DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment submitted March 13, 2026. The present application is a U.S. National Stage of International Patent Application No.
PCT/CN2021/129715 filed on November 10, 2021, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202011264577.5 filed on November 12, 2020. Claims 1 – 19 are cancelled. Claims 20, 28 – 33, and 37 – 39 are amended. Claims 20 – 39 are new.
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 .
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 20 – 39 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.
Step One
Claims 20 – 39 are drawn to a device and method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 20, 33, and 39 recite obtaining a first basic information parameter of a user; obtain a first evaluation threshold based on the first basic information parameter, wherein the first evaluation threshold provides a personalized evaluation standard for evaluating action completion quality of the user; obtain a key evaluation parameter of a current action of the user in real time during performance of the current action by the user, wherein the key evaluation parameter is for evaluating action completion status of the current action; determine an action completion evaluation of the user based on the key evaluation parameter and the first evaluation threshold; and display the action completion evaluation; and adjust the first evaluation threshold based on the action completion evaluation.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that the present invention “provide[s] an adaptive action evaluation method, an electronic device, and a storage medium, to resolve a problem that current intelligent exercise cannot guide a user to perform exercise in a targeted manner.” (paragraph 3 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because the invention “provides an adaptive action evaluation method, which can provide a differentiated service for the user, so that the user can perform effective physical exercise and improve physical quality of the user.” (paragraph 131 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 20: “electronic device”, “a memory to store instructions”, “one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions”
Claims 21, 23 – 25, 28 – 30 : “electronic device”, ““one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions”
Claim 22: “electronic device”, ““one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions”, “communication connections for a cloud or a second electronic device of an associated account”, “receive a reply from the cloud or the second electronic device”; “determine, in response to receiving the reply, that the cloud or the second electronic device exists”; “cloud or the second electronic device”
Claims 26 – 27, 31, 33, 39: “electronic device”
Claim 32: “electronic device”, ““one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions”, “interface”
Claim 34: “communication connections for a cloud or a second electronic device of an associated account”, “receive a reply from the cloud or the second electronic device”; “determine, in response to receiving the reply, that the cloud or the second electronic device exists”; “cloud or the second electronic device”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0052] The processor 110 may include one or more processing units. For example, the processor 110 may include an application processor (application processor, AP), a modem processor, a graphics processing unit (graphics processing unit, GPU), an image signal processor (image signal processor, ISP), a controller, a video codec, a digital signal processor ( digital signal processor, DSP), a baseband processor, a neural-network processing unit (neural-network processing unit, NPU), and/or the like. Different processing units may be independent components, or may be integrated into one or more processors.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 21 – 32 and 34 – 38 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 – 24, 28 – 35, and 37 – 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram et al., herein after Sundaram (U.S. Publication Number 2020/0237291 A) in view of Steffen et all, herein after Steffen (Steffen, Daniel & Bleser-Taetz, Gabriele & Weber, Markus & Stricker, Didier & Fradet, Laetitia & Marin, F.. (2011). A Personalized Exercise Trainer for Elderly. 24-31. 10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2011.245937) .
Claim 20 (Currently Amended). Sundaram teaches an electronic device (paragraph 27 discloses a sensor system wearable on or around a portion of an individual's body and configured to obtain measurements for a plurality of parameters of the body portion over a period of time) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the memory may be any suitable computer-readable medium that stores computer-readable instructions for execution by computer-executable components); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to:
obtain a first basic information parameter of a user (Figure 2; paragraph 33 discloses a first sensor configured to sense a first parameter indicative of the circumference, rotation, physical performance of the patient's calf or arm during an exercise);
obtain a first evaluation threshold based on the first basic information parameter, wherein the first evaluation threshold provides a personalized evaluation standard for evaluating action completion quality of the user (paragraph 23 discloses the calculation of the quality of performance is compared to one or more ideal, maximum, or threshold values for the one or more of: the detected body portion orientation, the detected body portion movement, the detected body portion circumferential change, and the one or more parameters; paragraph 106 discloses measurements (e.g., circumferential, positional, relational, orientational, smoothness, etc.) are tracked over time and changes are analyzed, for example, to determine when the change ( e.g., circumferential, positional, relational, orientational, smoothness, etc.) has exceeded a predefined threshold value; paragraph 110 discloses the overall score may indicate the successful completion and physical rehabilitation of a patient by a certain date or within a certain time period or range; paragraph 115 discloses the predefined threshold is a personalized threshold based on historical tracking of the user);
obtain a key evaluation parameter of a current action of the user in real time during performance of the current action by the user, wherein the key evaluation parameter is for evaluating action completion status of the current action (paragraph 4 discloses Methods for monitoring can comprise adaptively providing a digital care plan and performing real-time monitoring and customized patient-specific feedback on patient progression, performance, and adherence to the care protocol; paragraph 110 discloses the overall score may indicate the successful completion and physical rehabilitation of a patient by a certain date or within a certain time period or range; paragraph 141 discloses sensors may be configured to track speed of movement, length or times of the duration (key evaluation parameter) over which the user was able to hold a strenuous position (e.g., a stretch, a lift, plank);
adjust the first evaluation threshold based on the action completion evaluation (paragraph 143 discloses the sophistication or degree of difficulty for the exercises in a patient's care plan may be dynamically adjusted based on the performance measured by the sensors; paragraph 144 discloses Thresholds may be adjusted according to one or more features including but not limited to: position of patient in recovery process, user profile, care plan, indications of other conditions or compensatory muscle or joint issues, and pain levels).
Sundaram fails to explicitly leach the following limitations met by Steffen as cited:
determine an action completion evaluation of the user based on the key evaluation parameter and the first evaluation threshold (page 28, column 1, paragraph 2 (B. Trainer Mode) discloses repetition is completed, the second phase consists in accurately evaluating the quality of the performed motion cycle according to the evaluation criteria; page 28, column 2, paragraph 2 discloses if a deviation greater than a certain percentage is detected (threshold) in any of the above parameters, the user is informed by an explanatory feedback, and after completing the exercise, a summary of the quality is provided by computing the result statistics across all repetitions);
display the action completion evaluation in real time during performance of the current action (page 25, column 1, paragraph 2 discloses the evaluation results are translated into audio and visual feedback for the user and the user interface also provides a guided exercise preparation and a summary at the end; page 28, column 2, paragraph 2 discloses after completing the exercise, a summary of the quality is provided by computing the result statistics across all repetitions; page 29, column 2, paragraph 2 discloses a user interface concept designed for older adults; page 30, column 2, paragraph 1 discloses visualizing the data in real-time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Sundaram to further include a personalized, home based exercise trainer for elderly people which includes a wearable sensor network that captures the user’s motions, evaluates the motions and compares to a prescribed exercise as disclosed by Steffen.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Sundaram in this way to promote physical activity, especially in elderly, by creating a platform that can supervise and help the practice of physical activity and can also be used as a support of home-based physical rehabilitation (Steffen: page 24, column 2, paragraph 2).
Method claims 33 and 39 repeat the subject matter of claim 20. As the underlying processes of claims 33 and 39 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Sundaram and Steffen in the above rejections of claim 20; as such, these limitations (33 and 39) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 20 and incorporated herein.
Claim 21 (Previously Presented). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to:
obtain an evaluation parameter of a warm-up action of the user (paragraph 145 discloses the initial parameter reading (warm-up action) is set as the baseline evaluation parameter, where the processing unit calculates an actual baseline strain, position, and/or circumference measurement, setting the baseline to that value, and the baseline could be individual specific (e.g., my range of motion today vs. yesterday) or at the population level (e.g., the cohort of patients in recovery));
determine a warm-up completion degree of the user based on the evaluation parameter (paragraph 145 discloses the initial parameter reading (warm-up action) is set as the baseline evaluation parameter where the baseline could be individual specific (e.g., my range of motion today vs. yesterday) or at the population level (e.g., the cohort of patients in recovery)); and
pre-adjust the first evaluation threshold based on the warm-up completion degree (paragraph 145 discloses in adaptive goaling or other calibrations, the baseline can be adjusted periodically, on-demand or automatically; paragraph 200 discloses the system makes an assessment based on information received by the patient, and over time the initial weights of the system are adapted to the behavioral data provided by the patient such that the initially provided information (e.g., age of the patient, etc.) would be less represented by the weights of the system than the performance of the patient on the physical therapy exercises and the relative range of motion demonstrated by the patient).
Claim 22 (Previously Presented). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to:
initiate a request for searching, using a communication connection, for a cloud or a second electronic device of an associated account (Figure 7H; paragraph 84 discloses a care cloud comprising systems and devices for collecting meaningful recovery data from sensors used by the user and from information provided by the user);
receive a reply from the cloud or the second electronic device (paragraph 85 discloses the monitoring system manages three components: the sensor/device that are used by the patient, the care cloud that collects/stores/analyzes data collected from the sensor and from patient feedback, and the healthcare/caregiver/support teams that provide empathetic guidance and support to the user/patient; paragraph 87 discloses health monitoring system (e.g., system comprising care cloud, patient profile generators, adaptive patient user interfaces, sensors, healthcare interfaces, support team communications, etc.) configured to obtain, analyze, and respond to positional, orientational, and circumferential measurements of a body portion of an individual);
determine, in response to receiving the reply, that the cloud or the second electronic device exists (paragraph 87 discloses health monitoring system (e.g., system comprising care cloud, patient profile generators, adaptive patient user interfaces, sensors, healthcare interfaces, support team communications, etc.) configured to obtain, analyze, and respond to positional, orientational, and circumferential measurements of a body portion of an individual);
initiate an invoking request for the first basic information parameter (Figure 2; paragraph 33 discloses a first sensor configured to sense a first parameter indicative of the circumference, rotation, physical performance of the patient's calf or arm during an exercise); and
further obtain the first basic information parameter from the cloud or the second electronic device (paragraph 87 discloses health monitoring system (e.g., system comprising care cloud, patient profile generators, adaptive patient user interfaces, sensors, healthcare interfaces, support team communications, etc.) configured to obtain, analyze, and respond to positional, orientational, and circumferential measurements of a body portion of an individual).
Method claim 34 repeats the subject matter of claim 22. As the underlying processes of claim 34 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Sundaram and Steffen in the above rejections of claim 22; as such, these limitations (claim 34) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 22 and incorporated herein.
Claim 23 (Previously Presented). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to:
classify the first basic information parameter (paragraph 14 discloses monitor for changes in the circumference of a body portion resulting from weight gain, weight loss; paragraph 195 discloses the monitoring system, using the care cloud and/or care related algorithms, may perform patient segmentation and comparison to assess and categorize the user/patient);
assign a first weight to second basic information parameters of a same category (paragraph 113 discloses assigning a relative weight to one or more measured parameters);
perform a weighted calculation based on the second basic information parameters to obtain an evaluation result of the same category (paragraph 113 discloses assigned weights used to calculate an overall score can be adapted over time based on PRO (patient reported outcome) data);
assign a second weight to third basic information parameters of different categories (paragraph 187 discloses processing the received measurements to track and analyze changes in the body portion involves assigning a relative weight to one or more measured parameters of importance and calculating an overall score from the weighted measurements, one or more user inputs and/or a compliance score may contribute to the overall score); and
perform weighting based on evaluation results of the different categories to obtain the first evaluation threshold (paragraph 115 discloses a predefined threshold, where the predefined threshold is based on historical tracking of the user, can be based on population metrics or collected population data skewed towards the demographic of the patient, or the predefined threshold is based on known healthy or unhealthy ranges for each of the parameters, for example, based on empirical evidence).
Claim 24 (Previously Presented). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to:
determine a type of the key evaluation parameter (paragraph 220 discloses the one or more derived parameters include a limb angle achieved as compared to target limb angle for the exercise, where the limb angle is interpreted to be the key evaluation parameter);
start a corresponding monitoring system based on the type (paragraph 220 discloses the limb angle may be computed or displayed as a percent of a maximum value or as a percentage or value relative to a threshold value); and
further obtain the key evaluation parameter using the corresponding monitoring system (paragraph 220 discloses the limb angle may be computed or displayed as a percent of a maximum value or as a percentage or value relative to a threshold value).
Method claim 35 repeats the subject matter of claim 24. As the underlying processes of claim 35 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Sundaram and Steffen in the above rejections of claim 24; as such, these limitations (claim 35) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 24 and incorporated herein.
Claim 28 (Currently Amended). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to:
classify the first basic information parameter based on a preset parameter classification standard to obtain a classified basic information parameter (paragraph 112 discloses an acceptable standard may be defined based on range of motion, reduction in pain, improvement in gait, strength/stability improvement, or other factors, and may be based on a prescribed care plan and a baseline performance, for example, prior to a medical procedure); and
further determine the action completion evaluation based on the classified basic information parameter and a preset evaluation table, wherein the preset evaluation table is configured to store mapping information between the first basic information parameter and the action completion evaluation (paragraph 37 discloses comparing the number of repetitions completed to a prescribed number of repetitions to determine whether the prescribed number of repetitions was achieved).
Claim 29 (Currently Amended). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to adjust the first evaluation threshold (paragraph 143 discloses the degree of difficulty for the exercises in a patient's care plan may be dynamically adjusted based on the performance measured by the sensors, where the sensors are equipped to make adjustments and identify flexibility, strength, and endurance of the patient) by:
determining whether the action completion evaluation meets a preset threshold adjustment condition, wherein the preset threshold adjustment condition comprises one or more threshold adjustment conditions (paragraph 110 discloses the overall score may indicate the successful completion and physical rehabilitation of a patient by a certain date or within a certain time period or range; paragraph 115 discloses the predefined threshold is a personalized threshold based on historical tracking of the user); and
adjusting the first evaluation threshold based on the preset threshold adjustment condition when the preset threshold adjustment condition is met (paragraph 143 discloses the sophistication or degree of difficulty for the exercises in a patient's care plan may be dynamically adjusted based on the performance measured by the sensors; paragraph 144 discloses Thresholds may be adjusted according to one or more features including but not limited to: position of patient in recovery process, user profile, care plan, indications of other conditions or compensatory muscle or joint issues, and pain levels).
Method claim 37 repeats the subject matter of claim 29. As the underlying processes of claim 37 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Sundaram and Steffen in the above rejections of claim 29; as such, these limitations (claim 37) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 29 and incorporated herein.
Claim 30 (Currently Amended). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 29. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the preset threshold adjustment condition comprises a first threshold adjustment condition and a second threshold adjustment condition, wherein the first evaluation threshold is increased when the first threshold adjustment condition is met, and wherein the first evaluation threshold is decreased when the second threshold adjustment condition is met (paragraph 106 discloses measurements (e.g., circumferential, positional, relational, orientational, smoothness, etc.) are tracked over time and changes are analyzed, for example, to determine when the change ( e.g., circumferential, positional, relational, orientational, smoothness, etc.) has exceeded a predefined threshold value; paragraph 143 discloses the degree of difficulty for the exercises in a patient's care plan may be dynamically adjusted based on the performance measured by the sensors, where the sensors are equipped to make adjustments and identify flexibility, strength, and endurance of the patient; paragraph 144 discloses Thresholds may be adjusted according to one or more features including but not limited to: position of patient in recovery process, user profile, care plan, indications of other conditions or compensatory muscle or joint issues, and pain levels).
Method claim 38 repeats the subject matter of claim 30. As the underlying processes of claim 38 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Sundaram and Steffen in the above rejections of claim 30; as such, these limitations (claim 38) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 30 and incorporated herein.
Claim 31 (Currently Amended). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches wherein the first basic information parameter comprises either a basic body parameter, an exercise purpose, and a previous training experience or the first basic information parameter comprises a parameter obtained through physical fitness evaluation (paragraph 143 discloses the degree of difficulty for the exercises in a patient's care plan may be dynamically adjusted based on the performance measured by the sensors, where the sensors are equipped to make adjustments and identify flexibility, strength, and endurance of the patient).
Claim 32 (Currently Amended). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 20. Sundaram teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 127 discloses the processing unit is coupled, via one or more buses, to the memory in order for the processing unit to read information from and write information to the memory) to cause the electronic device to receive the first basic information parameter by detecting an input on an interface (paragraph 8 discloses the processor to queries the individual for user inputs).
Claim(s) 25 – 27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram et al., herein after Sundaram (U.S. Publication Number 2020/0237291 A) in view of Steffen et all, herein after Steffen (Steffen, Daniel & Bleser-Taetz, Gabriele & Weber, Markus & Stricker, Didier & Fradet, Laetitia & Marin, F.. (2011). A Personalized Exercise Trainer for Elderly. 24-31. 10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2011.245937) further in view of Todd (U.S. Patent Number 9,409,053 B1).
Claim 25 (Previously Presented). Sundaram and Steffen teach the electronic device of claim 24. Sundaram discloses wherein the monitoring system comprises a photographing system (paragraph 184 discloses various means of communication including audio, picture, video, etc. for facilitating communication between the user and an outside provider) and a timing system (paragraph 221 discloses the one or more derived parameters include a speed and/or timing of an exercise such as, for example, an actual holding time versus the desired holding time), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to:
determine the type (Figure 3 discloses various sensors to measure parameters);
when the type is an action angle (Figure 3 discloses an angle sensor; paragraph 130 discloses an angle sensor can be an inclinometer, clinometer, or goniometer that measures angles of slope (or tilt), elevation, or depression of an object with respect to gravity, for example to measure a range of motion of a body portion):
start the photographing system (paragraph 209 discloses the patient may send a picture of an exercise being performed to a healthcare provider and the patient may virtually consult with the healthcare provider to get feedback; paragraph 210 discloses the care cloud may capture the range of the planar movements of the body when the patient does rehabilitation exercises and may, from the captured data, create a point of reference or baseline for the patient); and
when the type is a duration (paragraph 178 discloses the application on the mobile device communicates via the visual user interface and produces sounds of varying tone or duration based on the accuracy of the exercises being performed by the user);
start the photographing system and the timing system (paragraph 209 discloses the patient may send a picture of an exercise being performed to a healthcare provider and the patient may virtually consult with the healthcare provider to get feedback; paragraph 210 discloses the care cloud may capture the range of the planar movements of the body when the patient does rehabilitation exercises and may, from the captured data, create a point of reference or baseline for the patient); and
obtain the duration using the photographing system and the timing system. (paragraph 178 discloses the application on the mobile device communicates via the visual user interface and produces sounds of varying tone or duration based on the accuracy of the exercises being performed by the user).
Sundaram and Steffen fail to explicitly leach the following limitations met by Todd as cited:
obtain the action angle using the photographing system (column 5, lines 17 – 21 discloses a motion sensor to detect motion of the user and/or of part of the exercise machine and/or velocity including a small video camera; column 7, line 65 through column 8, line 4 discloses a sensor that is used to detect/measure the position of a part of the exercise machine either as an absolute or relative measurement on a linear, angular and/or multi-axis basis, for example, to determine the range of motion through which the user is performing the exercise; column); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Sundaram and Steffen to further include an exercise data collection system includes a computerized processing unit, and at least two sensors, each mounted on or near the exercise machine, and placed so as to capture data indicative of the exercising performed by a user of the machine as disclosed by Todd.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Sundaram and Steffen in this way to accurately capture enough information regarding a person's specific exercise routine such that someone else who is not observing the exercise can, at a later time, have a more complete picture of the person's exercise while it was being performed and its effects over and above the amount of exercise (i.e., repetitions), time expended for that exercise, weight(s) used, and perhaps biometric information such as heart rate (Todd: column 2 , line 62 through column 3, line 3).
Method claim 36 repeats the subject matter of claim 25. As the underlying processes of claim 36 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Sundaram, Steffen, and Todd in the above rejections of claim 25; as such, these limitations (claim 36) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 25 and incorporated herein.
Claim 26 (Previously Presented). Sundaram, Steffen, and Todd teach the electronic device of claim 25.
Sundaram and Steffen fail to explicitly leach the following limitations met by Todd as cited:
wherein the electronic device comprises the corresponding monitoring system, and wherein the photographing system comprises a plurality of cameras (column 4, lines 47 – 53 discloses the data collection system includes a processing unit, including non-transient program and data storage and at least one computer processor, for example, a microprocessor and the data collection system also includes at least one receiver and one or more sensors; column 5, lines 4 – 21 discloses sensors, including a small video camera, which can be used alone or in multiples).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Sundaram, Steffen, and Todd is discussed in the rejection of claim 25, and incorporated herein.
Claim 27 (Previously Presented). Sundaram, Steffen, and Todd the electronic device of claim 25.
Sundaram and Steffen fail to explicitly leach the following limitations met by Todd as cited:
wherein the photographing system comprises a first camera and a second camera, wherein the electronic device comprises the first camera, and wherein a second electronic device comprises the second camera (column 4, lines 47 – 53 discloses the data collection system includes a processing unit, including non-transient program and data storage and at least one computer processor, for example, a microprocessor and the data collection system also includes at least one receiver and one or more sensors; column 5, lines 4 – 21 discloses sensors, including a small video camera, which can be used alone or in multiples).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Sundaram, Steffen, and Todd is discussed in the rejection of claim 25, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, specifically that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human behavior. The Examiner disagrees. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Applicant’s claims are an abstract idea that falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner respectfully submits that the PEG (Patent Eligibility Guidelines) of January 2019 recite that “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The present claims recite the abstract idea of an adaptive action evaluation method to guide a user to perform exercise in a targeted manner. The present claims recite obtaining a first basic information parameter of a user; obtain a first evaluation threshold based on the first basic information parameter, wherein the first evaluation threshold provides a personalized evaluation standard for evaluating action completion quality of the user; obtain a key evaluation parameter of a current action of the user in real time during performance of the current action by the user, wherein the key evaluation parameter is for evaluating action completion status of the current action; determine an action completion evaluation of the user based on the key evaluation parameter and the first evaluation threshold; and display the action completion evaluation; and adjust the first evaluation threshold based on the action completion evaluation. These features describe interactions with people, thus “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions with people, but for the recitation of generic components, then it is still in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping.
The Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The Applicant argues the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the present claims fail to integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Section 2106.04(d) of the MPEP (defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the 2019 PEG guidelines recite limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The present claims fail to demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more than any judicial exception under Step 2B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s specification states “The processor 110 may include one or more processing units. For example, the processor 110 may include an application processor (application processor, AP), a modem processor, a graphics processing unit (graphics processing unit, GPU), an image signal processor (image signal processor, ISP), a controller, a video codec, a digital signal processor ( digital signal processor, DSP), a baseband processor, a neural-network processing unit (neural-network processing unit, NPU), and/or the like. Different processing units may be independent components, or may be integrated into one or more processors.” (paragraph 52 of the published specification). The generic computer cited by the Applicant is a general link to execute the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Examiner notes that the amended limitations were not in the previously pending claims as such; therefore, the Applicant’s remarks with regard to the application of Sundaram, Steffen, and Todd to the amended claims are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/K.K.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3682 /ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights