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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Species I in the reply filed on June 30, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 18 and 19 include the limitation “to receive the selection of the auditory feedback”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the selection”. This limitation should be changed to state “to receive the specification of the auditory feedback” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “determine, based on an evaluation of the sensor values”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sensor values”. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the one or more sensor values, or further limit the one or more sensor values to multiple sensor values. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “determine, based on an evaluation of the one or more sensor values”.
Claim 20 includes the limitation “causes the mobile device to calibrate the plurality of plantar sensor devices based on”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the plurality of plantar sensor devices”. It is unclear whether applicants intend to limit the at least one plantar pressure sensors to multiple plantar pressure sensors. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “causes the mobile device to calibrate the at least one plantar pressure sensors based on”.
Claims 2-5 and 10-19 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 10-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacPherson (US 9,183,822 B2) in view of Takai et al. (US 8,358,906 B2).
Claim 1: MacPherson discloses a system, comprising a plurality of sensors in a user’s shoes (column 10 lines 31-33). An audio output device (speakers) outputs auditory feedback (music) (column 3 lines 53-56), and a mobile device comprising a processor and a plurality of instructions executed by the processor, causes the mobile device to receive, from at least one of the sensors, one or more sensor values corresponding to pace indicative of an actual movement (exercise) of a user during a training session (column 2 lines 3-8), determine, based on an evaluation of the sensor values, a similarity of the actual movement to a target movement (desired pace), modify, as a function of the similarity of the actual movement to the target movement, an auditory feedback to be output (column 9 lines 26-29, 33-41, 45-49), and cause the audio output device to output the auditory feedback (column 2 lines 7-8).
This reference fails to disclose the plurality of sensors to be a plurality of plantar pressure sensors.
However Takai et al. teaches a system, where auditory feedback (content) is modified to synchronize with actual movement of a user (column 1 lines 62-65) using a plurality of sensors in a user’s shoes (column 9 lines 24-31). Said plurality of sensors are plantar sensors such as pressure sensors (column 9 lines 58-65).
Given the teachings of Takai et al., 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 system disclosed in MacPherson with providing the plurality of sensors to be a plurality of plantar pressure sensors. Doing so would allow selection of an auditory feedback based not only on a pace of the activity as taught in MacPherson (column 2 lines 4-5), but based on an intensity as well.
Claim 2: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the auditory feedback is disclosed in MacPherson to be one of a plurality of sequential portions of a music audio track (column 5 lines 44-47).
Claim 10: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the plurality of instructions are disclosed in MacPherson to cause the mobile device to process the one or more sensor values (column 2 lines 3-6) based on a sensor data type corresponding to the plurality of plantar pressor sensors, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 11: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the similarity of the actual movement to the target movement is disclosed in MacPherson to be determined by comparing sensor values of a given sensor data type corresponding to the plurality of plantar sensors, to specified threshold ranges for that sensor data type (column 9 lines 33-41, 45-49).
Claim 12: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system where the plurality of sensors are plantar pressure sensors, and the sensor data type corresponds to the plurality of plantar pressor sensors, as stated above. The sensor data type then comprises at least a plantar pressure.
Claim 13: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the plurality of instructions are disclosed in MacPherson to cause the mobile device to generate the auditory feedback based on a pace of the actual movement (column 2 lines 3-8).
Claim 14: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where selection and initial generation of the auditory feedback is disclosed in MacPherson to be based on a previous actual movement before modification of a tempo of the auditory feedback is needed based on a changed pace (column 2 lines 3-8).
Claim 15: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the plurality of instructions are disclosed in MacPherson to cause the mobile device to receive a specification of one or more parameters (optimal pace) to associate with the training session (column 9 lines 16-23).
Claim 16: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the specification of the one or more parameters is disclosed in MacPherson to be received as a training objective (to run a 10 minute mile) (column 4 line 66 through column 5 line 2).
Claim 17: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the specification of the one or more parameters is disclosed in MacPherson to comprise receiving a specification of an auditory feedback mode (manual selection of pace or automatic adjustment to pace) (column 7 lines 47-58).
Claim 19: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the selection of the auditory feedback mode is disclosed in MacPherson to comprise receiving a selection of an audio generation mode (manual selection of pace or automatic adjustment to pace) (column 7 lines 47-58).
Claim 20: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the plurality of instructions are disclosed in MacPherson to cause the mobile device to calibrate the plurality of sensors based on demographic and bioinformatics data associated with the user (column 3 lines 12-15).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacPherson (US 9,183,822 B2) modified by Takai et al. (US 8,358,906 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Modeste et al. (US 5,852,800).
Claim 3: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the music audio track to include a plurality of audio channels.
However Modeste et al. teaches a system, where a music audio track includes a plurality of audio channels (column 4 lines 56-65).
Given the teachings of Modeste et al., 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 system disclosed in MacPherson as modified by Takai et al. with providing the music audio track to include a plurality of audio channels. Doing so would allow “the maximum data compression ratios of multi-channel sources” via specialized decompression methods, as taught in Modeste et al. (column 7 lines 45-60).
Claims 4 and 5: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. and Modeste et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the auditory feedback is shown in Modeste et al. to activate/deactivate playback of one of the plurality of audio channels (column 4 line 66 through column 5 line 3).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacPherson (US 9,183,822 B2) modified by Takai et al. (US 8,358,906 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Turner (US 10,657,942 B2).
Claim 18: MacPherson modified by Takai et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the selection of the auditory feedback mode to comprises receiving a selection of an audio streaming mode.
However Turner teaches a system, where a selection of an auditory feedback mode includes selection of an audio streaming mode (download or stream) (column 16 lines 6-20).
Given the teachings of Turner, 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 system disclosed in MacPherson as modified by Takai et al. with providing the selection of the auditory feedback mode to comprises receiving a selection of an audio streaming mode. Doing so would allow “a free- or free-based transaction based on a subscription or pay-as-you-go model”, as taught in Turner (column 16 lines 6-9), allowing premium content to be optionally purchased.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,521,623 B2, US 7,544,880 B2, US 7,745,716 B1, US 2011/0022594 A1 and US 8,212,136 B2 pertaining to adjusting a tempo of an auditory feedback based on an activity pace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights