a user terminal,” is described in paras. [0033]-[0034] as follows: “[0033] The smart fitness equipment 100, the smart wearable band 200, and the server 400 may be connected to a user terminal 300 via a wired or wireless network.”
“[0034] In this case, the user terminal 300 may be a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet personal computer (PC), a notebook computer, etc. of a user who exercises.” This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which again provides no specific details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
Therefore, the claimed limitations of “a smart health sensor,” “smart fitness equipment including a reference position sensor,” “a smart wearable band which includes a motion position sensor,” “a server,” “a network,” and “a user terminal,” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-11 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on August 18, 2025 related to claims 1-11 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
1) Not directed to a mental process
The Applicant respectfully argues “First, the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process. As described in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) chapter 2100 section 2106.04(a)(2), the “courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The MPEP goes on to discuss that claims “do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation. See SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” The MPEP includes an example that does not recite a mental process because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind, including “a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals.’ That is, the MPEP has specifically stated that acquiring position information via a GPS cannot be a mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The GPS example cited provides that the machine “must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The machine in question is a Global Positioning System or GPS. Clearly, a GPS is required for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudo-ranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites. The patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 6,417,801 and was directed to an abstract idea and have additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they show an improvement to another technology or technical field.
In Applicant’s case, the system of claim 1 comprises a reference position sensor in the form of a GPS sensor and isn’t specifically required to provide fitness correction information in view of other sensors being claimed (i.e. “receive the motion position information measured by the at least one of the GPS sensor, the gyroscope sensor, the acceleration sensor, and the motion sensor of the motion position sensor”). Furthermore, with respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Appellant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations are using the sensors as data inputs to perform steps on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Meanwhile, there is no improvement to any of the sensors or the processor. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The MPEP also states that methods of organizing human activity is used to describe concepts relating to fundamental economic principals or practices (e.g., insurance), commercial or legal interactions (e.g., legal obligations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The MPEP explains that “this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP §2106.04(a)(3).
Under the criteria given by the MPEP, the present claims are neither a mental process nor methods of organizing human activity. As shown in the example given above by the MPEP itself, acquiring GPS location information cannot be a mental process. It is a limitation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, claim 1 recites in part “the motion position sensor measures motion potion information according to a user’s real-time exercise posture,” and a server that “receives the reference position information measured by the GPS sensor... wherein the reference position information is related to a fixed value calculated from the positions of the smart fitness equipment where the reference position sensor is disposed,” and “receives the motion position information measured by the at least one of the GPS sensor... wherein the motion position information is a changing value that varies according to the user’s real-time exercise posture.” Therefore, Claim 1 cannot be a mental process as various elements of claim 1 cannot be done in the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “fitness correction information” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Likewise, it is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “III Mental Processes,” the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Additionally, claim 1 does not in any way manage personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people. Indeed, the system of claim 1 merely “provides the fitness correction information to a user terminal connected thereto via the network, in real-time, wherein the fitness correction information includes real-time feedback to correct the user’s posture during physical exercise.” There is no management of any relationship or interactions between people. At most there is a user getting provided the “fitness correction information.”
Additionally, the amended claims are not directed to abstract “fitness coaching.” Rather the amended claims are directed to a concrete technical system that solves a specific problem of real-time exercise posture imbalance detection. That is, the present invention utilizes objective, sensor-based measurements as described above. Therefore, not only is claim 1 not directed to a mental process or methods of organizing human behavior, Claim 1 is instead directed to an improvement.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is misconstruing the fact that “Organizing human behavior” deals with teaching and following rules or instructions. Here, providing “fitness correction information,” is reasonably understood as teaching and following rules or instructions. Further, the Applicant describes solving “a specific problem of real-time exercise posture imbalance detection,” which is a solution benefiting mankind and not a technical solution benefiting technology. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
2) Claims are directed to an improvement
The Applicant respectfully argues “"The Supreme Court has suggested that claims purport[ing] to ‘improve the functioning of the computer itself,’ or 'improv[ing] an existing technological process’ might not succumb to the abstract idea exception." Enfish, slip op. at 10, quoting Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358-59. Accordingly, the 20/9 PEG instructs the Patent Examining Corps:
If the additional limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No further analysis is required. (Emphasis added.)
Here, the Applicant’s claims are directed to a specific improvement in the field of real-time fitness coaching systems. The Specification first describes the problems to be solved.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s “improvement” to the problems cited are not technical problems, but mankind problems. In other words, the Applicant’s claims do not “improve the functioning of the computer itself,’ or 'improv[ing] an existing technological process.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “In that, unlike subject human judgment or general exercise instructions, the claimed invention performs sophisticated comparative analysis between fixed reference position information and real-time motion data. This not merely data collection and display, but represents
a concrete technological improvement that enables automated and objective posture analysis for preventing exercise-related injuries through immediate feedback.
This is distinguishable from merely “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results,” as indicated by Electric Power Group. Indeed, the court in Electric Power Group made it clear “we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category ... And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Electric Power Group, LLC y. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, p. 1357. However, as described above, there is no mental process included in the claims. Additionally, claim 1 recites a particular tool for the presentation as well, e.g., claim 1 recites “provides the fitness correction information to a user terminal connected thereto via the network, in real-time, wherein the fitness correction information includes real-time feedback to correct the user's exercise posture during physical exercise.” Because the system receives the GPS-based fixed coordinate and real-time movement vectors to determine the fitness correction information, the claimed invention cannot be feasibly obtained or analyzed through mental processes alone.
Accordingly, because the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process or method for organizing human activity and is instead directed to an improvement, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention satisfies Step 2A prong one and the §101 rejection.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s “particular tool” has been identified as a collection of ubiquitous equipment commercially available. Specifically, the Applicant’s “user terminal” is described in para. [0034] as follows:
“[0034] In this case, the user terminal 300 may be a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet personal computer (PC), a notebook computer, etc. of a user who exercises.” As previously stated above in the rejection, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which again provides no specific details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
As for the continued argument with regard to “the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process or method for organizing human activity,” this has been asked and answered. Again, the argument continues to be unpersuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
The Applicant respectfully argues “In addition to satisfying Step 2A, prong 1, the claimed invention also satisfies Step 2A, prong 2.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument is conclusory and fails to provide any evidence supporting that the Applicant’s claims provide a “Practical Application.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
3) The Ordered combination amounts to significantly more
The Applicant respectfully argues “Further, the ordered combination of the claims as presented amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As held by the Federal Circuit in McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., Federal Circuit, Case No. 15-1080, September 13, 2016 (herein "McRo”), "an ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules... is not directed to an abstract idea and is therefore patent-eligible subject matter under§ 101." (McRo, page 4.) In holding that the claims were patent eligible, the Federal Circuit cautioned against "oversimplifying the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." (McRo, page 21.) The Federal Circuit further instructed that "[w]hether at step one or step two of the Alice test, in determining the patentability of a method, a court must look to the claims as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." (McRo, pages 21-22.)
Like McRO, claim 1 provides an ordered combination that details how to detect and correct exercise posture imbalance in real-time without relying on human observations or subjective judgment. Instead, the invention establishes fixed reference position information through GPS sensors and compares these “fixed values” against real-time changing values from motion position sensors to identify specific positional deviations that indicate imbalance. In that, the ordered combination of the invention enables establishing fixed refence position information (i.e., fixed coordinate reference frames) using GPS sensors positioned on smart fitness equipment to provide stable measurement baselines, continuously monitoring user movement through motion position sensors including “at least one of a GPS sensor, a gyro sensor, an acceleration sensor, and a motion sensor,” computing relative values in real-time by comparing fixed reference position information with changing motion position information, and generating “fitness correction information” based on relative value (1.e., detected imbalance) to provide “real-time feedback to correct the user’s exercise posture during physical exercise.” This presents a practical application that improves upon the existing field of fitness monitoring technology by providing an automated, objective posture analysis that can prevent exercise related injuries through immediate feedback. The technical contribution is not merely applying an abstract idea to a computer, but providing a specific solution to the technical problem of real-time posture imbalance detection and correction.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’s claims are not directed to “an ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules...” as applied to McRo. Here, Applicant’s claims can be practiced by a human without a highly specific skill set as identified in McRo. When compared to McRo, Applicant's claims are unlike the specialized claimed solution of “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators.” The Applicant’s claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.
Second, the Applicant’s argument with regard to “Practical Application” is normally part of a “Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis.” Regardless, the Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe a claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Supplemental Arguments
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Office Action asserts that “the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because . . . these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements, as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates the additional elements are sufficiently well-known.” Office Action, p. 4. As a threshold matter, Applicant respectfully submits having non-conventional or non-generic components is not a test for subject matter eligibility under §101. Indeed the Federal Circuit held in Bascom Global Internet Services, v. AT&T Mobility (hereinafter “Bascom’’) that an inventive concept can be found in non-conventional and non-generic arrangements as well as inventive concepts can be found in an ordered combination of the claim elements.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that it is irrelevant if the "smart health sensor," "smart fitness equipment including a reference position sensor," "smart wearable band which includes a motion position sensor,” "server," and "user terminal connected thereto via a network” are themselves "well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering computing elements." Instead, the question is whether the devices are used in a non-generic, non-conventional way, via an ordered combination.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, the Applicant is urged to review MPEP §2106.05. Regardless, the Applicant has an abstract idea of “fitness coaching” and fails to provide any sufficient structure to demonstrate any improvement in the generic computer system, or with any of the other hardware being claimed to be reasonably considered “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “First, the Office Action has not provided adequate evidence to support an assertion that the specific combination described in claim 1 was well-known in the art. While individual components such as GPS sensors or servers may be known, the specific arrangement and interaction described in the claims—where GPS sensors establish fixed reference position information (i.e. fixed reference coordinates) on fitness equipment for comparison with real-time motion sensor data to detect posture imbalances—represents a non-conventional implementation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The adequate evidence is provided above in the rejection using the Applicant’s own written description of the specification. Specifically, as evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Second, the claimed system goes beyond generic computer implementation. The invention requires specific sensor positioning and coordination—e.g., a specific ordered combination. In that, the claims indicate that the reference position sensor is “disposed at a preset position of the smart fitness equipment” while the motion sensor position is “attached to a part of an individual’s body.” The specific arrangement enables the system to get the fixed value and the changing value to perform the technical function of real-time comparative analysis between the fixed and variable position data to generate the fitness correction information.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims do not “go beyond generic computer implementation.” Para. [0034] provides a variety of generic computers that the abstract idea can be implemented on (i.e. “In this case, the user terminal 300 may be a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet personal computer (PC), a notebook computer, etc. of a user who exercises.”). Further, the Applicant’s “specific sensors” are merely a list of common sensors that any one of which can be used to collect data, to then be analyzed, and finally output to achieve the abstract idea of “fitness coaching,” or as now argued “provides fitness correction information.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Accordingly, because the claimed invention is 1). Not directed to a mental process or methods of organizing human activity, 2.) The claimed invention is directed to an improvement that is not abstract, and 3.) The claimed invention amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception, Applicant respectfully submits the rejection under 101 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons stated here and above. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715