DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
As noted by Applicant (see Remarks, filed 07/13/26), the independent claims have been amended to recite a data structure comprising mapping information between workout type names and at least one data type, wherein the data structure is updated to include information related to the new workout type created including the name of the workout type and the selected data type in the memory, as well as the determination of at least one sensor of plural sensors comprising a sensor module of the wearable device and acquisition of at least one measurement element by the at least one sensor of the wearable electronic device. Accordingly, the claim recites an improvement to technology. Specifically, the Specification, pp. 1-2, discloses a technical problem of wearable devices’ limited memory capacity, which therefore limits the number of workouts that can be provided. However, the above-recited amendments to the independent claims recite an improvement, such that the wearable device provides for the creation and storing of a new workout type that was not pre-specified, which can be executed to acquire measurements corresponding to the new workout type. Accordingly, the wearable device is not required to store every possible workout type a user may desire on the device, which, as previously noted and discussed in the Specification, pp. 1-2, is difficult and/or not possible due to the limited storage capacity of wearable devices.
Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“user, or text information” recited in claim 1, ln. 16, claim 11, ln. 10, and claim 20, ln. 12 should likely read “user,
“display or a recommended” recited in claim 1, ln. 17, claim 11, ln. 11, and claim 20, ln. 13 should likely read “display, or a recommended” for clarity purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-20 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 claims contain 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.
Claim 1 recites in part “upon receipt of an indication that the new workout type is to be executed, determine, based on at least one measurement element included in the selected data type, at least one sensor among the plural sensors comprising the sensor module”. This limitation is not supported by the Specification. Specifically, the Specification does not disclose receiving an indication that the new workout type is to be executed (see, e.g., Specification, p. 27, which refers to Fig. 5, stating “In operation 509, the first electronic device may identify whether the new workout type is executed.”).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for the same reasoning.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 or 11.
A suggested amendment is as follows (using claim 1 as an example): “upon receipt of an indication that the new workout type is
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 11 and 13-20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the plural sensors comprising the sensor module" in ln. 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasoning (see claim 20, ln. 32).
Claims 13-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 11.
A suggested amendment is as follows: “a sensor module”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights