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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 28th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the claim objections, the amended claims have overcome the objection.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicant argues: “The claims recite physical components such one or more processors and recite control of a display screen. These elements serve to constrain the concept of an athletic information processing system into a practical application with meaningful and recognizable structural limitations. Moreover, the processors are actively controlling and configuring the warning display screen.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP § 2106.05(f) states the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Therefore, the additional elements such as "one or more processors" and “display” are a generically claimed computer which does not provide significantly more. A human can provide an opinion which serves as a warning thus falling under the abstract idea of mental processes, merely implementing that with a display screen does not provide significantly more.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection, the applicant’s argument about the Endo reference sharing common inventors has overcome the rejection.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues Feichtinger does not collect data regarding the fatigue degree of individual parts and Kim does not disclose the collection of subjective data regarding the fatigue degree of individual parts. Due to the new grounds of rejection, the article “Short-term effect of training and competition on muscle soreness and neuromuscular performance in elite Rugby athletes” by Tavares et al. teaches the claim limitation which Feichtinger in view of Kim is silent on: receive data input by the subject about a subjective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue in the muscle that is subjectively felt by the subject as noted in the rejection below.
Regarding Kim, the examiner notes that Kim was not relied upon for the teaching of the collection of subjective data.
Response to Amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5 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.
Each of Claims 1-5 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-5 recites at least one step or instruction for determining an athlete’s level of fatigue, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-5 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites “An athletic information processing system comprising: one or more processors that execute computer executable instructions stored in a memory to cause the athletic information processing system to:
receive subject information that identifies a subject, and data about an objective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue of the subject determined by measuring a muscle at an individual part determined in advance;
receive data input by the subject about a subjective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue in the muscle that is subjectively felt by the subject;
determine a risk of occurrence of injury to the muscle at the individual part of the subject, based on the data about the objective individual-part fatigue-degree and the data about the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree; and
control a display screen to warn of a possibility of occurrence of injury to the muscle at the individual part, when a difference from comparison between the data about the objective individual-part fatigue-degree and the data about the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree by the determination unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.
A physician or the athlete’s trainer can attach EMG sensors at various locations long the athlete’s body to collect objective data, and provide the athlete a survey or questionnaire to collect their subjective view on how they are experiencing fatigue. Based on the objective and subjective results, the physician or the athlete’s trainer can mentally analyze the risk of occurrence and verbally provide a warning to the athlete on how to safely and effectively change their current program to prevent future injuries.
Further, dependent Claims 2-5 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Specifically, dependent claim 2 recites, “The athletic information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the data about the objective individual-part fatigue-degree is data about stiffness of the muscle of the subject.”
Dependent claim 3 recites, “The athletic information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising an injury occurrence risk information database storing in association with one another the subject information, information about the muscle at the individual part, and information indicating a risk of occurrence of injury to the individual part of the subject; and wherein the one or more processors further execute the computer executable instructions to cause the athletic information processing system to determine a risk of occurrence of injury to the muscle at the individual part of the subject by referring to the injury occurrence risk information database.”
Dependent claim 4 recites, “The athletic information processing system according to claim 1,wherein the one or more processors further execute the computer executable instructions to cause the athletic information processing system to configure and control an input screen as a subjective individual-part fatigue-degree data input screen where the data about the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree that is the degree of fatigue in each muscle part that is subjectively felt by the subject is input, and comprises, in the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree data input screen, at least a training intensity input section where at least one of comprehensive condition felt by the subject, a training menu, and a training intensity is input.”
Dependent claim 5 recites, “The athletic information processing system according to claim 1,wherein the one or more processors further execute the computer executable instructions to cause the athletic information processing system to configure and control the display screen as a condition graph display screen configured to at least show time-series changes in subjective individual-part fatigue-degree data of the subject and objective individual-part fatigue-degree data.”
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-5) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: one or more processors, memory, display screen, input screen, injury occurrence risk information database are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g. processor, memory, injury occurrence risk information database as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-5 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: one or more processors, memory, display screen, input screen, injury occurrence risk information database.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, display screen and input screen displays data (Paragraph 0044); injury occurrence risk information database stores historical data about the patient (Paragraph 026).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor, memory, display screen, input screen, database are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor and memory. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements 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) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-5 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1-5 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-5 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1-5 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-5 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-5 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-5 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feichtinger et al. (US 20160220866 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20150182160 A1) and Tavares (“Short-Term Effect Of Training And Competition On Muscle Soreness And Neuromuscular Performance In Elite Rugby Athletes, 2018, reference U on PTO-892).
Regarding Claim 1, Feichtinger discloses an athletic information processing system comprising:
one or more processors (processor – element 202) that execute computer executable instructions stored in a memory to cause the athletic information processing system to (Paragraph 0086):
receive subject information that identifies a subject (Paragraph 0086, The input/output unit 200 communicates with the sensor unit 100 to receive the data stored during the training session, or for multiple training sessions. The data can be downloaded during the training session if the input/output unit 200 is in communication with the sensor unit 100), and data about an objective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue of the subject determined (Paragraph 0063, The training stimulus of each training session can be derived by a user's input (subjective value), by a measurement value related to a reference training session (objective value), or a combination of both);
determine a risk of occurrence of injury to the muscle at the individual part of the subject (Paragraph 0091, The data recorded by the server unit 100 is then evaluated by the input/output unit 200 with the user parameters and subjective evaluation data, step 420. The input/output unit 200 then sets personal parameters based on the collected data, step 422, and calculates a recovery-compensation curve using the personal parameters and displays the calculated recovery-compensation curve in the manner described above to the user, step 424; Paragraph 0092, The input/output unit 200 determines whether the recovery phase of the previous training session is over in step 512. If the recovery phase is not over, i.e., if the user is still in the recovery phase, the user is issued a warning against overtraining on the input/output unit 200, step 513), based on the data about the objective individual-part fatigue-degree (step 416 of Figure 14) and the data about the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree (step 418 of Figure 14);
control a display screen (display – element 208) to warn of a possibility of occurrence of injury to the muscle at the individual part (Paragraph 0087, The feedback actuators 108 and 212 provide some signal such as a vibration, audible, or optical signal that a value of one or more parameter is exceeded or falls short…The signal provided by the feedback actuators 108 and 212 can serve as the warning feedback or alert discussed above to avoid overload), when a difference from comparison between the data about the objective individual-part fatigue-degree and the data about the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree by the determination unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0092, The input/output unit 200 determines whether the recovery phase of the previous training session is over in step 512. If the recovery phase is not over, i.e., if the user is still in the recovery phase, the user is issued a warning against overtraining on the input/output unit 200, step 513. The user can then wait until the recovery period is over or start the next training session. If the recovery phase is determined to be over, a next training session is started, step 514. Steps 516, 518 and 520 are the same as steps 416, 418 and 420 described above. While recording the sensor data, a check is performed to determine whether a load level value is reached, step 526. If it is determined that the load level is reached, step 528, a warning is provided to the user by the feedback actuator or the display to warn against overload, step 530. After step 520, the input/output unit 200 updates the user parameter based on the data from the training session, step 522, and calculates and displays the recovery-compensation curve to the user, step 524; [Examiner’s note, a warning is provided to the user when objective and subjective data reached the load level value.]).
However, Feichtinger does not expressly disclose data about an objective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue of the subject determined by measuring a muscle at an individual part determined in advance; regarding the injury occurrence risk information, information about the muscle at the individual part; regarding the determination unit, data about the objective individual- part fatigue-degree.
Kim teaches data about an objective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue of the subject determined by measuring a muscle at an individual part determined in advance (Paragraph 0062, The acoustic vibration sensor 111 may include at least one of a piezo sensor or microphone, a laser distance sensor, an accelerometer, or a Mechano-Myography (MMG) sensor. The MMG sensor may noninvasively measure a micro vibration caused by volume change of muscular fibers which occurs when a muscle is activated. The MMG sensor may support signal collection for measuring muscle fatigue and detecting a purpose of motion; Paragraph 0068, The EMG sensor 112 may include a muscle stiffness sensor. The EMG sensor 112 may measure muscle activity to be applied to an exoskeleton device for rehabilitation assistance and a muscle strengthening training device); an injury risk information about the muscle at the individual part (Paragraph 0081, the first storage module 150 may store a sensor operating program for operating at least one sensor included in the first and second sensor modules 110 and 120; [Examiner’s note, the first sensor module comprises the electromyogram sensor, which collects information about the muscle and stores it); determining a risk of occurrence based on the data about the objective individual- part fatigue-degree (Paragraph 0008, first electronic device arranged on a wrist, biological signals about a state of biological tissue using an Electromyogram (EMG) sensor and an auxiliary sensor, and outputting information related to the collected biological signals to a first display module of the first electronic device).
Additionally, Feichtinger in view of Kim is silent in teaching receive data input by the subject about a subjective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue in the muscle that is subjectively felt by the subject; Tavares teaches receive data input by the subject about a subjective individual-part fatigue-degree that is a degree of fatigue in the muscle that is subjectively felt by the subject (Tavares | Page 13, Paragraph 2; Figure 1). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electronic device from Feichtinger in view of Kim to incorporate the Montgomery and Hopkins questionnaire because the results from the questionnaire provide insight on the athlete’s soreness/fatigue post-performance. This information is critical to monitor fatigue for injury prevention (Tavares | Page 16, Paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding Claim 2, Feichtinger in view of Kim and Tavares teaches the athletic information processing system according to claim 1. Feichtinger is silent in teaching the objective measure of the muscle is based on the stiffness of the subject’s muscle. However, Kim teaches wherein the data about the objective individual-part fatigue-degree is data about stiffness of the muscle of the subject (Kim | Paragraph 0068, The EMG sensor 112 may include a muscle stiffness sensor. The EMG sensor 112 may measure muscle activity to be applied to an exoskeleton device for rehabilitation assistance and a muscle strengthening training device. The muscle stiffness sensor may include a multi pressure sensor to measure stiffness of a muscle which varies with muscle activity).
Regarding Claim 5, Feichtinger in view of Kim and Tavares teaches the athletic information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (Feichtinger | processor – element 202) further execute the computer executable instructions to cause the athletic information processing system to configure (Feichtinger | Paragraph 0086) and control the display screen (Feichtinger | display – element 208) as a condition graph display screen configured to at least show time-series changes in subjective individual-part fatigue-degree data of the subject (Feichtinger | Paragraph 0058, In a preferred embodiment the recovery-supercompensation curve is visualized to the user in a graphics display. As shown, for example in FIG. 2b the user can more readily see how the recovery is predicted to evolve in time, when will be the time window of the supercompensation phase and at which time point to best start the next training session, all at a glance. The curve in FIG. 2b is the same as the curve in FIG. 2a, but is presented so that the recovery and super-compensation periods are easily discerned by the user. The time scale can name the days of the week for easy scheduling (FIG. 2b). The remaining time of recovery to the optimal time point can be calculated and shown, e.g. in a balloon, which preferably moves with time on the recovery-supercompensation curve (FIG. 2b). Additional motivational texts can be provided by text or speech messages, examples are given in the table in FIG. 11)
Feichtinger fails to expressly teach a condition graph display screen configured to at least show time-series changes in objective individual-part fatigue- degree data.
However, Kim teaches the athletic information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the warning unit comprises a condition graph display screen (Kim | first display module – element 140) configured to at least show time-series changes in subjective individual-part fatigue-degree data of the subject (Kim | screen – element 1501; Paragraph 0211, a screen 1501 may be a screen interface in which a detected stress index of the user of the first electronic device 100 is provided mainly in the form of a text) and objective individual-part fatigue- degree data (Kim | Figure 14; Paragraph 0208, Referring to FIG. 14, the first electronic device 100 may detect biological signals related to a heart rate. Here, the first electronic device 100 may detect motions of a radial artery and muscles adjacent thereto by using the EMG sensor 112 and the optical sensor 113).
For Claims 1, 2, and 5, one having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electronic device from Feichtinger to the first electronic device of Kim because the sensor data that is useful for diagnosing diseases and provide warning information based on the accumulation of the data. For example, Kim discloses in Paragraph 0112: The first device control module 160 may support the Parkinson's disease diagnosis function. A Parkinson's disease, which is a type of a chronic degenerative disease of a nervous system, results from the death of dopamine nerve cells distributed in the substantia nigra, and has symptoms, such as shaking, rigidity, slowness of movement and unstable posture. The first device control module 160 may collect biological signal information corresponding to the four major symptoms of the Parkinson's disease. For example, the first device control module 160 may collect and analyze biological signals that enable analysis on the symptoms of shaking, rigidity, slowness of movement and unstable posture. In connection with the symptom of shaking, the first device control module 160 may detect rhythmic shaking from terminal joints, such as finger or wrist joints, or may detect shaking with a frequency of about 4-6 Hz. The first device control module 160 may determine whether the Parkinson's disease occurs based on accumulated information of biological signals. For example, the first device control module 160 may output warning information when legs, chin or tongue shakes on both sides of a body after a lapse of a certain period of time from the time of occurrence of shaking on one side of the body. The first device control module 160 may support a Parkinson's disease diagnosis mode, and may measure an angular motion by combining detection values of a gyro sensor, an acceleration sensor, and an acoustic vibration sensor (additional emphasis on the bolded sections); examiner’s note, Paragraph 0088 lists the various functions the device supports related to biological signals. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 3, Feichtinger in view of Kim and Tavares teaches the athletic information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising an injury occurrence risk information database storing in association with one another the subject information (Feichtinger Paragraph 0079, the evaluations of the training sessions of multiple users are stored in a central database which resides on a remote server and used to improve calculation parameters; Figure 15; Paragraph 0092), and information indicating a risk of occurrence of injury to the individual part of the subject (Feichtinger | Paragraphs 0091-0092; overtraining leads to higher injury risk); and wherein the one or more processors (Feichtinger | processor – element 202) further execute the computer executable instructions to cause the athletic information processing system (Paragraph 0086) to determine a risk of occurrence of injury to the muscle at the individual part of the subject (Paragraph 0091-0092; overtraining leads to higher injury risk) by referring to the injury occurrence risk information database (Paragraph 0029, many users' successive training loads and training frequency (and thereby recovery timing) are stored together with his or her objective measurements based on sensor evaluation as described above and/or subjective evaluations as just described are stored on a central server and analyzed to gradually improve the calculation methods, calculation parameters and eventually the suggestions to the user based on the current measurement data; Paragraph 0092).
Feichtinger in view of Kim is silent in teaching information about the muscle at the individual part; Tavares teaches information about the muscle at the individual part (Tavares | Page 13, Paragraph 2; Figure 1). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electronic device from Feichtinger in view of Kim to incorporate the Montgomery and Hopkins questionnaire because the results from the questionnaire provide insight on the athlete’s soreness/fatigue post-performance. This information is critical to monitor fatigue for injury prevention (Tavares | Page 16, Paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding Claim 4, Feichtinger in view of Kim and Tavares teaches the athletic information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (Feichtinger | processor – element 202) further execute the computer executable instructions to cause the athletic information processing system to configure (Feichtinger | Paragraph 0086) and control the display screen (Feichtinger | display – element 208) as a subjective individual-part fatigue-degree data input screen (Feichtinger | display – element 208; Paragraphs 0090-0091), and comprises, in the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree data input screen (Feichtinger | display – element 208; Paragraphs 0090-0091), at least a training intensity input section where at least one of comprehensive condition felt by the subject, a training menu, and a training intensity is input (Feichtinger | Paragraph 0062, In a preferred embodiment the development of the training status is monitored and corrected appropriately. In a further embodiment an increase in training status is displayed to the user to provide positive feedback for his or her training effort; Paragraph 0091, The data recorded by the server unit 100 is then evaluated by the input/output unit 200 with the user parameters and subjective evaluation data, step 420. The input/output unit 200 then sets personal parameters based on the collected data, step 422, and calculates a recovery-compensation curve using the personal parameters and displays the calculated recovery-compensation curve in the manner described above to the user, step 424).
Feichtinger in view of Kim is silent in teaching data about the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree that is the degree of fatigue in each muscle part that is subjectively felt by the subject is input; Tavares teaches data about the subjective individual-part fatigue-degree that is the degree of fatigue in each muscle part that is subjectively felt by the subject is input (Tavares | Page 13, Paragraph 2; Figure 1). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electronic device from Feichtinger in view of Kim to incorporate the Montgomery and Hopkins questionnaire because the results from the questionnaire provide insight on the athlete’s soreness/fatigue post-performance. This information is critical to monitor fatigue for injury prevention (Tavares | Page 16, Paragraphs 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRISTI DIVINA GOMES whose telephone number is (571)272-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30-4:30 & Friday 7:30-3:30.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
/SRISTI DIVINA GOMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791