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 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
The claimed invention can best be summarized by Applicant’s Remarks on 07/15/2026, which states that the claimed invention involves “(i) obtaining body motion information through a motion sensor over a predetermined period; (ii) storing distribution information in a first memory; (iii) calculating an amount of activity and a number of steps in a corresponding activity-intensity category through an activity amount processing apparatus; (iv) storing calculation results in a second memory for each predetermined period; (v) reading information from the memories and controlling a display apparatus to display a position mark superimposed on a coordinate axis; and (vi) receiving instructions through a predetermined input region of the display apparatus while the distribution information and the position mark are superimposed and displayed.” However, the aforementioned steps are reflective of the a mental process to produce markers on a graph. Here, sensory equipment obtains body motion data over a period of time, analyzes the information to calculate an amount of activity and an intensity level, and said data is outputted to a display in the form of a graph. This is reflective of the Court holding in Electric Power Group which stated --when a system “collets information, analyzing it, and displays the results of the collection and analysis, “the system is performing a mental process (see MPEP 2106). Thus, the claims are directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process.
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 displaying the results of an exercise routine. 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. Applicant argues that a specific machine is being used, however the machine uses generic parts andh generic functions. For example, while the claimed language includes details at to what is stored in the memory, the memory is still storing information as it was designed. 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, a communications interface, and a display. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the exercise arts and in general computing. Furthermore, the claimed language also discusses an exercise support apparatus, however the language itself is claimed to a high degree of generality that it does not add anything of technicality to the invention outside of the inclusion of said language. Thus, one can only accept the exercise apparatus for the specifics mentioned in the claimed invention, which as is shown is a collection generic elements. 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 with respect to claim(s) 20-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claimed invention and Examiner has addressed the new language above.
Conclusion
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