DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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, 3-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 13 recites a method comprising:
collecting motion data comprising myoelectric data collected by sensors of a wearable device;
determining a target force contribution ratio of muscles;
obtaining reference motion corresponding to the myoelectric data;
determining a reference force contribution ratio of the target muscles; and
generating a virtual user character and virtual reference character on an interface.
The limitations of obtaining motion data, determining a ratio, obtaining reference motion, determining a reference force ratio, and generating virtual characters, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor” and “user interface”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” and “user interface” language, “obtaining”, “generating” and “displaying” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually obtaining the motion data by reading or observing sensor data, generating a model, for example as a purely mental exercise or using a pen and paper, and displaying the character, for example using a pen and paper. The claims are akin to those in Electric Power Group, which the court found to be directed to an abstract method of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using a processor and user interface to perform the claimed steps. The processor and user interface in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, i.e. to obtain data, analyze it, and display it using virtual characters on a generic display. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, to the extent that the claims positively recite a plurality of sensors of a wearable device, these sensors are involved merely in the pre-solution data gathering and only add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor and user interface to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, displaying myoelectric data using a virtual character represents well-understood, routine and conventional activity, as demonstrated by Okada (US 2017/0236442 A1), Par. 156, Fig. 13, and Ortiz Catalan (US 2017/0025026 A1), Par. 71. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-12 and 15-20 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract details relating to the types of motion data (e.g. myoelectric data), the generating of the model (e.g. statuses, force ratios etc. for different body areas), and the display of the character (displaying the myoelectric data and other data according to the model) in a manner that, in the context of these claims encompasses a user performing these steps. Accordingly, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 4 recites determining display statuses of the user display areas and user myoelectric animation on the user interface, and claim 7 further recites determining a user motion period of a motion of the user and a corresponding reference motion period of the user based on the reference motion data, performing a duration adjustment, aligning a start time of the reference motion period, performing time alignment processing on the adjusted user myoelectric animation and the reference myoelectric animation, and synchronously displaying the user myoelectric animation and the reference myoelectric animation separately. This process of performing a duration adjustment and time alignment processing in order to synchronously display the myoelectric animations represents an improvement to a particular technical field, and therefore is directed to patentable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 03 May 2026 with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a specific technical solution for quantifying and visually correcting muscle force exertion during bodybuilding exercise. However, it is not clear in what way the claim recites a specific technical solution. The claim merely recites generally collecting myoelectric data, analyzing it, and displaying the results using generic virtual characters. A human cannot literally generate virtual characters on a display; however, a human can decide where to place sensors to obtain data, analyze the data, and decide how to display the results. The use of a computer display to generate virtual character is addressed in Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Applicant further argues any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because the technical features define how physiological data are transformed into a visual representation, to accurately reflect the distribution of muscle force. This is not persuasive. As noted above, the visual representation utilizes generic virtual characters to display collected myoelectric data in a generic manner, and therefore does not represent any technical improvement.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that the claims are not analogous to Electric Power Group, but instead are akin to those in McRO. However, the claim in McRO were found to be eligible because they were directed to a very particular method for animating lip synchronization and facial expression of animated characters, including obtaining a timed data file, generating output morph weight sets and transition parameters, generating a final stream of output morph weight sets at a desired frame rate, and applying the final stream of output morph weights, which served as an improved method of animating lip synchronization. Instant claim 1, on the other hand, merely recites comparing parameters of myoelectric data of a user to reference myoelectric data and displaying the results using generic virtual characters.
Conclusion
6. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday 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, Xuan Thai, can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights