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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea or mental) without significantly more.
The Claims recite:
1. A cycling sport performance level analysis system comprising: an artificial intelligence classification analysis module (additional element analyzed under step 2B); a bicycle apparatus (additional element analyzed under step 2B) electrically connected to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module; a classification knowledge rule module (additional element analyzed under step 2B) electrically connected to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module and the bicycle apparatus; and a cyclist information module (additional element analyzed under step 2B) electrically connected to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module, wherein the classification knowledge rule module (additional element analyzed under step 2B) is configured to transmit a classification test task rule to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module and the bicycle apparatus; the classification test task rule comprises a track information; the bicycle apparatus (additional element analyzed under step 2B) is configured to perform the classification test task rule so that the bicycle apparatus is configured to be controlled based on the track information; the bicycle apparatus is configured to collect a sport sensing information sensed by the bicycle apparatus per unit time to transmit the sport sensing information to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module; the cyclist information module is configured to transmit a cyclist basic information and a track historical riding information to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module; the artificial intelligence classification analysis module (additional element analyzed under step 2B) is configured to analyze the sport sensing information, the track information, the cyclist basic information and the track historical riding information (step 2A, prong 1: abstract idea, mental process, one can analyze information in their mind) to generate a cycling sport performance level analysis result (step 2A, prong 1: abstract idea, mental process, one can generate an analysis in their mind or by pen/paper); based on the cycling sport performance level analysis result, the artificial intelligence classification analysis module is configured to perform a cyclist sport training management plan or recommends a sport merchandise (step 2A, prong 1: abstract idea, mental process, one can perform/formulate a plan or recommendation in their mind).
2. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 1, further comprising: a cycling sport performance level analysis data base (additional element analyzed under step 2B) electrically connected to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module, wherein the artificial intelligence classification analysis module is configured to transmit the cycling sport performance level analysis result to the cycling sport performance level analysis data base; the cycling sport performance level analysis data base is configured to store the cycling sport performance level analysis result.
3. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 2, wherein the bicycle apparatus comprises: a communication module (additional element analyzed under step 2B) electrically connected to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module and the classification knowledge rule module, wherein the communication module is configured to transmit the sport sensing information to the artificial intelligence classification analysis module through an internet.
4. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 3, wherein the bicycle apparatus further comprises: a sensing module (additional element analyzed under step 2B) electrically connected to the communication module, wherein the sensing module is configured to collect the sport sensing information sensed by the sensing module per unit time.
5. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 4, wherein the bicycle apparatus further comprises: a display module (additional element analyzed under step 2B) electrically connected to the communication module, wherein the display module is configured to display the track information.
6. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 5, wherein the bicycle apparatus further comprises: a sport module (additional element analyzed under step 2B), wherein the display module is arranged on the sport module; the sport module is configured 25 to be controlled based on the track information.
7. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 6, wherein the sport sensing information comprises a riding power, a riding speed, a riding rhythm, and a cyclist image data.
8. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 7, wherein the cycling sport performance level analysis result comprises an explosive sprint type and an endurance uniform speed type.
9. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 8, wherein the explosive sprint type comprises a sprint entry level, a sprint general level, a sprint advanced level, a sprint development team level, a sprint youth professional level and a sprint elite level.
10. The cycling sport performance level analysis system of claim 9, wherein the endurance uniform speed type comprises a uniform speed entry level, a uniform speed general level, a uniform speed advanced level, a uniform speed development team level, a uniform speed youth professional level and a uniform speed elite level.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
In re-evaluating the additional elements identified in the claims above, the claims require the additional elements of: "an artificial intelligence classification analysis module", "bicycle apparatus", "classification knowledge rule module", " cyclist information module", "cycling sport performance level analysis data base", " a communication module", "cycling sport performance level analysis data base", "a sensing module", "a display module", "a sport module" which are additional elements that merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements do not amount to a practical application because the limitations appear to be extra solution activity where data to be analyzed is obtained by the abstract idea or mental process.
The additional elements appear to be routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by Applicant’s description:
1) The “artificial intelligence classification analysis module”, “classification knowledge rule module”, “cyclist information module” to be microprocessors, or may be integrated into a single microprocessor as described on paragraph [0020].
2) The “bicycle apparatus” to be a generic bicycle including "a sport module" having bicycle components as a bicycle frame and pedals as described on paras. [0o24]
3) The "cycling sport performance level analysis data base" to be a data base such as memory as described on para. [0023].
4) The "communication module" to be a communication circuit as described on para. [0024].
5) The "sensing module" to be a sensor such as a wearable apparatus as described on para. [0024].
6) The "display module" to be a display as described on para. [0024].
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms artificial intelligence classification analysis module”, “classification knowledge rule module”, “cyclist information module”, and “cycling sport performance level analysis data base” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices/microprocessor/memory. 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 technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the additional elements "bicycle apparatus", "communication module", "sensing module", "display module", "sport module" are generic components subject to the extra solution activity where data/information to be analyzed is transmitted or received by the abstract idea.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed 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., the “artificial intelligence classification analysis module”, “classification knowledge rule module”, “cyclist information module” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements in combination with a bicycle apparatus which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer involving a bicycle according to MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 (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 according to MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent claims 2-10 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 claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d) or mental process as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-10 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-10 are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S LO whose telephone number is (571)270-1702. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. (9:30 am - 5:30 pm EST).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached on (571) 272-4966. 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.
/ANDREW S LO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784