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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered, along with amendments, and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13, Applicant states that “a person’s mind cannot collect, by one or more motion sensors included in an electronic device, first target exercise data in a first target time period. This is not persuasive, because this step was not characterized as a mental process, it is considered an additional element of data gathering.
Applicant then states that a “person's mind also cannot perform peak searching on the first target exercise data based on a preset window width or a window width obtained in a previous iterative calculation to obtain a preset peak quantity, or perform peak searching on the first target exercise data again based on a reference window width to obtain a reference peak quantity”. However, this is not persuasive because a person can look at data and find peaks based on predetermined guidelines.
On page 14, Applicant states that the claims as a whole “reflect a technical improvement”. This is not persuasive, because the claims do not reflect an improvement in how an actual computer works, nor is the alleged improvement clearly reflected in the claim itself. As written, the claim analyzes motion sensor data, interpreted to be rope jumping data, over a period of time in iterative windows. Assigning the data to be called/considered “rope jumping data” is considered generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, because, as written, the rope jumping is not significant to the motion data or analysis of that data. Additionally, claims being distinct from prior art is not necessarily indicative of eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered, along with amendments, and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1,2, 5-7, 10, and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been withdrawn.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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-18, and 21-24 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A rope jumping status detection method, the method comprising:
collecting, by one or more motion sensors included in an electronic device, first target exercise data in a first target time periods, wherein the first target time period comprises a first end moment, and the first end moment is used to identify an end moment of the first target time period;
determining, by a processor included in the electronic device, a rope jumping status in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data by using an iterative window width that is obtained through iteration;
determining, by the processor included in the electronic device, a first quantity of rope jumping interruptions based on the rope jumping status in the first target time period, wherein the first quantity of rope jumping interruptions is used to identify a quantity of rope jumping interruptions in the first target time period; and
displaying, by a display of the electronic device, the first quantity of rope jumping interruptions at the first end moment,
wherein the determining the rope jumping status in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data by using the iterative window width comprises:
determining the iterative window width in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data determining, by using the iterative window width, peaks comprised in the first target exercise data; and
determining the rope jumping status in the first target time period based on the peaks comprised in the first target exercise data; and
wherein the determining the iterative window width in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data comprises:
performing peak searching on the first target exercise data based on a preset window width or a window width obtained in a previous iterative calculation, to obtain a preset peak quantity;
obtaining a reference window width of the first target exercise data based on the preset peak quantity;
performing peak searching on the first target exercise data again based on the reference window width, to obtain a reference peak quantity; and
determining the iterative window width in the first target time period based on the preset peak quantity and the reference peak quantity.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determining a rope jumping status in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data by using an iterative window width, wherein the iterative window width is used to identify that the window width is obtained through iteration (determination based on data);
determining a first quantity of rope jumping interruptions based on the rope jumping status in the first target time period, wherein the first quantity of rope jumping interruptions is used to identify a quantity of rope jumping interruptions in the first target time period (determination based on data); and
displaying the first quantity of rope jumping interruptions at the first end moment (sharing findings/results);
wherein the determining the rope jumping status in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data by using the iterative window width comprises:
determining the iterative window width in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data (determining analysis parameter);
determining, by using the iterative window width, peaks comprised in the first target exercise data (determination based on data and previously determined parameter); and
determining the rope jumping status in the first target time period based on the peaks comprised in the first target exercise data (determination based on analysis); and
wherein the determining the iterative window width in the first target time period based on the first target exercise data comprises:
performing peak searching on the first target exercise data based on a preset window width or a window width obtained in a previous iterative calculation, to obtain a preset peak quantity (observation/analysis of data);
obtaining a reference window width of the first target exercise data based on the preset peak quantity (results of data observation/analysis);
performing peak searching on the first target exercise data again based on the reference window width, to obtain a reference peak quantity (further observation/analysis of data); and
determining the iterative window width in the first target time period based on the preset peak quantity and the reference peak quantity (determination based on results/analysis).” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 17 and 18.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A rope jumping status detection method, collecting, by one or more motion sensors included in an electronic device, first target exercise data in a first target time periods, wherein the first target time period comprises a first end moment, and the first end moment is used to identify an end moment of the first target time period; a processor; a display
Claim 17: one or more processors, one or more memories, one or more motion sensors, a sound collecting device, a display, and collecting first target exercise data in a first target time period by using the one or more motion sensors, wherein the first target time period comprises a first end moment, and the first end moment is used to identify an end moment of the first target time period;
Claim 18: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, collecting, by one or more motion sensors included in the computer first target exercise data in a first target time period, wherein the first target time period comprises a first end moment, and the first end moment is used to identify an end moment of the first target time period; a processor; a display.
The additional element in the preamble of “A rope jumping status detection method” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. One or more motion sensors, a sound collecting device, and collecting, by one or more motion sensors included in an electronic device, first target exercise data in a first target time periods, wherein the first target time period comprises a first end moment, and the first end moment is used to identify an end moment of the first target time period represent mere data gathering steps and only add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and one or more memories (generic memory) and one or more processors with a display (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 4-16, and 21-24 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The Examiner notes that there are currently no longer any prior art rejections, as claims that were not rejected under prior art have been amended along with intervening claims, into the independent claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al. (CN 112642095 A) discloses a Cordless Skipping Rope Detecting Method, Device And Device Based On Wearable Device.
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 CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2857