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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12/18/25.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13.
Currently, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 13,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “the sensors being configured to detect at least one physical parameter; at least one performance capturing device positioned along a length of the enclosure; receive sensor and performance capturing device data and generate an output signal; provide feedback to an operator based on the output signal” (claim 1), “prompting the user to begin the running performance; detecting a completion of the running performance with the sensors” (claim 13), are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-20 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 are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “an enclosure defining a tunnel, the enclosure having a first end, a second end, and at least one sidewall extending between the first and second ends; a substantially flat running surface disposed in the tunnel within a floor of the enclosure; a plurality of sensors disposed along the a length of the running surface; a computing device operatively connected to the sensors; an I/O device configured to interact with the computing device; a storage system configured to store program instructions; and a computing system comprising the computing device, the 1/O device, and the storage system”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these 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 generically recited computer 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 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activities. For instance, Backstrom, Holley, Brunner (2016/0144238), and Basta (2020/0221975) teaches the additional elements of a tunnel and a plurality of sensors disposed along the length of the running surface, a computing system comprising the computing device, an I/O device, and a storage system (Backstrom: A new wind tunnel facility, pages 1-6, Holley, Fig 3-4, ¶0142; Brunner, ¶¶0007, 0026, 0035, 0041; Basta, ¶¶0081, 0095-0096, 0105-0107, 0115).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth Potier (NPL: Nike's Breaking2 running project tapped UNH's Flow Physics Facility) in view of Brunner (2016/0144238) and Basta et al. (2020/0221975).
Re Claim 1,
Potier discloses a system for determining a running performance of a user, the system comprising: an enclosure defining a tunnel, the enclosure having a first end, a second end, and at least one sidewall extending between the first and second ends; a substantially flat running surface disposed in the tunnel within a floor of the enclosure (pg 1-2; a wind tunnel structure is considered as an enclosure defining a tunnel, treadmills are placed within the wind tunnel).
Potier further discloses a section of floor are attached with sensors but is silent on a plurality of sensors disposed along the a length of the running surface, the sensors being configured to detect at least one physical parameter; at least one performance capturing device positioned along a length of the enclosure; a computing device operatively connected to the sensors configured to receive sensor and performance capturing device data and generate an output signal; an I/O device configured to interact with the computing device and provide feedback to an operator based on the output signal; a storage system configured to store program instructions; and a computing system comprising the computing device, the 1/O device, and the storage system.
However, Brunner teaches a plurality of sensors disposed along the length of the running surface and receiving data from the sensor (¶¶0007, 0026, 0035, 0041, 0048). Brunner further teaches such a configuration improves the training process by detecting gait parameters of a user (¶0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Brunner into the training system of Holley in order to improve the training process by detecting gait parameters of a user.
Basta teaches at least one performance capturing device positioned along a length of the enclosure; a computing device operatively connected to the sensors configured to receive sensor and performance capturing device data and generate an output signal; an I/O device configured to interact with the computing device and provide feedback to an operator based on the output signal; a storage system configured to store program instructions; and a computing system comprising the computing device, the 1/O device, and the storage system (¶¶0026-0027, 0081, 0095-0096, 0105-0107, 0115). Basta further teaches such a configuration improves a user training ability (¶0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Basta into the system of Potier in order to improve a user training ability.
Re Claim 2,
Potier discloses the tunnel is a closable space configured to isolate an interior of the tunnel from an environment surrounding the tunnel (¶¶0023, 0142).
Re Claim 8,
Potier discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on one or more wearable devices, the one or more wearable devices including one or more mobile sensors; and the program instructions further control the system to: log data of the running performance received from the one or more wearable sensors; and combine the data of the running performance received from the sensors with the data of the running performance received from the one or more wearable sensors. However, Brunner teaches one or more wearable devices, the one or more wearable devices including one or more mobile sensors; and the program instructions further control the system to: log data of the running performance received from the one or more wearable sensors; and combine the data of the running performance received from the sensors with the data of the running performance received from the one or more wearable sensors (¶¶0040-0042). Brunner further teaches such a configuration can measure the movement of the complete lower extremities or of the whole body (¶0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Brunner into the training system of Holley in order to provide an enhanced feedback by measuring the movement of the complete lower extremities or of the whole body.
Re Claim 9,
Potier discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the one or more wearable sensors are configured to capture biometric data and motion data. However, Brunner teaches the one or more wearable sensors are configured to capture biometric data and motion data (¶¶0040-0042). See claim 8 for motivation.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth Potier (NPL: Nike's Breaking2 running project tapped UNH's Flow Physics Facility) in view of Brunner (2016/0144238) and Basta et al. (2020/0221975), further in view of Halverson (2008/0302026).
Re Claim 3,
Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the tunnel is portable. However, Halverson teaches a modular training facility (¶0010). Halverson further teaches such a configuration permits expandable capabilities and be moveable to allow for operation at alternative site locations (¶0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Halverson into the training system of Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta in order to permit expandable capabilities and be moveable to allow for operation at alternative site locations.
Re Claim 4,
Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on modular sections. However, Halverson teaches modular sections (¶0010). See claim 3 for motivation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth Potier (NPL: Nike's Breaking2 running project tapped UNH's Flow Physics Facility) in view of Brunner (2016/0144238) and Basta et al. (2020/0221975), further in view of Kitagawa (2009/0133492).
Re Claim 6,
Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta discloses all limitations as set forth above including a substantially cylindrical shape but is silent on the running surface extends along a long axis of the tunnel. However Kitagawa teaches the running surface extends along a long axis of the tunnel (¶¶0009-0010, 0024). Kitagawa further teaches such a configuration can better assess a user’s physical abilities (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kitagawa into the tunnel of Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta in order to better assess a user’s physical abilities.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth Potier (NPL: Nike's Breaking2 running project tapped UNH's Flow Physics Facility) in view of Brunner (2016/0144238) and Basta et al. (2020/0221975), further in view of Pauws et al. (2008/0188354).
Re Claim 10,
Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on audio devices, display devices, and lighting devices; and the program instructions further control the system to, based on the data of the running performance, provide audiovisual cues using the audio devices, the display devices, and the lighting devices. However, Pauws teaches audio devices, display devices, and lighting devices; and the program instructions further control the system to, based on the data of the running performance, provide audiovisual cues using the audio devices, the display devices, and the lighting devices (¶¶0008, 0075). Pauws further teaches such a configuration provides feedback that adapts the current training method (¶0101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Paws into the training system of Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta in order to provide feedback that adapts the current training method.
Re Claim 11,
Potier as modified by Brunner discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the audiovisual cues indicate a target running pace. However, Pauws teaches the audiovisual cues indicate a target running pace (¶¶0008-0010). See claim 10 for motivation.
Re Claim 12,
Potier as modified by Brunner discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the audiovisual cues comprise time-synchronized recordings of previous running performances. However, Pauws teaches the audiovisual cues comprise time-synchronized recordings of previous running performances (¶¶0008-0010). See claim 10 for motivation.
Re Claim 13,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and prompting the user to begin the running performance and detecting a completion of the running performance with the sensors (pg 1-2; Basta, ¶¶0081, 0095-0096, 0105-0107, 0115). See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Re Claim 14,
Potier disclose all limitations as set forth above but is silent on receiving a selection of user preferences. However, Basta teaches receiving a selection of user preferences (¶¶0081, 0095-0096, 0105-0107, 0115).
Re Claim 15,
Potier disclose all limitations as set forth above but is silent on receiving a selection of an audiovisual presentation. However, Basta teaches receiving a selection of an audiovisual presentation (¶¶0081, 0095-0096, 0105-0107, 0115).
Re Claim 16,
Potier disclose all limitations as set forth above but is silent on receiving a selection of performance preferences. However, Basta teaches receiving a selection of performance preferences (¶¶0081, 0095-0096, 0105-0107, 0115).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth Potier (NPL: Nike's Breaking2 running project tapped UNH's Flow Physics Facility) in view of Brunner (2016/0144238) and Basta et al. (2020/0221975), further in view of Jones et al. (2015/0317125).
Re Claim 17,
Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on receiving a selection of cueing preferences. However, Jones teaches receiving a selection of cueing preferences (¶¶0012, 0039). Jones further teaches such a configuration facilitates user friendly delivery of messages that people can obtain to aid them in thinking more positively about their personnel challenges (¶0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Jones into the training system of Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta in order to facilitate user friendly delivery of messages that people can obtain to aid them in thinking more positively about their personnel challenges.
Re Claim 18,
Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta discloses all limitations as set forth above including a user’s pace but is silent on triggering cueing based on the user preferences. However, Jones teaches triggering cueing based on the user preferences (¶¶0012, 0039). See claim 17 for motivation.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth Potier (NPL: Nike's Breaking2 running project tapped UNH's Flow Physics Facility) in view of Brunner (2016/0144238) and Basta et al. (2020/0221975), further in view of Aman et al. (2015/0297949).
Re Claim 20,
Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on fusing the image data and the sensor data. However, Aman teaches fusing the image data and the sensor data (¶¶0419, 0466). Aman further teaches such a configuration can provide additional information without wasting bandwidth (¶0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Aman into the training system of Potier as modified by Brunner and Basta in order to provide additional information without wasting bandwidth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Applicant argues that the amended claims are eligible for patent protection because they are directed to a system having both mechanical features and electronic components. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the amended claims include electronic components, the claimed invention is focus on monitoring a user’s performance and providing feedback. As result, under Step 2A Prong 1, the identified limitations are considered to fall within mental processes grouping. Applicant further argues that Examiner fails to consider the claim as a whole when performing the Step 2A analysis. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 101 analysis follows the 2019 PEG and identifies limitations that are considered to fall within the abstract idea grouping.
Furthermore, under Prong 2, the recited mechanical and electronic components are implemented to provide a performance monitoring area that collects data, analyzes the collected data, and provides feedback to the user. In other words, the recited electronic components are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these 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. Therefore, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Further, Applicant argues that the amended claims improve how information from running performance is collected and examined by providing a more natural, efficient, and user-friendly means of capturing and reporting running performance data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument describes desired results for the claimed invention and has not identified any “improved technological result” generated by the identified limitations. Cf. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims are directed to an inventive concept in view of Bascom and Rapid Litigation Management. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, the claims provides an inventive concept with the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. In Rapid Litigation Management, the claims are directed to a new and useful laboratory technique for producing a desired product. Here, in contrast, the electronic components such as sensors, a computing device, an I/O device and a storage device are merely used to collect and analyze data. All of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, they fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Applicant further argues that an enclosure defining a tunnel qualifies for a particular machine. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited elements are broadly claimed and can be interpreted as a general physical structure, for example, a wind tunnel. The abstract idea of monitoring a user’s performance inside a wind tunnel does not qualify the enclosure as a particular machine. For a particular machine, if applicant amends a claim to describe how generic computer components recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' in collecting, monitoring and analyzing data, then Examiner could consider the recited elements as a particular machine. Further, in Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept. Therefore, for the reasons as set forth above, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/18/25 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.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715