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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-17 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, wherein a bias offset using distances from calibration tracks and stride count from the sensor data or digital pedometer, and calibrating the estimated stride length based on the bias offset” 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, 7 and 13 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), wherein calibrating comprises: calculating a bias offset using distance from calibration tracks and stride count from the sensor data or digital pedometer, and calibrating the estimated stride length based on the bias offset (Paragraph [0023], calibration factor to correct out the error using total distance traveled “during a workout session” computed by fitness machine, where “during a workout session” is the optimal condition for estimation of speed and cadence instead of at inactivity, and count from 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 4,10 and 16 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)
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claim is directed to “correcting the stride length numerical value”, an abstract idea, and it involves mental process. Additionally, the limitations such as “square root of the mean of transverse acceleration,” are abstract ideas, as they involve usage of mathematical concept
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “correcting the stride length numerical value” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101. In the instant application, the claims are generically recited (including reciting a generic estimation model), as they do not even recite in sufficient details as to how the stride length is being estimated.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “correcting the stride length numerical value” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
generic sensor data from a generic wearable device worn on a wrist of a user,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “processor” and “memory”, but said limitations are merely directed to a general-purpose computer and memory for processing the collected data and storing the resulting processed data that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional sensor and general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information (which is unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation). In fact, the claims do not even recite any specific type of sensors.
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any processor or sensor. The claims in the instant application with the processor and sensor, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said sensors and processor as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “correcting the stride length numerical value”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those sensors and processor as tools. In other words, the Applicant is basically claiming the algorithm itself.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology due to lack of sufficient details in the claimed invention, including how the stride length is estimated, where the claims generically recite “estimation model” (see Intellectual Ventures vs Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 120 USPQ2d 1353, (CAFC 2016), TLI Communications vs AV Auto, 823 F.3d 607, 118 USPQ2d 1744 (CAFC 2016), Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC vs DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201, and Two-way Media vs Comcast 874 F.3d 1329, 124 USPQ2d 1521 (CAFC 2017)). Furthermore, clams are at most an improvement in the abstract idea of correcting the stride length numerical value”. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible.
Finally, limiting the claims to the particular technological environment of motion detection on a wearable device worn on a user, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of generically “correcting the stride length numerical value”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
10. With respect to the prior art rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rao discloses calibrating comprises: calculating a bias offset using distance from calibration tracks and stride count from the sensor data or digital pedometer, and calibrating the estimated stride length based on the bias offset (Paragraph [0023], calibration factor to correct out the error using total distance traveled “during a workout session” computed by fitness machine, where “during a workout session” is the optimal condition for estimation of speed and cadence instead of at inactivity, and count from pedometer.)
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 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.
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
Prosecution Insights