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
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method comprising: obtaining, with at least one processor of a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user, sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate; estimating, with the at least one processor, centripetal acceleration based on the user's acceleration and rotation rate while the user is running; calculating, with the at least one processor, a modified user's acceleration by subtracting the estimated centripetal acceleration from the user's acceleration; estimating, with the at least one processor, center of mass (CoM) acceleration by decoupling an arm swing component of the user's acceleration from the modified user's acceleration; and computing, with the at least one processor, vertical oscillation of the user's CoM using a machine learning model with at least the CoM acceleration as input to the machine learning model.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the 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 claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the 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 limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method comprising: obtaining, with at least one processor of a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user, sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate while the user is running;
In Claim 8: A method comprising: obtaining, with at least one processor of a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user, sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate while the user is running;
In Claim 9: A system comprising: at least one processor of a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user, sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate while the user is running;
In Claim 16: A system comprising: obtaining sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate while the user is running;
In Claim 17: A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate while the user is running.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a processor of a wearable device (Claims 1, 8, 9, and 17) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines. The limitations that generically recite obtaining sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate while the user is running represent insignificant represent extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including Mariani and Adams.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 10-15, and 18-19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Prior Art Analysis
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
Hyung Suk Young et al., “Effects of constrained arm swing on vertical center of mass displacement during walking”, Gait & Posture, Volume 42, Issue 4, October 2015, Pages 430-434, hereinafter ‘Young’ discloses determining center of mass (CoM) acceleration (p.431). Young also discloses vertical displacement of the body affected by the arm swings (Abstract, p.430) and determining the effects of constraining arm swing on the vertical displacement of the body’s COM during treadmill walking, p.431). Young further discloses the total body’s COM would be reduced with arm swing compared to constraining the arms because the vertical oscillation of the COM of the arms occurs in opposition to the vertical oscillation of the COM of the body minus the arms, p. 430.
Gregory Bryant Hayes et al. (US 20200250956), hereinafter ‘Hayes’, discloses obtaining, with at least one processor of a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user, sensor data indicative of the user's acceleration and rotation rate (The wrist-worn IMU generated raw data sampled at 50 Hz and included of 6 quantities: (1) Linear acceleration in the x-, y-, and z-axes (sampled from a triaxial accelerometer) and (2) Rotation rate about the x-, y-, and z-axes (sampled from a triaxial gyroscope) [0198]).
Chapter 10.3 Relating Angular and Translational Quantities, University Physics Volume 1, University of Central Florida, 2016-2020, 14 pages (https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/osuniversityphysics/chapter/10-3-relating-angular-and-translational-quantities/#:~:text=a%20c%20=%20v%20t%202,uniform%20and%20nonuniform%20circular%20motion), hereinafter ‘UCF’, discloses estimating, with the at least one processor, centripetal acceleration based on acceleration and rotation rate (pp.2-4).
UCF also discloses that “The total linear acceleration vector is the vector sum of the centripetal and tangential accelerations, centripetal acceleration” (p.4).
Benoit Mariani et al. (US 20200072690), hereinafter ‘Mariani’, discloses implementing a machine learning technique, one of the sensors or another wearable device is a self-learning power meter equipped with a microprocessor and an embedded machine learning library; signal processing performed in real-time and the ground reaction forces acting on the runner's body is modelled using the acceleration and angular velocity obtained from body-worn sensors.
Douglas Adams et al., “ALTERING CADENCE OR VERTICAL OSCILLATION DURING RUNNING: EFFECTS ON RUNNING RELATED INJURY FACTORS”, The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 13, Number 4 | August 2018, pp. 633-642, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6088121/pdf/ijspt-13-633.pdf, discloses wearable device’s running parameters including vertical oscillations during running.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-19 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Young, Hayes, UCF, and Mariani, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious calculating, with the at least one processor, a modified user's acceleration by subtracting the estimated centripetal acceleration from the user's acceleration; estimating, with the at least one processor, center of mass (CoM) acceleration by decoupling an arm swing component of the user's acceleration from the modified user's acceleration; and computing, with the at least one processor, vertical oscillation of the user's CoM using a machine learning model with at least the CoM acceleration as input to the machine learning model, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to all independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The 35 USC § 112 rejection dated 12/8/2025 has been withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.10): the mathematical concept of "subtraction" itself is not recited in claims 1- 20. That is, claims 1-20 are not claiming or preempting the "subtraction" formula, but rather are claiming a specific, non-conventional implementation of estimating vertical oscillation of a runner using a sensor attached to the wrist of the runner that happens to involve the mathematical concept of "subtraction." Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not abstract based at least on the case law Diamond and Thales which are set forth in MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)I of patent eligible claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites mathematical relationships in several limitations as explained in the rejection. It is supported by the Specification in [0004, 009, 0029, 0031, 0032, 0034, 0040].
The Examiner also notes that the referenced court cases do include abstract ideas but were found eligible as reciting meaningful additional elements.
The Applicant argues (p.12-13): In the present matter, the Examiner failed to consider all the features in the claims and how they interact …
Contrary to the Examiner, the claimed steps recited above are specific implementation steps that impose meaningful limitations on the claims of the solution. It is the incorporation of these specific implementation steps in the claims and not the use of a computer that improves the practical application of estimating the vertical oscillation of a runner.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant did not give examples what would be meaningful limitations that illustrate a practical application. The Examiner, as explained in the rejection, does not consider collecting acceleration/rotation data as well as a processor of a wearable device worn on a wrist as meaningful limitations that indicate a practical application. The Examiner considered the additional elements and their interaction. However, the only interaction is supplying data necessary for all uses of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.-5(g)) : Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). These limitations/additional elements correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The Applicant argues (p.14): In the present application, the elements labeled by the Examiner as abstract are not insignificant post-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception. Rather, these elements describe specific implementation steps for estimating vertical oscillation of a runner. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this argument, the Applicant did not name any additional elements that would qualify for significantly more. The “specific implementation steps for estimating vertical oscillation of a runner” are abstract idea steps using insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. However, according to the October 2019 Update on 2019 PEG: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights