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 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 24 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, in light of the amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7 – 11, 13, 15 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory category
Claim 1 recites a device comprising memory and a processor. This is a machine. Claims 9 and 16 are a process and a manufacture, respectively. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites a processor configured to: receive a transition of a heart rate… estimate a fatigue level… estimate an exercise intensity… estimate a stabilization time… and output the fatigue level and the exercise intensity.
These limitations are mathematical concepts and mental processes. They are calculation and evaluations performed on received parameters. The same steps can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Reciting a generic “estimation model” does not take the limitation out of the mathematical concept grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Therefore, claim 1 constitutes an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The additional elements are: at least one memory storing a set of instructions and at least one processor. The memory and processor are generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The receiving and outputting steps listed above are merely extra-solution activity including data gathering.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The additional elements, individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the exception. The generic processor and memory are well understood, routine, and conventional. The limitations are merely abstract calculations implemented onto a generic computer that contains a conventional input and produces a conventional output.
Claims 9 and 16 recite the same receiving, estimating, and outputting steps in a method and in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The analysis is identical and the claims are rejected for the same reasons listed above.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 further limit the estimation model and/or recite additional estimation details. However, they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights