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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-20 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 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a process.
Claim 12 is directed to “a device” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a machine or manufacture.
Claim 20 is directed to “a device” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a machine or manufacture.
Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows: “determining, via at least one processor, an exercise starting timepoint based on the first sensor data;
estimating an exercise posture of a user based on the second sensor data;
correcting the second sensor data by calibrating an orientation of the electronic device to an earth-fixed North East Up (NEU) coordinate system centered on a surface of the earth;
estimating a pattern of change in distance between each of the plurality of external electronic devices, indicated by changes in the relative position between each the plurality of external electronic devices over a time period after the determined exercise starting timepoint, and based on the third sensor data, wherein the pattern of change comprises a sequence of increasing and decreasing relative distances between the plurality of external electronic devices; and
generating exercise information based on the estimated exercise posture and the estimated pattern of change in distance between the plurality of external electronic devices by comparing the sequence of increasing and decreasing relative distances between the plurality of external electronic devices and predetermined patterns associated with known motions,”
In claims 1, 12 and 20, the above recited steps are mathematical concepts, which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Specification teaches that pulse wave and ecg measurements may be used to compute the start time. Spec. page 21-22. Computing these based on the feature points and ratios encompasses the use of mathematical equations, which has been recognized as an abstract idea (i.e., a mathematical concept). Estimating the exercise posture and the pattern of change of the distance and relative positions of the devices are additionally mathematical concepts as described in the specification at least pages 25-28. Calibrating the sensor data to earth coordinates, or manipulating the data with mathematics to result in different data, is also a mathematical concept. Patent Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In sum, we determine that Prong 1 recites a judicial exception, and proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2.
Therefore, each of the above steps are grouped as mathematical concepts, hence an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “determining, via at least one processor, an exercise starting timepoint based on the first sensor data;
estimating an exercise posture of a user based on the second sensor data;
correcting the second sensor data by calibrating an orientation of the electronic device to an earth-fixed North East Up (NEU) coordinate system centered on a surface of the earth;
estimating a pattern of change in distance between each of the plurality of external electronic devices, indicated by changes in the relative position between each the plurality of external electronic devices over a time period after the determined exercise starting timepoint, and based on the third sensor data, wherein the pattern of change comprises a sequence of increasing and decreasing relative distances between the plurality of external electronic devices; and
generating exercise information based on the estimated exercise posture and the estimated pattern of change in distance between the plurality of external electronic devices by comparing the sequence of increasing and decreasing relative distances between the plurality of external electronic devices and predetermined patterns associated with known motions,”
In claims 1, 12 and 20, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, the waveform data, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to perform the calculations to obtain the start time via pen and paper. He/she would further be able to obtain at least one feature value, for example, an amplitude or a highest peak, via visual examination, and further to estimate the start times. He/she would further be able to analyze the sensor data to determine a posture and a pattern of change. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the waveforms, the peaks and the bio-information to be identified. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the identification of peaks mentally or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 12 and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) “receiving, via a communication circuit, first sensor data including a heart rate, second sensor data indicating a posture of a first external electronic device from among the plurality of external electronic devices, and third sensor data indicating relative position between the plurality of external electronic devices; correcting the second sensor data based on a calibration against a surface of the earth”
(2) “an output module; output the generated exercise information via the output module.”.
(3) “at least one processor”.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (2) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
The steps in (3) merely recite generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea on, as tools.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1, 12 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of “receiving, via a communication circuit, first sensor data including a heart rate, second sensor data indicating a posture of a first external electronic device from among the plurality of external electronic devices, and third sensor data indicating relative position between the plurality of external electronic devices;”
(2) “an output module; output the generated exercise information via the output module.”.
(3) “at least one processor”.
These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for measuring a heart rate and posture information, and outputting a notification amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
The recited processors are generic computer elements (i.d. pages 5-7] describing generic computers).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 12 and 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 12 and 20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 recitations further limits the abstract idea above, more specifically claiming the mathematical concepts merely further defines the mental process or mathematical equations discussed above.
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely et al. (US 2016/0256082 A1) (“Ely”) in view of Wells et al. (US 2015/0287338 A1) (“Wells”).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20 Ely discloses A method/device/wearable device of operating an electronic device interoperating with a plurality of external electronic devices, the method comprising (Abstract and entire document):
receiving, via a communication circuit, first sensor data including a heart rate ([0035], “Sensor devices 108 can gather sensor data and communicate the data to user device 102. For example, sensor devices 108 can gather sensor data related to position, movement, temperature, humidity, pressure, or the like and transmit the data to user device 102. In some examples, one sensor device 108 can transmit data to another sensor device 108, such as transmitting a heartbeat signal or ping signal to another sensor device, which can be used to determine relative position, distance, and other information (e.g., as in RF time of flight ranging).” And see further [0045], “Force/pressure sensor 240 can also detect force and/or pressure that can be used to determine a user's blood pressure, heart rate or pulse, and the like.” A first sensor determines heart rate and communicates via a communication circuit, the heart rate, see also [0056]),
second sensor data indicating a posture of a first external electronic device from among the plurality of external electronic devices, and
third sensor data indicating relative position between the plurality of external electronic devices;
determining, via at least one processor, an exercise starting timepoint based on the first sensor data;
estimating an exercise posture of a user based on the second sensor data;
estimating a pattern of change in distance between each of the plurality of external electronic devices, indicated by changes in the relative position between each the plurality of external electronic devices over a time period after the determined exercise starting timepoint, and based on the third sensor data, wherein the pattern of change comprises a sequence of increasing and decreasing relative distances between the plurality of external electronic devices; and
generating exercise information based on the estimated exercise posture and the estimated pattern of change in distance between the plurality of external electronic devices by comparing the sequence of increasing and decreasing relative distances between the plurality of external electronic devices and predetermined patterns associated with known motions,
wherein the exercise information comprises an identification of stationary part of a user's body having muscles that are exercised.
Ely fails to disclose correcting the second sensor data by calibrating an orientation of the electronic device to an earth-fixed North East Up (NEU) coordinate system centered on a surface of the earth;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wells teaches correcting the second sensor data by calibrating an orientation of the electronic device to an earth-fixed North East Up (NEU) coordinate system centered on a surface of the earth ([0240 – 0242] discussing pitch and roll angles and a earth based coordinate system centered on a surface of earth);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method/device as taught by Ely as modified to include correcting the second sensor data by calibrating an orientation of the electronic device to an earth-fixed North East Up (NEU) coordinate system centered on a surface of the earth as taught by Wells to remove gravity component for further analysis on the movement data ([0240 – 0243]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 1, Ely as modified further discloses wherein the third sensor data comprises measurement data acquired from atmospheric pressure sensors included in the plurality of external electronic devices, and wherein the estimating of the pattern of change comprises acquiring a relative vertical position and a pattern of height change between the plurality of external electronic devices based on the measurement data acquired from the atmospheric pressure sensors (Ely [0045], “Force/pressure sensor 240 can also sense pressure applied to a portion or all of sensor device 108, or in other examples the pressure of the atmosphere surrounding sensor device 108. For example, force/pressure sensor 240 can detect pressure information that can be used to determine an altitude.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 1, Ely as modified further discloses wherein correcting the second sensor data further comprises: configuring roll and pitch values indicated by the second sensor data to be parallel to the surface of the earth, and perpendicular to gravity (Wells [0240 – 0242] discussing pitch and roll angles and a earth based coordinate system centered on a surface of earth).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 1, Ely as modified further discloses wherein estimating the exercise posture comprises: for a time period after the determined exercise starting timepoint, detecting a change in the posture of the first electronic device, including a change in roll and/or pitch, and a degree of the change, as indicated in the second sensor data; and estimating a changed exercise posture from an initial posture indicated during the exercise starting timepoint, based on the detected change in the posture (Wells [0240 – 0242] discussing pitch and roll angles and a earth based coordinate system centered on a surface of earth).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 6, Ely as modified further discloses wherein the initial posture includes at least one of: standing upright perpendicular to a surface of the earth, lying flat parallel to the surface of the earth, and lying face-down parallel to the surface of the earth (Ely [0064], “For example, to recognize that a user is performing a push-up, a sensor can be desirable near the head, neck, or core in addition to a sensor on a wrist or ankle to sense an increasing distance from the ground during the up motion and a decreasing distance during the down motion, as well as to sense that a user is in a prone position during the activity.”).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 1, Ely as modified further discloses wherein detecting the pattern of change in distance between the plurality of external electronic devices further includes: determining whether the pattern indicates that the distance between the plurality of external electronic devices increases and then decreases over the time period after the determined exercise starting timepoint, or whether the pattern indicates that the distance between the plurality of external electronic devices decreases and then increases over the time period after the determined exercise starting timepoint (Ely [0064 – 0065], “Any of a variety of exercises and physical activities can be automatically recognized and/or tracked using a sensor network as discussed herein. For example, a sensor network that includes sensors near a user's wrist, ankle, head, and waist can be used to automatically recognize and track a wide variety of strength training exercises, such as chin ups, pull ups, dips, lateral pull-downs, overhead shoulder presses, bent-over barbell rows, bent-over dumbbell rows, upright rows, cable rows, barbell bench presses, dumbbell bench presses, pushups, squats,” and “For example, to recognize that a user is performing a push-up, a sensor can be desirable near the head, neck, or core in addition to a sensor on a wrist or ankle to sense an increasing distance from the ground during the up motion and a decreasing distance during the down motion, as well as to sense that a user is in a prone position during the activity.”).
Regarding claim 9, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 1, Ely as modified further discloses wherein the generated exercise information further includes at least one of: user posture information for an exercise based on an inclination indicated by the estimated exercise posture (Ely [0064], “For example, to recognize that a user is performing a push-up, a sensor can be desirable near the head, neck, or core in addition to a sensor on a wrist or ankle to sense an increasing distance from the ground during the up motion and a decreasing distance during the down motion, as well as to sense that a user is in a prone position during the activity.”); and
repetition count information to be performed the user, based on the estimated pattern of change in distance between the plurality of external electronic devices (Ely [0064 – 0067], discussing tracking repetitions).
Regarding claim 10, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 1, Ely as modified further discloses wherein further comprises at least one of: estimating the relative position between each of the plurality of external electronic devices according to a height difference between each of the plurality of external electronic devices, based on sensor data indicative of respective heights of each of the plurality of external electronic devices relative to a surface of the earth (Ely [0064], “For example, to recognize that a user is performing a push-up, a sensor can be desirable near the head, neck, or core in addition to a sensor on a wrist or ankle to sense an increasing distance from the ground during the up motion and a decreasing distance during the down motion, as well as to sense that a user is in a prone position during the activity.”), and
estimating a second pattern of change based on fourth sensor data acquired from each of the plurality of external electronic devices, respectively indicating movement directions of each of the plurality of external electronic devices (Ely [0035], “Sensor devices 108 can gather sensor data and communicate the data to user device 102. For example, sensor devices 108 can gather sensor data related to position, movement, temperature, humidity, pressure, or the like and transmit the data to user device 102. In some examples, one sensor device 108 can transmit data to another sensor device 108, such as transmitting a heartbeat signal or ping signal to another sensor device, which can be used to determine relative position, distance, and other information (e.g., as in RF time of flight ranging).”).
Regarding claim 11, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 10, Ely as modified further discloses wherein the exercise information is generated for a target area, indicating a region of a user's body targeted by the exercise, based one or more of: the estimated exercise posture, the estimated pattern of change in the distance between the plurality of external electronic devices, the estimated relative position between the external electronic devices according to the height difference, and the estimated second pattern of change indicating the movement direction of each of the plurality of external electronic devices (Ely [0064 – 0065], “Any of a variety of exercises and physical activities can be automatically recognized and/or tracked using a sensor network as discussed herein. For example, a sensor network that includes sensors near a user's wrist, ankle, head, and waist can be used to automatically recognize and track a wide variety of strength training exercises, such as chin ups, pull ups, dips, lateral pull-downs, overhead shoulder presses, bent-over barbell rows, bent-over dumbbell rows, upright rows, cable rows, barbell bench presses, dumbbell bench presses, pushups, squats,”).
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely in view of Wells in further view of Leboeuf et al. (WO 2015/131065 A1) (“Leboeuf”).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 1, Ely as modified fails to disclose wherein the determining of the exercise starting timepoint comprises: detecting a first peak value and a second peak value of a heart rate based on the first sensor data;
comparing a ratio between the first peak value and the second peak value to a predetermined threshold; and
determining a timepoint corresponding to the first peak value as an exercise starting timepoint, based on a result of the comparing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Leboeuf teaches wherein the determining of the exercise starting timepoint comprises: detecting a first peak value and a second peak value of a heart rate based on the first sensor data (page 15 lines 24-38 discusses using peaks and ratios and thresholds to determine exercise start time);
comparing a ratio between the first peak value and the second peak value to a predetermined threshold (page 15 lines 24-38 discusses using peaks and ratios and thresholds to determine exercise start time); and
determining a timepoint corresponding to the first peak value as an exercise starting timepoint, based on a result of the comparing (page 15 lines 24-38 discusses using peaks and ratios and thresholds to determine exercise start time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method/device as taught by Ely as modified to include wherein the determining of the exercise starting timepoint comprises: detecting a first peak value and a second peak value of a heart rate based on the first sensor data; comparing a ratio between the first peak value and the second peak value to a predetermined threshold; and determining a timepoint corresponding to the first peak value as an exercise starting timepoint, based on a result of the comparing as taught by Leboeuf to increase accuracy, see page one last paragraph.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ely as modified discloses The method of claim 2, Ely as modified fails to disclose wherein the first sensor data includes a waveform indicative of changes of the heart rate over time;
wherein the first peak value includes a most-recent peak indicated in the waveform, and
wherein the second peak value includes at least one peak value acquired prior to acquisition of the first peak value, as indicated in the waveform.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Leboeuf teaches wherein the first sensor data includes a waveform indicative of changes of the heart rate over time (FIG. 18 and associated paragraphs);
wherein the first peak value includes a most-recent peak indicated in the waveform (page 15 lines 24-38 discusses using peaks and ratios and thresholds to determine exercise start time), and
wherein the second peak value includes at least one peak value acquired prior to acquisition of the first peak value, as indicated in the waveform (page 15 lines 24-38 discusses using peaks and ratios and thresholds to determine exercise start time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method/device as taught by Ely as modified to include wherein the first peak value includes a most-recent peak indicated in the waveform, and wherein the second peak value includes at least one peak value acquired prior to acquisition of the first peak value, as indicated in the waveform as taught by Leboeuf to increase accuracy, see page one last paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the arguments respect to the 101 rejections, the arguments are not persuasive. The “correcting the second sensor data by calibrating an orientation of the electronic device to an earth-fixed North East Up (NEU) coordinate system centered on a surface of the earth;” is part of the abstract idea. Calibrating the sensor data to earth coordinates, or manipulating the data with mathematics to result in different data, is also a mathematical concept. The mathematical equation must not be recited for this to be considered a mathematical concept. This is further part of the broader abstract idea of then using this data for the calculations of posture and exercise. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive. The arguments further state this calibration cannot be a mental process. However, using a generic computer as a tool, the calibration is performed requiring no more than a change in the data structure and the arguments that no additional equipment besides pen and paper can be used are incorrect. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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 on 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 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.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791