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.
2. Claims 1-18 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “deriving features from the sensor data, estimating stride length using an estimation model that takes the features and user height as input, and calibrating the stride length,” are abstract ideas, as they involve mental process. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. Additionally, the limitations such as “square root of the mean of transverse acceleration,” are abstract ideas, as they involve usage of mathematical concept. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “obtaining, with at least one processor, sensor data from a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user,” “wherein the sensor data includes acceleration and rotation rate,” and “processor,” are nothing more than insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality,” and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines, and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of calibrating the stride length, a value, but improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “obtaining, with at least one processor, sensor data from a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user,” “wherein the sensor data includes acceleration and rotation rate,” and “processor,” are nothing more than insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality,” and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0008394 (hereinafter Rao)
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 13. Rao discloses obtaining, with at least one processor (Paragraphs [0020]-[0021], processor), sensor data from a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user (Fig. 1, wearable, 102; Fig. 2, sensors);
deriving, with the at least one processor, features from the sensor data (Paragraph [0085], pedometer output data based on the motion data from the sensors that is used to determine the stride length, shown in Figs. 8A, 9. Then averaging the stride length);
estimating, with the at least one processor, stride length using an estimation model that takes the features and user height as input (Paragraph [0026], stride length based on average stride length for the user given the gender and height); and
calibrating, with the at least one processor, the stride length (Paragraph [0076], calibrate stride length)
Regarding Claims 3, 9 and 15. Rao discloses calculating a bias offset using distances from calibration tracks and stride count from acceleration data or digital pedometer, and adding the bias offset to the estimated stride length (Paragraph [0023], calibration factor to correct out the error using distance and pedometer)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4, 6, 10, 12, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, US-PGPUB 2019/0008394.
Regarding Claims 4, 10 and 16. Rao discloses, at least one processor; memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Paragraphs [0020]-[0021], processors), comprising:
obtaining sensor data from a wearable device worn on a wrist of a user (Fig. 1, wearable, 102; Fig. 2, sensors);
deriving features from the sensor data (Paragraph [0085], pedometer output data based on the motion data from the sensors that is used to determine the stride length, shown in Figs. 8A, 9. Then averaging the stride length);
estimating a first stride length using an estimation model that takes the features and user height as input (Paragraph [0026], stride length based on average stride length for the user given the gender and height, where the averaged stride length is not the final stride length);
calibrating the first stride length of the user (Paragraph [0076], calibrated stride length);
obtaining cadence and speed of the user (Paragraphs [0078], cadence and sensor data, [0087], speed); determining a second stride length of the user based on the cadence and speed (Paragraph [0078], cadence correlated with stride length to determine stride length using the look-up table; Fig. 8A, stride calibrator, 801, 802, 804; Paragraph [0084]); and combining the first stride length and the second stride length into a final estimated stride length of the user (Rao discloses determining the stride length either by averaging the stride lengths or using the pedometer. Although Rao does not explicitly disclose combining as claimed, it would have been obvious to estimate the final stride length at the end of the activity, by averaging all the stride lengths during the activity that were derived from different methods)
Regarding Claims 6, 12 and 18. Rao discloses calculating a bias offset using distances from calibration tracks and stride count from acceleration data or digital pedometer; and adding the bias offset to the estimated stride length Paragraph [0023], calibration factor to correct out the error)
Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0008394 in view of Chang et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0264320 (hereinafter Chang)
Regarding Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17. Rao discloses the sensor data includes acceleration and rotation rate (Paragraph [0087], rotation rate; Paragraph [0075], sensors such as gyroscope).
Rao does not explicitly disclose the features include at least one of square root of the mean of transverse acceleration, maximum vertical rotation rate or minimum normalized rotation rate.
Chang discloses maximum vertical rotation rate (Paragraph [0036], 3-axis gyroscope measures all three spatial axes, including vertical axis, and has ranges of measured values, including minimum, maximum and all other values in between; Paragraph [0067], peak rotation rate) and determining step length using sensor values (Paragraph [0126]. Note that the claims do not restrict using only the maximum vertical rotation rate)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Chang in Rao and use the features include at least one of square root of the mean of transverse acceleration, maximum vertical rotation rate or minimum normalized rotation rate, so as to accurately determine the stride length, including step length asymmetries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chuong, US Pat No. 8,573,982
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857