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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S .C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1 is a system which comprises a mobile beacon, a subject to carry the mobile beacon, interface circuitry, programmable circuitry to execute machine readable instructions. It is unclear what component performs the function of receiving the signals to which the signal strengths are determined. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, a radio receiver is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 9 is directed towards a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to perform a function; e.g., determine, which is received from a mobile beacon. It is unclear what component receives the signals of the mobile beacon. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, a radio receiver is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claims 10-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 17 discloses a method for determining a distance traveled by a subject based on received signals from a mobile beacon carried by a person. It is unclear what receives the signals of the mobile beacon. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Further clarification is required. For the purposes of the present examination, a radio receiver is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claims 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 17. 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. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability , 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). FILLIN "Explain why the claim is interpreted to read on a human organism." Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed towards utilizing a human organism; e.g., subject performing a six-minute walk test, to perform a test and measure the results of the test performed by the human organism ; e.g., see figs. 1A-1D explicitly illustrating the subject as a person /human organism , wherein the limitation "to be carried by a subject" is a positive recitation of claiming the human organism as a function of the system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and method . Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows: Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter. Step 2A: This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold : A system comprising: a mobile beacon to be carried by a subject during a six-minute walk test; interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine a distance traveled by the subject during the six-minute walk test based on a strength of signals received from the mobile beacon. has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses during a six-minute walk test; determine a distance traveled … based on a strength of signals ; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering and/or observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f). In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites: interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). a mobile beacon of signals received from the mobile beacon Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). to be carried by a subject by the subject Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to encompass the use of a human organism; e.g., see MPEP 2105.III. which discloses Congress has excluded claims directed to or encompassing a human organism from patentability. Step 2B: In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) . The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents the claiming of a human organism; e.g., see MPEP 2105.III. It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 3-8 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 1: Claims 9-16 are directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter. Step 2A: This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Analyzing claim 9 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold : A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least determine a distance travelled by a subject during a six-minute walk test based on signals received form a mobile beacon carried by the subject during the six-minute walk test. has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 9 discloses determine a distance travelled… during a six-minute walk test based on signals … during the six-minute walk test ; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering and/or observation . The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 9 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f). In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Analyzing claim 9 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 9 further recites: A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least Analyzing these additional elements of claim 9 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) . received from a mobile beacon Analyzing this additional element of claim 9 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). by a subject carried by the subject Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to encompass the use of a human organism; e.g., see MPEP 2105.III. which discloses Congress has excluded claims directed to or encompassing a human organism from patentability. Step 2B: In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents the claiming of a human organism; e.g., see MPEP 2105.III. It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 9 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 10-16 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 9 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 1: Claims 17-20 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter. Step 2A: This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Analyzing claim 17 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold : A method comprising: determining a distance traveled by a subject during a six-minute walk test based on signals received from a mobile beacon carried by the subject during the six minute w alk test. has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 17 discloses determining a distance traveled… during a six-minute walk test based on signals… during the six minute walk test; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering and/or observation . The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 17 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f). In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Analyzing claim 17 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 17 further recites: received from a mobile beacon Analyzing this additional element of claim 17 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). by a subject carried by the subject Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to encompass the use of a human organism; e.g., see MPEP 2105.III. which discloses Congress has excluded claims directed to or encompassing a human organism from patentability. Step 2B: In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents the claiming of a human organism; e.g., see MPEP 2105.III. It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 17 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 18-20 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 17 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaib et al. (US 2016/0278652 A1), hereinafter Kaib . Regarding claim 1, Kaib discloses A system comprising: a mobile beacon to be carried by a subject during a six-minute walk test; ( Kaib , e.g., see figs. 1-3A illustrating wearable medical device (100) comprising; e.g., medical device controller (120 ; see also fig. 4 illustrating medical device controller (400) comprising; e.g., location manager (414) ; see also para. [ 0040 ] disclosing determining an indoor or outdoor location of a medical device, wherein the medical device is capable of determining its location by various IPS techniques (e.g., processes that do not require GPS signals from satellites. In some examples, the medical device may use IPS processes (such as dead reckoning) in combination with GPS and/or GNSS location determination processes to accurately determine the location. In addition, the location of the medical device may be transmitted to an external system; see also fig. 4 and para. [00 62 ] disclosing location manager (414) is configured to determine the location of the medical device or patient equipped with the medical device, wherein the location manager (414) may employ various antennas to receive GPS signals, other satellite navigation systems, and/or various detectors (e.g., accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes), including various IPS solutions as described below to measure the movement of the patient and/or the medical device along with the corresponding software; see also para. [0077] disclosing the motion information generated by the motion detection devices may be processed by the medical device controller (400) to determine a medical condition of the patient, such as part of a physical activity test (e.g., a six minute walk test) administered to the patient as described further below with reference to fig. 9 ; see also para. [0089] disclosing the medical device may receive a signal from one or more Bluetooth® beacons with known locations, determine a distance between the device and the beacon based on the received signal strength ). interface circuitry; ( Kaib , e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 1 illustrating user interface pod (140); see also paras. [0045]-[0047] disclosing the user interface pod (140); construed as interface circuitry, includes a number of buttons by which the patient, or a bystander can communicate with the medical device controller (120), and a speaker by which the medical device controller (120) may communicate with the patient or the bystander. The functionality of the user interface pod (140) is integrated into the housing of the medical device controller (120)). machine readable instructions; and ( Kaib , e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 4 illustrating data storage (404); see also para. [0064] disclosing the location manager (414) and/or the health manager (420) may be implemented using hardware or a combination of hardware and software. For one instance, the location manager (414) and/or the health manager (420) is implemented as a software component that is stored within the data storage (412) and executed by the processor (418). In this example, the instructions included in the location manager (414) and/or the health manager (420) program the processor (418) to determine the location of the medical device; see also para. [0069] disclosing the instructions on the data storage (404) may include executable programs or other code that can be executed by the processor (418). the instructions may be persistently stored as encoded signals, and the instructions may cause the processor (418) to perform the functions described herein ) . programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to ( Kaib , e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 4 illustrating programmable circuitry; e.g., processor (418) of medical device controller (400); see also para. [0069] disclosing the data storage (404) also may include information that is recorded, on or in, the medium; construed as programmable, and this information may be processed by the processor (418) during execution of instructions. The medium may, for example, be optical disk, magnetic disk or flash memory, among others, and may be permanently affixed to, or removable from, the medical device controller (400)). determine a distance traveled by the subject during the six-minute walk test based on a strength of signals received from the mobile beacon. ( Kaib , e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also paras. [0010], [0021], [0077], [0116], [0120], [0124]-[0125], and [0133] disclosing a six-minute walk test; see also para. [0081] disclosing the medical device controller (400) may be able to determine its location at least in part by determining the distance between the medical device controller and the known location of the WLAN access point or cellular network tower. This may be accomplished at least in part by analyzing the signal strength of the WLAN access point or the cellular network tower; see also para. [0089] disclosing the use of a Bluetooth® beacon wherein a determination of distance is made based upon signal strength; see also para. [0096] disclosing the medical device may determine a directional vector having a magnitude representative of the distance traveled over the period of time and a direction traveled relative to a starting location; see also fig. 6 and para. [0098] disclosing as previous described, the estimated movement may be represented by a vector indicating the direction traveled and distance traveled by the medical device relative to a starting location. The medical device may add the vector representative of the movement of the medical device to the starting location identified in act (606) ; see also para. [0116] disclosing a wearable medical device (100) capable of determining its location may be employed to administer physical activity tests to gather patient data under controlled conditions including, for example, the distance traveled during the physical activity. These physical activity tests may include, for example, a six minute walk test). Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least determine a distance traveled by a subject during a six-minute walk test based on signals received from a mobile beacon carried by the subject during the six-minute walk test. , and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaib for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1. Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 recites A method comprising: determining a distance traveled by a subject during a six-minute walk test based on signals received from a mobile beacon carried by the subject during the six-minute walk test. , and is rejected under 35 U. S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaib for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaib in view of Salvi, Dario & Poffley , Emma & Orchard, Elizabeth & Tarassenko , L.. (2020). The Mobile-Based 6-Minute Walk Test: Usability Study and Algorithm Development and Validation. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 10.2196/13756., hereinafter Salvi. Regarding claim 2, Kaib discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to determine a quantity of traversals that the subject completed between a starting location associated with the six-minute walk test and a present location based on a rate of change of the strength of the signals received from the mobile beacon. ( Kaib , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1 with regard to a six minute walk test and a signal strength; see also paras. [0090]-[0091] disclosing the IPS processes performed in act (504) include location determination by dead reckoning. Dead reckoning processes may estimate movement relative to a past starting location to determine a present location. The estimated movement may be directly measured by, for example, motion sensors and/or determined based on a previous speed and a previous direction. The starting location may be determined based on one or more IPS and/or GPS methods. For example, the starting location may be a past location determined by GPS and/or a past location determined based on one or more beacons. Example processes performed by the medical device to perform dead reckoning are described further below with reference to figs. 6A-6B. In act (506), the medical device determines whether GPS information is available based on one or more predetermined criteria; e.g., the medical device may receive GPS signals and determine the GPS information is available by comparing the strength of the GPS signals received and/or the number of satellites associated with the received GPS signals to predetermined thresholds. The threshold number of satellites and/or the threshold signal strength may be stored as configurable parameters and set to minimum levels required to determine the location of the medical device; see also paras. [0097]-[0104] disclosing the dead reckoning processes may estimate the movement of the medical device relative to a starting position based on a previous speed and direction of the medical device (e.g., a previous velocity of the medical device); e.g., see fig. 6B. The act (612), the medical device identifies a starting location. The starting location may be, for example, the most recently determined location of the medical device. The previous location identified as the starting location and/or the previous locations employed in act (610) may be previously determined by other location determination methods including, for example, various GPS methods as described below with reference to Figs. 7 and 8, previous iterations of the dead reckoning processes (600A-B), and/or other IPS processes; examiner notes that taking several previous locations as vectors in determining location under processes (600A-B) and/or other IPS processes (as disclosed above in connection with a strength change of signal) is necessarily a rate of change of signal strength). Kaib discloses in fig. 10 the use of a triage area (1004) and a waypoint (1016) to track a starting point and ending point of a six minute walk test; e.g., see para. [0133], but is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a first end of a track and a second end of the track . However, Salvi further discloses a first end of a track and a second end of the track . ( Salvi , e.g., see fig. 3 illustrating a first end of a track and a second end of a track; see also pg. 6 disclosing Figure 3. Example of a positioning trace (in red) retrieved form the mobile phone. The walking man figure indicates the starting point of the test; the flag indicates its end. Comparing the trace with underlying picture shows that the position is sometimes affected by an error, for example, near tall buildings which reflect the signal or because of trees obscuring the global positioning system satellite’s signal; see also fig. 6B illustrating the same track as fig. 3; see also pg. 5, cols. 1-2 disclosing the outdoor algorithm works by using the localization information provided by the GPS system embedded in the phone (an example is shown in figure 3). After this simple signal quality step, positioning samples start to be collected. Once a sample has been selected, the distance between the previous selected sample and the newly selected one is computed and added to the total). Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Kaib’s system with Salvi’s first and second end of a track for at least the reasons that a starting point and ending point of a 6-minute walking test can be performed anywhere GPS signal is sufficient, regardless of geographic limitations, as taught by Salvi; e.g., see pg. 3, col. 2. Regarding claim 3, Kaib discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to identify a first complete traversal between a starting location associated with the six-minute walk test and a present location in response to a change of the strength of the signals received from the mobile beacon satisfying a change threshold. ( Kaib , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1 citing programmable circuitry; e.g., see fig. 4, and a six-minute walk test; see also para. [0091] disclosing the medical device may receive GPS signals and determine that GPS information is available by comparing the strength of the GPS signals received and/or the number of satellites associated with the received GPS signals to predetermined thresholds. The threshold number of satellite and/or the threshold signal strength may be stored as configurable parameters and set to minimum levels required to determine the location of the medical device; see also paras. [0097]-[0104] disclosing the dead reckoning processes may estimate the movement of the medical device relative to a starting position based on a previous speed and direction of the medical device (e.g., a previous velocity of the medical device); e.g., see fig. 6B. The act (612), the medical device identifies a starting location. The starting location may be, for example, the most recently determined location of the medical device. The previous location identified as the starting location and/or the previous locations employed in act (610) may be previously determined by other location determination methods including, for example, various GPS methods as described below with reference to Figs. 7 and 8, previous iterations of the dead reckoning processes (600A-B), and/or other IPS processes). Kaib discloses in fig. 10 the use of a triage area (1004) and a waypoint (1016) to track a starting point and ending point of a six minute walk test; e.g., see para. [0133], but is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a first end of a track and a second end of the track . However, Salvi further discloses a first end of a track and a second end of the track . ( Salvi , e.g., see fig. 3 illustrating a first end of a track and a second end of a track; see also pg. 6 disclosing Figure 3. Example of a positioning trace (in red) retrieved form the mobile phone. The walking man figure indicates the starting point of the test; the flag indicates its end. Comparing the trace with underlying picture shows that the position is sometimes affected by an error, for example, near tall buildings which reflect the signal or because of trees obscuring the global positioning system satellite’s signal; see also fig. 6B illustrating the same track as fig. 3; see also pg. 5, cols. 1-2 disclosing the outdoor algorithm works by using the localization information provided by the GPS system embedded in the phone (an example is shown in figure 3). After this simple signal quality step, positioning samples start to be collected. Once a sample has been selected, the distance between the previous selected sample and the newly selected one is computed and added to the total). Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Kaib’s system with Salvi’s first and second end of a track for at least the reasons that a starting point and ending point of a 6-minute walking test can be performed anywhere GPS signal is sufficient, regardless of geographic limitations, as taught by Salvi; e.g., see pg. 3, col. 2. Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites The non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to determine a quantity of traversals that the subject completed between a first end of a track associated with the six-minute walk test and a second end of the track based on a rate of change of a strength of the signals received from the mobile beacon. , and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being anticipated by Kaib in view of Salvi for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 2. Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 recites The non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to identify a first complete traversal between a first end of a track associated with the six-minute walk test and a second end of the track in response to a change of the signals received from the mobile beacon satisfying a change threshold. , and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being anticipated by Kaib , in view of Salvi for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 3. Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaib in view of Salvi, in further view of Sansano, Emilio & Montoliu , Raul & Belmonte Fernández, Oscar & Aranda, Fernando & Álvarez, Fernando. (2022). Continuous Non-Invasive Assessment of Gait Speed Through Bluetooth Low Energy. IEEE Sensors Journal. 22. 1-1. 10.1109/JSEN.2022.3157137., hereinafter Sansano. Regarding claim 4, Kaib in view of Salvi is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The system of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to: identify a local minimum or maximum signal strength in response to identifying a change in a signal strength slope between a positive slope and a negative slope in the strength of the signals received from the mobile beacon; and determine the local minimum or maximum signal strength corresponds to the subject turning around at a first end of a track associated with the six-minute walk test or a second end of the track in response to (a) a strength change following the local minimum or maximum signal strength satisfying a difference threshold and (b) the local minimum or maximum signal strength being within a threshold range of an average local minimum or maximum signal strength for the six-minute walk test. However, Salvi further discloses identify a local minimum or maximum signal strength in response to identifying a change in a signal strength slope between a positive slope and a negative slope in the strength of the signals received from the mobile beacon; and ( Salvi ; e.g., see fig. 2 illustrating an example of mobile phone azimuth signal. The first seconds show the calibration phase, after which U-turns are detected when the difference between near angles becomes greater than the set threshold within a short time window; examiner notes that fig. explicitly illustrates both local minimums and maximums at the points of each “turn:” see also pg. 4, col. 2 – pg. 5, col. 1 disclosing the underlying concept is to detect changes of 180˚ in the mobile phone azimuth signal (an example of such a signal is shown in Figure 2). The algorithm requires a simple calibration phase, in which users are asked to execute a 360˚ turn with the mobile phone in one hand, so that the minimum and maximum azimuths are captured; examiner notes fig. 2 explicitly illustrates both a positive and negative slope as time progresses through the changing azimuth signal strength, which are produced from the beacon/mobile phone). determine the local minimum or maximum signal strength corresponds to the subject turning around at a first end of a track associated with the six-minute walk test or a second end of the track in response to (a) a strength change following the local minimum or maximum signal strength satisfying a difference threshold and (b) the local minimum or maximum signal strength being within a threshold range of a local minimum or maximum signal strength for the six-minute walk test. ( Salvi , e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to fig. 2 wherein the local minimum and maximum azimuth signal strength correspond to a turn; see also fig. 1 illustrating the architecture of the y-min walk test (6MWT) system; see also pg. 4, col. 2 – pg. 5, col. 1 disclosing after calibration, samples of the compass signal are acquired every 500 ms. If the current sample is more than min_turn_time milliseconds away from either the start of the test or the latest detected U-turn, the sample is compared against past samples collected in a buffer. If the minimum difference between the angles of any of those samples is less than predetermined threshold, then a U-turn is detected. the parameters to be optimized in this algorithm are min-turn-time, the length of the buffer, and the threshold, which is set to be 35% of the difference between the maximum and the minimum values observed during the calibration). Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Kaib in view of Salvi’s system with Salvi’s identifying a local minimum or maximum signal strength in response to identifying a change in a signal strength slope between a positive slope and a negative slope in the strength of the signals received from the mobile beacon; and determine the local minimum or maximum signal strength corresponds to the subject turning around at a first end of a track associated with the six-minute walk test or a second end of the track in response to (a) a strength change following the local minimum or maximum signal strength satisfying a difference threshold and (b) the local minimum or maximum signal strength being within a threshold range of local minimum or maximum signal strength for the six-minute walk test for at least the reasons that local minimums and maximums of data strength signals may be utilized in calibration of discernment of turns, which thereby improves the directional algorithm, as taught by Salvi; e.g., see pg. 4, col. 2. Kaib in view of Silva is not relied upon as disclosing: an average . However, Sansano-Sansano further discloses: an average ( Sansano , e.g., see pg. 8187, col. 1 disclosing while walking, the received signal is subject to a series of changes that depend not only on the geometry and characteristics of the environment but also on the user’s attributes, the way he/she walks, the place where the device is worn, etc. Our proposal assumes that these effects, which for a given situation would have a given value, can be averaged over a short displacement). Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Kaib in view of Salvi’s system with Sansano’s average for at least the reasons that averaging values results in a best fit while filtering out noise which occurs as a result of a subject’s bodily movements, as taught by Sansano; e.g., see pg. 8187, col. 1. Regarding claim 5, Kaib in view of Salvi, in further view of Sansano is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The system of claim 4, wherein the programmable circuitry is to: determine an estimated speed of the subject based on the signal strength slope; and determine the difference threshold based on the estimated speed. However, Sansano further discloses: determine an estimated speed of the subject based on the signal strength slope; and ( Sansano , e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also figs. 1a-1c, wherein fig. 1a illustrates an RSSI signal as a parameter of a constant speed, fig. 1b illustrates the velocity - v, and fig. 1c illustrates a real example of RSSI data (red points) received from the emitter when the user follows the path at a constant speed; see also pg. 8186, col. 2 disclosing since BLE has been proposed to be used for indoor location purposes, its use could be extended to also provide speed of a user in an indoor environment. for fingerprinting-based positioning, the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of each advertisement can be used to form a signature for each location. For speed estimation, assuming it is constant, it should be possible to determine the actual speed from the RSSI evolution over time; examiner notes that figs. 1a and 1c illustrates slopes to which a speed is calculated; e.g., see pg. 8188, col. 1 – pg. 8189, col. 1 disclosing for each walk and each beacon a path-loss curve fit of the data has been performed in the following way: since the original RSSI data contains a large amount of noise, we apply a moving average smoothing strategy. For each walk, smartwatch, mac address (beacon) and window size, we find the best fit to the data using equation 3. The parameter v obtained represents the estimated speed of the user. This result is only taken into account when it is comprised in the interval of 0.2< v <2.0 ; construed as a signal slope ). determine the difference threshold based on the estimated speed. ( Sansano , e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also equation 2 disclosing RSSI= RSSI 0 - 10 γ log 10 d ini -vt 2 + d v 2 d 0 + X g and equation 3 disclosing f(t) = RSSI 0 - 10 γ log 10 d ini - vt 2 + d h 2 ; see also pg. 8187, col. 2 disclosing the RSSI 0 value obtained includes the theoretical value of RSSI 0 , which, in the absence of a previous calibration process, is unknown, plus the average value obtained by the fit for the parameter X g , which represents arbitrary variations in the signal during the walk due to arm-swing, temporary occlusion, etc.; examiner notes that equations 2-3 disclose a difference taken for signal strength, which takes as a value the velocity; e.g., speed, which includes a theoretical value RSSI 0 , which is construed as the difference threshold ). Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Kaib in view of Salvi, in further view of Sansano’s system with Sansano’s determine an estimated speed of the subject based on the signal strength slope; and determine the difference threshold based on the estimated speed for at least the reasons that it is possible to continuously monitor the RSSI value utilizing an estimate gait speed, as taught by Sansano; e.g., se