DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/23/2026.
2. Claim 11 is canceled.
3. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
a) In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, “… It is respectfully submitted, however, that amended claim 1 now recites additional features which cannot reasonably be performed entirely "in the mind" or using pen and paper, and which are not directed to an abstract "mathematical concept." In particular, as recited in amended claim 1, the hardware processor, under control of a stored program, performs a specific series of processes based on specific acceleration data (relating to movement of legs of a user during exercise) output by an acceleration sensor during the exercise of a user, and also generates corrected velocity data used for obtaining a specific characteristic of the user (left-right movement of the user during the exercise) by real-time signal processing of the output acceleration data during the exercise. It is respectfully submitted that these features recited in amended claim 1 are inextricably linked to computer technology and are recited with sufficient specificity so as to preclude performance thereof solely "in the mind," such that amended claim 1 is not "directed to" an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One of the USPTO eligibility analysis.”
In response to argument:
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “derive velocity data based on the acceleration data and, also, derive an error of the velocity data based on an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, and correct the velocity data using the error of the velocity data to generate corrected velocity data that is used to estimate a left-right movement of the user during the exercise”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data: and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory, wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from the acceleration sensor, the acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise” are additional element. However, the claim limitations “wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from the acceleration sensor, the acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise”, are recited at a high level of generality, and are nothing more than data collection activity for gathering parameters using a well-known conventional sensors and activity previously known in the industry in order to execute an abstract idea, which also does not further limit and integrate the abstract idea in practical application, and as such, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As shown in the prior art, (see, Sato et al. JP 2016034479 A (hereinafter, Sato), ([0144]-[0145]), and Wu et al. EP 3695783 A1 (hereinafter, Wu), ([0011], [0098]), both show that the wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from the acceleration sensor, the acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise are well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such that it amounts to no more than data collection or gathering required to perform the abstract idea.
Further, the claim limitation “an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data, and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory” is also recited at a high level of generality are nothing more than generic computer components performing generic computer function of outputting, storing and processing information which is a well-known conventional computer components previously known in the industry in order to execute an abstract idea, which also does not further limit and integrate the abstract idea in practical application, and as such, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As shown in the prior art, (see, Sato, ([0144]-[0145]), and Wu, ([0011], [0098]), both show that the an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data, and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such that it amounts to no more than data collection or gathering required to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The combination of elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
An electronic device, comprising:
an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data: and
a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory, wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire, from the acceleration sensor, the acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise;
and
derive velocity data based on the acceleration data and, also, derive an error of the velocity data based on an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, and
correct the velocity data using the error of the velocity data to generate corrected velocity data that is used to estimate a left-right movement of the user during the exercise.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data: and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory, wherein the controller is configured to: acquire, from the acceleration sensor, the acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise. The limitation “an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data: and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as computer structure performing storing, processing, and outputting information using computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Further, the claim limitation “acquire, from the acceleration sensor, the acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic acceleration sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a generic sensor and computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Sato et al. JP 2016034479 A (hereinafter, Sato), ([0144]-[0145]), and Wu et al. EP 3695783 A1 (hereinafter, Wu), ([0011], [0098]). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-9, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 3, recites the limitations “an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data: and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory: acquire, from the acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise, and derive position data based on the acceleration data and, also, derive an error of the position data based on an average value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an average value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle, and correct the position data using the error of the position data to generate corrected position data that is used to estimate a left-right movement of the use during exercise.”
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data: and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory: acquire, from the acceleration sensor, acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise. The limitation “an acceleration sensor outputting acceleration data: and a controller comprising at least one hardware processor operating under control of a program stored in a memory” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as computer structure performing storing, processing, and outputting information using computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Further, the claim limitation “acquire, from the acceleration sensor, the acceleration data corresponding to a motion state in a body-lateral direction orthogonal to a body axis of a user that is moving by legs of the user, in relation to movement of the legs of the user during exercise”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic acceleration sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a generic sensor and computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Sato et al. JP 2016034479 A (hereinafter, Sato), ([0144]-[0145]), and Wu et al. EP 3695783 A1 (hereinafter, Wu), ([0011], [0098]). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claim 10, recites addition element of “an attacher that is affixed to a waist of the user”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic hardware). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Sato, ([0111]), and Wu, ([0040]). Therefore, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 14, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Independent claims 13 and 15, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
Prior Art Record
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sato et al. (JP 2016034479 A) discloses measuring acceleration corresponding to a motion state of a body lateral direction orthogonal to the body of the user, drive velocity from the acceleration, and correct the velocity data. Najafi et al. (US 8206325) discloses integrating acceleration to computing user’s lateral velocity during a recognized walking periods. Fyfe (US 5955667) discloses integrating acceleration data to obtain velocity accumulates error and removing that error on a per-stride (gait-cycle) basis.
Examiner’s Note
8. The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art: The limitations “derive velocity data based on the acceleration data and, also, derive an error of the velocity data based on an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an average value of the velocity data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle” that are recited in independent Claims 1, 12, and 14 were not found in the prior art. The most remarkable prior art of record are the Fyfe, Najafi, and Sato references, cited above in the Prior Art of Record section, which does not teach the claimed steps. However, further search/consideration may be required based on Applicant's amendments to the claims in view of the 101 rejections.
Further, the limitations “derive position data based on the acceleration data and, also, derive an error of the position data based on an average value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a first two-step cycle and an average value of the position data of a period that is a multiple of a second two-step cycle that directly precedes or follows the period that is a multiple of the first two-step cycle” that are recited in independent Claims 3, 13, and 15 were not found in the prior art. The most remarkable prior art of record are the Fyfe, Najafi, and Sato references, cited above in the Prior Art of Record section, which does not teach the claimed steps. However, further search/consideration may be required based on Applicant's amendments to the claims in view of the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
9. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights