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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 22, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112b: The issue with the term ‘specific’ is not the hyphen. Examiner is not rejecting the claim because of the hyphen. The term ‘specific’ itself is a relative term which is not defined by the claim or specification. What makes something ‘specific’? What is the scope of the term ‘specific’? What is ‘specific’ relative to?
Regarding the 101:
use the accumulated sensor data to determine a body-area context of the first movement sensor relative to the user, by comparing the accumulated sensor data to a set of stored body-area signatures; (mental process of evaluation – this limitation merely requires using data and comparing data both of which are claimed generically and are fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
select a current user activity by comparing the accumulated sensor data to a set of stored body-area-specific activity signatures corresponding to the determined body-area context; (mental process of evaluation and judgement – this limitation merely requires comparing data claimed generically and is something fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
use the selected current user activity to output a timeseries of discrete activity blocks. and derive a physiological feedback from the discrete activity blocks; (mental process of evaluation and judgement and opinion – this limitation merely requires outputting of data and deriving feedback both of which are claimed generically and are fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
render the physiological feedback to the user. (mental process of judgement and opinion– this limitation merely requires outputting of data which is claimed generically and is fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
Thus, is it clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claims are directed to abstract ideas.
Examiner notes that the entire claim as a whole is reviewed. The abstract ideas were identified. The additional elements were identified. It appears Applicant is arguing that each and every limitation must be an abstract idea for the 101 to apply but this is not factual. Additional elements may be recited as well. Examiner notes the limitation of ‘a sensor module…configured to poll the at least first movement sensor and accumulate raw electronic data in real time from the at least first movement sensor as accumulated sensor data in a circular buffer’ is not considered an abstract idea. It is considered an additional element which does not provide significantly more since it is merely extrasolutionary data gathering. Per MPEP 2106.05(g):
“When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); Flook, 437 U.S. at 593-95, 198 USPQ at 197 (a formula would not be patentable by only indicating that is could be usefully applied to existing surveying techniques); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity). Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis.
(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
(3) 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). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
Mere Data Gathering:
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; and
vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
i. Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937;
ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55;
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.”
Thus is it clear from the above examples that the limitation of ‘sensor module is configured to poll the at least first movement sensor and accumulate raw electronic data in real time from the at least first movement sensor as accumulated sensor data in a circular buffer’ does not provide significantly more.
Examiner notes when viewed as a whole the claims not reflect any improvement. The claims merely acquire generic data, process that data by mere comparison and then create an output that is then output. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A: In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: • a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” The claimed invention is clearly analgous to this example recited in the MPEP. Further Per MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” There is nothing in the claim to show any improvement. Merely generic computers and sensors used for data gathering is claimed. In fact, throughout Applicant’s arguments filed 09/22/2025, specifically pages 8-18, Applicant has defined all of the additional elements as being conventional in the art. These do not provide significantly more.
Regarding the 103: The applicant's amendments and arguments/remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claims clearly state: ‘to host at least one of a sensor-agnostic sensor module, body-area module, (2) an activity module, (3) an interface module, and (4) a user interface’. Clearly the claims only require one. The phrase ‘at least one’ means only one is required to be taught in order for the prior art to meet the claims. Furthermore, the Gordon reference has been added to teach the new limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In claim 12, ‘signatures a wrist and a head’ is not grammatically correct and the term ‘for’ appears to have been deleted inadvertently.
This is a screen shot of Applicant’s independent claim 1 filed 02/25/2025:
PNG
media_image1.png
511
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is a screenshot of Applicant’s independent claim 1 filed 09/22/2025
PNG
media_image2.png
561
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is clear many changes are made that are not properly identified as being made. Examiner notes Applicant should compare claim sets that are actually filed and are within the file wrapper. For example, Applicant has added many hyphens which did not exist previously and are not identified as new with an underline. As previously noted in the previous office action, further instances of this will lead to a non-responsive amendment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1: “the sensor module configured to poll” appearing to be software running on a processor per the specification
In claim 1: “the body-area module is configured to use” appearing to be software running on a processor per the specification
In claim 1: “the activity module is configured to select” appearing to be software running on a processor per the specification
In claim 1: “the interface module is configured to use” appearing to be software running on a processor per the specification
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 19-26 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 recites ‘a user interface’ after reciting ‘an interface module’ making it unclear exactly what the difference between the two elements is meant to be. Examiner notes that since they are part of the same software it would be treated as basically the same element.
Claim 1 recites ‘at least a first movement sensor’ making it unclear the exact scope of the claim. Is it one movement sensor? Are there multiple first sensors? The scope of the claim is unclear. The claim is not specific as to what exactly is encompassed by the language. Examiner notes it will be interpreted as ‘at least one movement sensor’ and Examiner suggests amending to said language.
Claim 1 recites ‘a computing system having each of (1) a first processor configured to host at least one of…..’. This makes the claim unclear as to what ‘each of’ is referring to. The claim language is ambiguous. What does ‘each of a first processor’ mean? There is only one singular ‘first processor’ so what is each of referring to? For examination purposes the each of will mean a singular first processor.
Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation "the determined body-area context". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner notes this should read ‘the body-area context’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the selected current user activity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘the current user activity’.
Claim 1 recites ‘specific.’ The term “specific” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes the term specific is provided no scope within the specification. What makes something specific? Similar analysis applies to claim 12.
Claims 1, 4, and 26 recite ‘the sensor module’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner notes this should read ‘the sensor-agnostic sensor module’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first movement sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes in light of the above 112b to claim 1, this should read ‘the at least one movement sensor’.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the processor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘the first processor’.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the stored body-area signatures". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘the set of stored body-area signatures’.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the electronic sensor data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘the raw electronic sensor data’.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the electronic sensor data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘the raw electronic sensor data’.
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, 4-5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1, claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 19-26 are all within at least one of the four categories (claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 19-26 being apparatuses).
Regarding Step 2, the independent claim 1 recites:
use the sensor data to determine a body-area context of the movement sensor relative to the user, by comparing the accumulated sensor input data to a set of stored body-area signatures; (mental process of evaluation – this limitation merely requires using data and comparing data both of which are claimed generically and are fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
select a current user activity by comparing the accumulated sensor input data to a set of stored body-area-specific activity signatures corresponding to the determined body-area context; (mental process of evaluation and judgement – this limitation merely requires comparing data claimed generically and is something fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
use the selected current user activity to output a timeseries of discrete activity blocks. and derive the physiological feedback from the discrete activity blocks; (mental process of evaluation and judgement and opinion – this limitation merely requires outputting of data and deriving feedback both of which are claimed generically and are fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
render the physiological feedback to the user. (mental process of judgement and opinion– this limitation merely requires outputting of data which is claimed generically and is fully capable of being performed by a human whether in their mind or with pen and paper)
The above claim limitations are tied to the abstract idea of mental processes in that they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind. This group encompasses concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
The claimed functions/steps of ‘use’, ‘comparing’, ‘select’, ‘output’, ‘derive’, and ‘render’, can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
The additional elements recited include: ‘at least a first movement sensor’ in claim 1, ‘a computing system’ in claim 1, ‘a first processor’ in claim 1, ‘a sensor module…configured to poll the at least first movement sensor and accumulate raw electronic data in real time from the at least first movement sensor as accumulated sensor data in a circular buffer’ in claim 1, ‘a body-area module’ in claim 1, ‘an activity module’ in claim 1, ‘an interface module’ in claim 1, ‘a communication module’ in claim 1, ‘an accelerometer’ and ‘a gyroscope’ in claim 8, ‘a thermometer’, ‘a barometer’, ‘a magnetometer’ in claim 9, ‘a remote server’ in claim 23.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for ‘use’, ‘comparing’, ‘select’, ‘output’, ‘derive’, and ‘render’, merely invoke a computer as a tool. Each of the additional element limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function or as a generic sensor performing a mere extra-solution data gathering) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component or generic sensor component. Examiner notes those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the prior art provided below teaching said components. The claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The additional elements do not provide an improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for the functions of ‘use’, ‘comparing’, ‘select’, ‘output’, ‘derive’, and ‘render’.
The sensors are merely used for extra-solution data gathering. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer and sensor implementation. In fact, throughout Applicant’s arguments filed 09/22/2025, specifically pages 8-18, Applicant has defined all of the additional elements as being conventional in the art.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 4-5, 7, and 26 are directed to aspects further defining the extra-solution data gathering
Claims 19, 21, 23 are directed to aspects merely invoking the use of a processor to perform the mental process
Claims 8-9 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art used for extra-solution data gathering
Claims 12, 15, 24, 25 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Claims 20, 22 is directed to post-solutionary activity of data output
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-9, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0092337) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0351680).
Regarding claim 1, Srinivasan teaches a system for providing feedback to a user (Abstract; Figure 7C; element 261 provides feedback during an exercise), comprising:
at least a first movement sensor configured to be worn about the user's body (wearable transducers 102); and
a computing system (at least processing circuit 106 and memory 108; Paragraphs 0026-0029) having each of a first processor (processing circuit 106) configured to host at least one of a sensor-agnostic sensor module, body-area module, (2) an activity module, (3) an interface module, and (4) a user interface, wherein:
the sensor module is configured to poll the at least first movement sensor (Paragraph 0043) but is silent on the accumulation of data in a circular buffer. Gordon teaches a sensor-agnostic sensor module that accumulate raw electronic sensor data in real time from the at least first movement sensor as accumulated sensor data in in a circular buffer (Paragraph 0029-0040 and 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Srinivasan with Gordon because it is a known in the art type of buffer for data that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and be able to implement to yield predictable results.
Examiner notes as currently claimed only the claimed invention only requires one of the modules (claim recites ‘to host at least one of a sensor module, body-area module, and activity module, an interface module, and a communication module’). Thus only one module is actually required to be part of the computing system of the overall system. The following claim limitations are treated as optional and thus not needed to be taught by the prior art.
the body-area module is configured to use the accumulated sensor data to determine a body-area context of the first movement sensor relative to the user, by comparing the accumulated sensor data to a set of stored body-area signatures;
the activity module is configured to select a current user activity by comparing the accumulated sensor data to a set of stored body-area-specific activity signatures corresponding to the determined body-area context;
the interface module is configured to use the selected current user activity to output a timeseries of discrete activity blocks, and derive a physiological feedback from the discrete activity blocks; and
the user interface is configured to render the physiological feedback to the user.
Regarding claim 4, Srinivasan is silent on wherein the sensor module polls the at least first movement sensor at an interval ranging from approximately 0.028 seconds to 3 seconds, inclusive. The applicant’s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of an interval ranging from approximately 0.028 seconds to 3 seconds, inclusive, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Applicant’s specification paragraph 0051 states it as such ‘The system could be customized to have frames of time that are as long or as short as the programmer wishes, from 0.28 milliseconds to 30 minutes.’ Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an interval ranging from approximately 0.028 seconds to 3 seconds, inclusive as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 5, Examiner notes that the body-area module is not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Srinivasan is silent on wherein a dynamic body-area module is configured to update the determined body-area context at multiple intervals ranging from 0.025 seconds to 1 second inclusive. The applicant’s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of updating the determined body-area context at multiple intervals ranging from 0.025 seconds to 1 second inclusive, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to update the determined body-area context at multiple intervals ranging from 0.025 seconds to 1 second inclusive as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Srinivasan in view of Gordon is silent on wherein the circular buffer is configured to accumulate at least 10 seconds of the sensor data. The applicants specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of a buffer of 10 seconds, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the buffer of 10 seconds as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 8, Srinivasan teaches wherein the first movement sensor is selected from an accelerometer and a gyroscope (Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 9, Srinivasan teaches wherein the at least first movement sensor includes at least one auxiliary sensor selected from the list consisting of a thermometer, a barometer, and a magnetometer (Paragraph 0046; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Examiner notes that the body-area module is not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Srinivasan teaches wherein the body-area module updates the stored body-area signatures based on historical portions of the sensor data (Paragraphs 0077 and 0089).
Regarding claim 26, Srinivasan is silent on wherein the sensor module receives the electronic sensor data at a frequency of at most every 0.1 seconds. The applicants specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of receiving the electronic sensor data at a frequency of at most every 0.1 seconds, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to receives the electronic sensor data at a frequency of at most every 0.1 seconds as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0092337) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0351680) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Clarkson (US 2006/0284979)
Regarding claim 12, Examiner notes that the body-area module and activity module are not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Srinivasan is silent on the activity signature types. Clarkson teaches wherein the set of stored body-area-specific activity signatures includes body-area-specific activity signatures a wrist and a head (Paragraphs 0013 and 0153 of Clarkson). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Clarkson because Clarkson teaches human activity classification as being known in the art and because it allows for more flexibility in implementation (Paragraph 0031 of Clarkson).
Claim(s) 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0092337) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0351680) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Kulach et al. (US 2008/0190202).
Regarding claim 15, Examiner notes that the body-area module and activity module are not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Kulach teaches wherein the body-area module is configured to recognize each of the following activities, walking, running, sleeping, and resting (Paragraph 0100 of Kulach). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Kulach because it allows for automatic providing of information for a plurality of activities without requiring manual reconfiguration or programming by the user (Paragraph 0100 of Kulach).
Regarding claim 25, Examiner notes that the body-area module and activity module are not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Srinivasan is silent on the claimed activity signatures. Kulach teaches wherein the body-area module is configured to recognize at least one of turning, changing elevation, and riding in a vehicle (Paragraph 0100). (Paragraph 0100 of Kulach). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Kulach because it allows for automatic providing of information for a plurality of activities without requiring manual reconfiguration or programming by the user (Paragraph 0100 of Kulach).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0092337) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0351680) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Sarrafzadeh et al. (US 2013/0113704).
Regarding claim 19, Srinivasan is silent on wherein the computing system has no operating system, and function calls of the computing system are limited to function calls to drivers. Sarrafzadeh teaches a motion tracker (140) wherein the computing system has no operating system, and function calls of the computing system are limited to function calls to drivers (Paragraph 0033; use of an Arduino controller as the processor which would have no operating system). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Sarrafzadeh because Sarrafzadeh teaches this as being a conventional and commercially available unit (Paragraph 0033).
Claim(s) 20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0092337) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0351680) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Shimada et al. (US 2006/0094938)
Regarding claim 20, Examiner notes that the activity module is not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Srinivasan is silent on the ADRs. Shimada teaches wherein the activity module is further configured to generate detail records (ADRs) including timestamps and durations (Paragraphs 0011, 0076, 0080, and 0191; Figure 16). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Shimada because it allows for immediate reporting of any issues, and allows remote watching of the user’s status (Paragraphs 0024-0025 of Shimada).
Regarding claim 22, Examiner notes that the activity module is not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Srinivasan is silent on the ADRs. Shimada teaches wherein the interface module is further configured to generate a graphical output of the discrete activity blocks, wherein at least some of the discrete activity blocks correlate with a sleep state (Paragraph 0191; Figure 16). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Shimada because it allows for immediate reporting of any issues, and allows remote watching of the user’s status (Paragraphs 0024-0025 of Shimada).
Regarding claim 23, Examiner notes that the activity module is not required as part of the claimed invention as noted above but the following exemplary rejection is provided. Srinivasan is silent on the ADRs. Shimada teaches further comprising a remote server configured to receive, store, and analyze the activity detail records (ADRs) transmitted wirelessly for long-term trend analysis and backup (Paragraphs 0121; Figures 10-11). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Shimada because it allows for immediate reporting of any issues, and allows remote watching of the user’s status (Paragraphs 0024-0025 of Shimada).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0092337) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2015/0351680) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Balakrishnan et al. (US 2013/0197679)
Regarding claim 21, Srinivasan is silent on where the processor is installed. Balakrishnan teaches wherein the processor is installed on an activity tracking module and runs the activity module via a local application, a local SDK, or a local operating system (Paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to have modified Srinivasan with Shimada because it is one of many options known to those of ordinary skill in the art and doing so would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791