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 .
Applicant added claims 16-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25, regarding the 35 USC § 101, have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 2-3 of the Applicant’s arguments:
The applicant argues that the claims demonstrate an improvement in computer functionality, integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, as held by Enfish.1 In particular, Applicant notes that the recited system improves conventional recommendation systems by using cluster analysis to objectively classify runner types based on biomechanical motion data and selecting a wearing tool based on the results of the cluster analysis. As is well known in the art, a cluster analysis enables the processor, i.e., a computer, to efficiently classify information (e.g., runner types) and create a specialized prediction model accurately with fewer resources than conventional recommendation systems. That is, the recited system effectively reduces the workload of the processor, which naturally speeds up the necessary processing time executed by the processor to provide a shoe recommendation. Applicant respectfully contends that these benefits amount to technical improvements under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In this regard, Applicant notes that the specification sufficiently describes the recited system such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, paragraph [0008] of the original specification states "the runner type of the user can be objectively understood, and shoes to be recommended can be selected more appropriately based on such a runner type objectively divided" and "by classifying the runner types through cluster analysis, the type of a runner can be objectified with such a dividing method that is not artificial or uniform, and shoes can be selected more appropriately based on such a runner type objectively divided."
In view of the above, Applicant submits that the claims, as presented herein, fully satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because unlike Enfish, where the claims recited a specific self-referential data structure that improved the way a computer stores and retrieves data, the present claims do not recite any improvement to computer architecture, memory organization, data structures, or processing techniques. Rather, the claims merely apply a well-known mathematical/statistical technique (i.e. cluster analysis) to classify motion data and select a recommended wearing tool, which constitutes collecting data, analyzing the data, and using the results of the analysis. Any alleged improvements in efficiency, accuracy, or reduced processor workload are not recited in the claims and amount only to intended results of the abstract data analysis, not a technological solution. The claims do not specify how cluster analysis is implemented, do not modify the operation of the processor, and do not improve motion sensing, signal processing, or footwear operation. Instead, the processor performs generic functions of storing, classifying, selecting, and outputting information. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained and made final.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25, regarding the 35 USC § 102, have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s argument, filed 12/29/25, with respect to 1 and 7-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 102 of 1 and 7-8 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine (claims 1 and 6, a system) or process (claim 7, a method) or a manufacture (claim 8, anon-transitory computer readable medium), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed
to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mental. The limitations include:
select, from among a plurality of types of wearing tools, a type of a wearing tool commensurate with a runner type in which motion data of the user is classified, among a plurality of runner types classified in advance based on cluster analysis on motion data of a plurality of people and the stored wearing tool property data.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “input motion data corresponding to the plurality of types of motion parameters indicating motion states of a user who is running” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of inputting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The act of data gathering by the is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
The additional element of “output the selected type of a wearing tool as a wearing tool of which wearing is to be recommended to the user” is extra-solution activity of outputting/displaying data. This additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “store a motion parameter changing property for each of a plurality of types of shoes as a wearing tool property data indicating which of the plurality of types of motion parameters is changed to contribute to enhancement of exercise performance” is extra-solution activity of string data. This additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea.
The additional element of “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the additional element does not amount significantly more than the abstract idea of itself therefore claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 9-16 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
The additional elements (claim 2) “a model storage unit that stores, for each of the plurality of runner types, a prediction model created by machine learning using, as teacher data, motion data of a plurality of people classified in the runner type; and an estimation unit that estimates the runner type by inputting motion data of the user into the prediction model” are considered mathematical computations. Because the recited “a prediction model created by machine learning using, as teacher data, motion data of a plurality of people classified in the runner type” and “an estimation unit that estimates the runner type by inputting motion data of the user into the prediction model” explicitly recite performing mathematical calculations, the limitations fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
The additional element of “a model storage unit that” is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 6-8 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 1.
The additional element of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an exercise motion analysis program” and “a computer” are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 17-19, either depending off claims 6, 7 or 8, do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1 and 6-8 distinguish over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, none of the prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests an exercise motion analysis system, comprising: a processor, the processor being configured to: store a motion parameter changing property for each of a plurality of types of shoes as a wearing tool property data indicating which of a plurality of types of motion parameters is changed to contribute to enhancement of exercise performance, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests an exercise motion analysis method, the method including the steps of: storing a motion parameter changing property for each of a plurality of types of shoes as a wearing tool property data indicating which of a plurality of types of motion parameters is changed to contribute to enhancement of exercise performance, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an exercise motion analysis program causing a computer to implement: storing a motion parameter changing property for each of a plurality of types of shoes as a wearing tool property data indicating which of a plurality of types of motion parameters is changed to contribute to enhancement of exercise performance, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857