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 .
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 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
To use claim 13 an exemplary, the claims are classified as an abstract idea under the group of a mental process, and specifically process that “collects information, analyzing it, and displays the results of the collection and analysis” (see MPEP 2016). Here, the instant application collects stored athletic past data from previous users, and collects data from current users using sensory equipment. Afterwards, the current user data is analyzed to determine classified based on intensity level of the user, wherein the user data is now part of a distribution or grouping of users with similar intensity levels. Finally, the displaying the results of said classification and the data is outputted to a graph with other users in the same classification. This mirrors the holding in Electric Power Grid. Other limitations such as displaying the data in a chart or graph, is also reflective of a mental process as charts and graphs are commonly created using pen and paper in mathetmatics. Additionally, the idea of classifying a number of steps and determining a distribution of steps across a group of people as recited in the claims, is also directed towards the analyzing step of the abstract mental process. Furthermore Claim 14, is merely further advancing the abstract idea, by indicating a time for walking and sleeping. Additionally, Claims 15 and 16 further disclose parameters for the distribution information which signifies that both claims are part of the analyzing step.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims only creating an exercise routine based on collected data regarding a targeted area. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more as the claims merely describes the user of an imaging unit sensor, motion sensor, memory storage units, and a display. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the exercise arts and in general computing. Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims can not be performed practically in the mind as the claims present a number of computerized parts. However, here the computerized elements are merely being used as a tool for the abstract idea presented in the claims that is reflective of the abstract idea in Electric Power Grid, in which both includes collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying said data. Here, the data is reflected from individuals performing athletic activity, then categorized said activity based on intensity, and then displaying the user’s data against other user’s data in the same intensity. This is in alignment with Electric Power Grid which was deemed an abstract idea. Analyzing whether the computer elements shifts the abstract idea to statutory subject matter is performed in Step 2B, where as shown above, it does not move the claims in this direction. Applicant argues that it is not practical for one to display information using the mind whereby superimposing data over another set of data. However, creating charts using data is commonly performed using pencil and paper to plot various data points. Furthermore the Court stated in Intellectual Ventures that collecting, displaying, and manipulating data is an abstract idea. The same is being done by the claimed inventions and thus the displaying steps only further reflect an abstract idea. For those reasons the claims remain rejected.
Lastly, regarding the argument directed towards the practical application of the inention in which Applicant stated that the claims “provide treatment for a disease or medical condition (e.g., knee joint disease), and therefore integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” However, such is not a problem rooted in computer history, and thus lack practical application. For these reasons the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights