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 .
The following Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed on 02/18/2026. Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-20 have been amended. Claims 10 and 12-13 have been canceled. Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-20 are pending and reject as follows.
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 1-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method of evaluating user performance across different activities using sensor data from a plurality of sensors positioned to contact a user, the method comprising:
obtaining sensor data from the plurality of sensors, wherein the sensor data is collected while the user performs two or more activities, the two or more activities comprising a gaming activity and a non-gaming activity;
generating a standard athletic metric value from the sensor data corresponding to the non-gaming activity;
generating a game-specific performance score for the gaming activity from the sensor data corresponding to the gaming activity;
determining an activity category for the gaming activity and the nongaming activity;
generating a user performance score from a first weighted value of the standard athletic metric value, the activity category, and a second weighted value of the game-specific performance score, wherein the first weighted value is larger than the second weighted value; and
based on the user performance score, generating user feedback wherein the user feedback comprises at least one of a haptic signal and an audio signal.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of System Claim 17 which performs the method of claim 1.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 17 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “evaluating user performance across different activities” which amounts to a mental process of assessing or judging how well a user performs an activity, “generating a standard athletic metric value from the sensor data corresponding to the non-gaming activity” and “generating a game-specific performance score for the gaming activity from sensor data corresponding to the gaming activity” which amount to mathematical concepts because they require calculations performed on collected data, “determining an activity category for the gaming activity and the non-gaming activity” which amounts to classifying information based on observation and evaluation, and “generating a user performance score from a first weighted value of the standard athletic metric value, the activity category, and a second weighted value of the game-specific performance score, wherein the first weighted value is larger than the second weighted value” which amounts to a mathematical calculation using weighted values to produce a result. The limitations are the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluation, and/or judgement in order to evaluate a user performance and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations such these sections in the specifications that recite formulas used to calculate data: [0124], [0125], and [0134].
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 17.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim includes additional elements that are recited at a high level and used in a conventional manner. The claimed method recited “using sensor data from a plurality of sensors positioned to contact a user”, “obtaining sensor data from the plurality of sensors” and “generating user feedback wherein the user feedback comprises at least one of a haptic signal and an audio signal” however these elements are found to be data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The use of one or multiple sensors does not elevate the claim to be a practical implementation. The use of “sensor data from the plurality of sensors” in the claims appear to be an attempt to limit the generate/determine/evaluate activity data to a particular technological setting. However, the use of sensors to generate the information still reflects as a form of data evaluation that can be carried out as a mental process such as recognizing a person is playing basketball or soccer or gaming with electronics. The claim does not describe any unique way in which the sensors operate, neither does it improve the method on how the data is collected or analyzed. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
System claim 17 contain similar additional elements as claim 1 such as “a plurality of sensors positionable to contact a user”, “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors”, and “obtain sensor data from the plurality of sensors, wherein the sensor data is collected while the user performs one or more activities” however these elements are found to be data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The use of generic sensors and processors does not elevate the claim to a practical implementation and appears to be an attempt to limit the abstract idea of evaluating user performance to a particular technological setting. However, using sensors to generate the information still reflects a form of data evaluation that can be carried out as a mental process such as recognizing the type of activity being performed. The claim does not describe any unique way in which the sensors operate, neither does it improve the method on how the data is collected or analyzed. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.” The steps of “evaluating”, “collecting”, “generating”, “determining” recited in the claim are performed by “one or more processors” however this is found to be equivalent to adding the words “apply it” and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a general-purpose computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using “sensors and “processors”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the result of generating a evaluation from the sensor data regarding a activity such as the user being able to adapt and make changes to the activity to improve performance based off the evaluation or being able to measure how much improvement the user has made from pervious iterations using the technology, or make suggestions/recommendations to alter performance to a desired goal but the only thing that is done is collecting the information and generating a evaluation to be presented to a user.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general-purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 1 and 17). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 17, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 1-11, 14-16 and 18-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1 and 17.
Specifically:
With respect to dependent claims 5-6, and 18-20 specifically, the claims further recite additional details about the sensors such as arrangements, use of force sensors, inertial measurement units (IMUs), and placement like wearable devices like insoles. However, specifying the type or placement of sensors merely describes the environment in which the data is collected and does not add any meaningful limitations. The claims do not describe any unique way in which the sensors operate, neither does it improve the method on how the data is collected or analyzed. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
With respect to dependent claim 2, specifically, the claim further recites “outputting” the user performance score. However, merely outputting or displaying the results is merely a mental step and can be performed with the aid of a pen and paper. The claim does not recite any unique way of outputting data or performing the step beyond merely presenting results. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
With respect to dependent claims 4, and 9-11, specifically, the claims further recite “determining” a user experience level or activity. However, to determine values using mathematical processes which then is used as an evaluation for a user performance is a common practice that fails to provide details to amount to anything more than an abstract idea. These limitations amount to classification or organization of information, which is also a form of a mental process that can be performed without a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
With respect to dependent claims 3, 7-8, and 14-16 specifically, the claims further recite “generating”, or “evaluating” the sensor data that is collected within the system to evaluate the user performance which can all be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Also, to generate or determine values using mathematical processes which then is used as an evaluation for a user performance is a common practice that fails to provide details to amount to anything more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the following are a mental process part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
Accordingly, for the reasons above and those discussed in relation to the independent claims 1 and 17, and the dependent claims are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100063779 A1, Schrock et al. (hereinafter Schrock) in view of US 9414784 B1, Berme et al. (hereinafter Berme), and in further view of US 20230271057 A1, Bentley (hereinafter Bentley).
Regarding Claim 1 and 17, Schrock disclose a method of evaluating user performance (Schrock, [0014] athletic performance monitoring can include monitoring one or more performance metrics… [0015] the invention relates to methods utilizing an article of footwear containing a sensor system as described) across different activities using sensor data (Schrock, [0115] he system 12 can also be configured for "all day activity" tracking, to record the various activities a user engages in over the course of a day.) from a plurality of sensors positioned to contact a user (Schrock, [0004] The sensor system includes a plurality of sensors that are configured for detecting forces exerted by a user's foot on the sensor), the method comprising:
obtaining sensor data from the plurality of sensors (Schrock, [0052] The sensor system includes a force sensor assembly, having a plurality of sensors, and a communication or output port in communication with the sensor assembly), wherein the sensor data is collected while the user performs two or more activities (Schrock, [0112] data collected by the system 12 can be used in measurement of a variety of other athletic performance characteristics. The data can be used to measure the degree and/or speed of foot pronation/supination, foot strike patterns, balance, and other such parameters), the two or more activities comprising a gaming activity and a non-gaming activity (Schrock, [0124] the sensor system provides a wide range of functionality for a wide variety of applications, including gaming, fitness, athletic training and improvement, practical controls for computers and other devices, and many others described herein and recognizable to those skilled in the art);
generating a standard athletic metric value from the sensor data corresponding to the non-gaming activity (Schrock, [0014] Athletic performance monitoring can include monitoring one or more performance metrics such as speed, distance, lateral movement, acceleration, jump height, weight transfer, foot strike pattern, balance, foot pronation or supination, loft time measurement during running, lateral cutting force, contact time, center of pressure, weight distribution, and/or impact force, among others);
based on the user performance score, generating user feedback wherein the user feedback comprises at least one of a haptic signal (Schrock, [0114] one or more vibration elements may be included in the shoe 100, which can give a user feedback by vibrating a portion of the shoe to help control motion)
Schrock does not disclose generating a game-specific performance score for the gaming activity from the sensor data corresponding to the gaming activity;
determining an activity category of that activity for the gaming activity and the nongaming activity;
generating a user performance score from a first weighted value of the standard athletic metric value, the activity category, and a second weighted value of the game specific performance score, wherein the first weighted value is larger than the second weighted value; and
based on the user performance score, generating user feedback wherein the user feedback comprises at least one an audio signal.
However, Berme teaches generating a game-specific performance score for the gaming activity from the sensor data corresponding to the gaming activity (Berme, [Col 25 Line 51-57] the activity matching is accomplished by comparing the executed motion {right arrow over (p)}(t) with each reference motion {right arrow over (w)} from a set of reference motions, representing the anticipated activities, and selecting the closest match. The reference motion {right arrow over (w)} may have a plurality of different reference motions contained therein [Col 2 Line 35-39] the sensory output device configured to generate a formed feedback signal for delivery to the user that is based upon the sensory output signal);
determining an activity category of that activity for the gaming activity and the nongaming activity (Berme, [Col. 25 Line 48-60] it is beneficial to automate the selection by determining the type of activity being performed without explicit user input to that effect The activity matching is accomplished by comparing the executed motion {right arrow over (p)}(t) with each reference motion {right arrow over (w)} from a set of reference motions, representing the anticipated activities, and selecting the closest match);
based on the user performance score, generating user feedback wherein the user feedback comprises at least one an audio signal (Berme, [Col 3 Line 54-61] the formed feedback signal comprising at least one of a visual indicator, an audible indicator, and a tactile indicator, and the sensory output device further configured to output the at least one of the visual indicator, the audible indicator, and the tactile indicator to the user in order to provide biofeedback as to conformity of the executed motion data to the baseline motion data of the reference motion).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock with Berme teaching because Berme teaches automatically determining activity category by comparing sensed motion data with stored reference motions and generating corresponding user feedback signals, including visual, audible, and tactile indicators. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Berme’s activity recognition and feedback techniques into Schrock’s sensor athletic performance monitoring system would have improved the ability of Schrock’s system to classify user activities, distinguish gaming and non-gaming activities, and provide a more tailored user feedback based on the detected activity type and results.
Schrock in view of Berme does not disclose generating a user performance score from a first weighted value of the standard athletic metric value, the activity category, and a second weighted value of the game specific performance score, wherein the first weighted value is larger than the second weighted value; and
However, Bentley teaches generating a user performance score from a first weighted value of the standard athletic metric value (Bentley, [0349] the prescriptions may result from combinations of results from two or more diagnostic parameters. In variations, the knowledge base may include rules developed through expert interviews, automated analysis techniques based on measured results produced by the swing, or principles of fuzzy logic. In one embodiment, the diagnostic parameters produce exercise prescriptions with assigned priority levels. For example, if a particular golfer's swing produces one diagnostic parameter that is very far from ideal while other diagnostic parameters diverge from ideal only partly, the first diagnostic parameter will be assigned a higher priority level than the others), the activity category, and a second weighted value of the game specific performance score (Bentley, [0359] The analysis may include calculating from the test values and the benchmark values a score for each selected parameter. It may further include combining the scores of the selected parameters by a pre-defined formula so as to yield a single score representing the total performance value of the athletic motion as a kinetic index), wherein the first weighted value is larger than the second weighted value (Bentley, [0349] for another example, if two diagnostic parameters diverge from ideal but one is considered more important to a good golf swing or alternatively one is considered important to control to provide a good foundation for the other, then that one will be assigned a higher priority level than the other);
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock in view of Berme and Bentley teaching because Bentley teaches combining multiple performance parameters using weighted or prioritized values to generate a single overall performance score and tailoring performance evaluation using user-specific characteristics such as age, sex, height, and weight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Bentley’s weighted scoring and normalization techniques into the Schrock-Berme system to improve the accuracy, customization and usefulness of the generated user performance score.
Regarding Claim 2, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1.
Schrock does not disclose further comprising outputting the user performance score.
However, Berme teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the user performance score (Berme, [Col. 2 Lines 25-40] activity matching is accomplished by comparing the executed motion with each reference motion… sensory output device configured to generate a formed feedback signal for delivery to the user… feedback signal comprising at least one indicator).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock with Berme’s teaching in order to provide an output of the user performance score. Schrock teaches generating performance data from multiple sensors, while Berme teaches outputting results of activity to a user using a feedback signal and indicators. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining these teachings would have the performance evaluation results generated in Schrock to be presented to a user therefore improving the usefulness of the system.
Regarding Claim 3, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1.
Schrock and Berme does not disclose wherein the two or more activities comprises a plurality of activities and the method further comprises determining a global user performance score from the user performance scores generated for each of the activities in the plurality of activities.
However, Bentley teaches wherein the one or more activities comprises a plurality of activities (Bentley, [0321] Projectiles tracked by the sensors of the system may include for example, without limitation, a ball, a football, a rugby ball, an Australian rules football, a soccer ball, a volleyball, a water polo ball, a polo ball, a basketball…) and the method further comprises determining a global user performance score from the user performance scores generated for each of the activities in the plurality of activities (Bentley, [0359] it may further include combining the scores of the selected parameters by a pre-defined formula so as to yield a single score representing the total performance value of the athletic motion as a kinetic index).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock and Berme with Bentley. Schrock’s teaching to generate sensor data from multiple sensors from a wearable insole device and Berme’s teaching to use the sensor data to generate a performance score and determine the type of activity while Bentley’s teaching to generate a global score from the user performance scores for each activity. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that integrating an overall score or a global score of the performance data would improve the system using Schrock and Berme’s teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 3.
Schrock and Berme does not disclose further comprising determining a user experience level for the user based on the global user performance score.
However, Bentley further teaches further comprising determining a user experience level for the user based on the global user performance score (Bentley, [0324] embodiments of the invention may automatically generate or select one more tags for events, based for example on analysis of sensor data. Event data with tags may be stored in an event database for subsequent retrieval and analysis. Tags may represent for example, without limitation, activity types, players, timestamps, stages of an activity, performance levels, or scoring results).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock and Berme with Bentley. Schrock’s teaching to generate sensor data from multiple sensors from a wearable insole device and Berme’s teaching to use the sensor data to generate a performance score and determine the type of activity while Bentley’s teaching to determine a user level based on the scores generated. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding a user level will allow an easier visual for the monitoring system for users and help improve of finding and presenting data to the user as taught by Schrock and Berme.
Regarding Claim 5, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1, Schrock further teaches: wherein the plurality of sensors (Schrock, [0004] the sensor system includes a plurality of sensors that are configured for detecting forces exerted by a user's foot on the sensor) comprises a plurality of force sensors positionable underfoot of the user and the sensor data comprises force sensor data from the plurality of force sensors (Schrock, [0054] The sensor system can be positioned in several configurations in the sole of the shoe).
Regarding Claim 6, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1.
Schrock does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors comprises one or more IMUs mounted to the user and the sensor data comprises IMU data from the one or more IMUs.
However, Berme further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises one or more IMUs mounted to the user (Berme, Fig. 19 (22) and Fig. 18 (22) sensor unit) and the sensor data comprises IMU data from the one or more IMUs (Berme, [Col. 31 Lines 47-57] to acquire data required to generate the output such as the bat and the ball acquired with inertial measurement units and tracking devices).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock and Berme’s teaching. Schrock teaches obtaining and processing sensor data for monitoring user performance and describes sensors that may include inertial measurement units (IMUs), but does not specifically disclose the use of IMUs for collecting motion data. However, Berme expressly teaches the use of inertial measurement units (IMUs) mounted to a user providing motion-related data. One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate IMUs into Schrock’s system to improve the quality and details of the collected performance data of the performance monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 7, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1.
Schrock does not disclose wherein the standard athletic metric value comprises an energy expenditure value of the user.
However, Berme further teaches wherein the standard athletic metric value comprises an energy expenditure value of the user (Berme, [Col. 23 Lines 49-53] energy and power is the technique employed for deriving the synthetic parameters, kinetic and kinematic parameters may be combined to derive the energy of a part of the system (the body), or change in energy—the power generated or absorbed by the system).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock with Berme. Schrock teaching collecting and processing athletic performance data, while Berme teaches deriving an energy value as part of the performance evaluation. One with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating energy values into Schrock monitoring system would improve the range and usefulness of the performance monitoring system to the user.
Regarding Claim 8, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1.
Schrock does not disclose wherein the standard athletic metric value comprises a rate of energy expenditure value of the user.
However, Berme further teaches wherein the standard athletic metric value comprises a rate of energy expenditure value of the user (Berme, [Col. 23 Lines 49-53] energy and power is the technique employed for deriving the synthetic parameters, kinetic and kinematic parameters may be combined to derive the energy of a part of the system (the body), or change in energy—the power generated or absorbed by the system).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock with Berme. Schrock teaches obtaining and processing data while Berme teaches calculating energy values including the rate of energy as part of the performance data collection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding rate of energy values into Schrock’s system would add more detail to the user performance data captured.
Regarding Claim 9, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1, Schrock further teaches wherein the activity category is selected from the group consisting of a non-gaming activity, a screen-based gaming activity, and a non-screen based gaming activity (Schrock, [0124] the sensor system provides a wide range of functionality for a wide variety of applications, including gaming, fitness, athletic training and improvement, practical controls for computers and other devices, and many others described herein and recognizable to those skilled in the art).
Regarding Claim 11, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 9, Schrock further teaches: wherein the two or more activities comprises at least one of running, jumping, cycling, playing badminton, dancing, playing a basketball game, attending a yoga class, lifting a sofa, walking, and a gaming activity (Schrock, [0124] the sensor system provides a wide range of functionality for a wide variety of applications, including gaming, fitness, athletic training and improvement, practical controls for computers and other devices, and many others described herein and recognizable to those skilled in the art, [0112] The data collected by the system 12 can be used in measurement of a variety of other athletic performance characteristics. The data can be used to measure the degree and/or speed of foot pronation/supination, foot strike patterns, balance, and other such parameters, which can be used to improve technique in running/jogging or other athletic activities).
Regarding Claim 14, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 1.
Schrock and Berme does not disclose wherein generating the user performance score comprises:
applying a function to the standard athletic metric value, wherein the function is defined according to the activity category.
However, Bentley teaches wherein generating the user performance score comprises:
applying a function to the standard athletic metric value, wherein the function is defined according to the activity category (Bentley, [0359] it may further include combining the scores of the selected parameters by a pre-defined formula so as to yield a single score representing the total performance value of the athletic motion as a kinetic index).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock and Berme with Bentley. Schrock’s teaching to monitor activities where one activity is at least a gaming activity and Berme’s teaching to use the sensor data to generate a performance score and determine the type of activity while Bentley’s teaching to apply functions onto the sensor data generated to represent the performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using only raw data would not as beneficial as using formulas like those used in Bentley to show additional performance metrics within the system taught in Schrock and Berme.
Regarding Claim 15, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the method of claim 14.
Schrock and Berme does not disclose wherein the function comprises a first normalization factor that is applied to the standard athletic metric value and/or a
second normalization factor that is applied to the game-specific performance score.
However, Bentley teaches wherein the function comprises a normalization factor that is applied to the standard athletic metric value (Bentley, [0106] for a single motion or for discrete motions performed throughout a session, the systems of the invention may provide a quantified measurement of the motion, such as a normalized “score” or percentage deviation between the test and template data sets, [0193] the score may represent a normalized aggregation of the difference in the test swing profiles for each swing compared with a template motion profile of a most efficient swinging technique, the speed of the swing (e.g., adjusted based on the number of swings previously done), and personal data (e.g., from sensor data)).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock and Berme with Bentley. Schrock’s teaching to monitor activities where one activity is at least a gaming activity and Berme’s teaching to use the sensor data to generate a performance score and determine the type of activity while Bentley’s teaching with normalized sensor data. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Bentley teaching will be useful to use in Schrock’s teaching for using the performance monitoring system with the teaching Berme to be able to use the system in situation where taking the normalized value for each metric will allow users understand where are averaging in performance and where they can improve.
Regarding Claim 16, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley teaches the method of claim 14, wherein:
the first normalization factor or second normalization factor is defined according to the user mass, weight, age, gender, natural athletic ability, game skill, or other physical characteristic.
Schrock and Berme does not disclose the first normalization factor or second normalization factor is defined according to the user mass, weight, age, gender, natural athletic ability, game skill, or other physical characteristic.
However, Bentley teaches the first normalization factor or second normalization factor is defined according to the user mass, weight, age, gender, natural athletic ability, game skill, or other physical characteristic (Bentley, [0250] the various elements including any data associated with the user, such as age, sex, height, weight, address, income or any other related information may be utilized in embodiments of the invention and/or subjected to data mining)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock and Berme with Bentley because Bentley teaches combining multiple performance parameters using weighted or prioritized values to generate a overall score which includes user specific characteristics such as age, sex, height, and weight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bentley’s user-specific normalization techniques into Schrock-Berme system to allow a tailored performance evaluation based on a user characteristics.
Regarding Claim 18, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the system of claim 17, Schrock further teaches: wherein the plurality of sensors (Schrock, [0004] the sensor system includes a plurality of sensors that are configured for detecting forces exerted by a user's foot on the sensor) comprises a plurality of force sensors positionable underfoot of the user and the sensor data comprises force sensor data from the plurality of force sensor (Schrock, [0055] the sensors are force sensors for measuring compression of the sole and/or force on the sole).
Regarding Claim 19, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the system of claim 17.
Schrock does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors comprises one or more IMUs mounted to the user and the sensor data comprises IMU data from the one or more IMUs.
However, Berme further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises one or more IMUs mounted to the user (Berme, Fig. 19 (22) and Fig. 18 (22) sensor unit) and the sensor data comprises IMU data from the one or more IMUs (Berme, [Col. 31 Lines 47-57] to acquire data required to generate the output such as the bat and the ball acquired with inertial measurement units and tracking devices).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schrock with Berme. Schrock’s teaching to generate sensor data using multiple sensors that are mounted onto the user while Berme’s teaching the use of inertial measurement units (IMUs) to provide motion-related data. One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate IMUs into Schrock’s system to improve the quality and details of the collected performance data of the performance monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 20, Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley disclose the system of claim 17, Schrock further teaches: wherein the plurality of sensors (Schrock, [0004] the sensor system includes a plurality of sensors that are configured for detecting forces exerted by a user's foot on the sensor) are provided by one or more wearable devices worn by the user (Schrock, [0051] the present invention may be used in connection with other types and configurations of shoes, as well as other types of footwear and sole structures), and the wearable device is an insole (Schrock, [0054] The sensor system can be positioned in several configurations in the sole of the shoe).
Response to Amendment
35 USC§ 101
Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments integrate the recited concepts into a practical application by requiring sensor data collected from a plurality of sensors, generating activity specific metric, and providing user feedback in the form of haptic and audio signals.
However, the claims remain directed to abstract ideas, including evaluating user performance, determining an activity category, generating metric values and performance scores, and applying weighted values to generate a user performance score. These limitations constitute mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The additional elements of obtaining sensor data from sensors and providing haptic and audio feedback are recited at aa high level of generality and merely gather data for, and output the results of, the abstract analysis. The claims do not recite any improvement to sensor technology, computer functionality, or another technology.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
35 USC§ 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 of the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection have been considered but are moot and/or unpersuasive because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references (Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley) being used in the current rejection.
Regarding the argument that the amended limitations in Claims 1 and 17 the applicant argues that Schrock in view of Berme does not disclose generating a game performance score, determining an activity category, generating a user performance score from a weighted values, and providing user feedback under the amended limitations. This argument is unpersuasive because the newly cited portions of Schrock in view of Berme in further view of Bentley, teach or suggest the disputed limitations, as explained in the rejection above.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-20 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. See rejection above for
further detail.
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 IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6612. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights