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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended to recite “…between a first running pace feature…”;
line 5 should be amended to recite “…unspecified runners, and a recommended running pace…”;
lines 7-8 should be amended to recite “…calculate a second running pace feature…”; and
line 12 should be amended to recite “…based on the second running pace feature…”.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended to recite “…using the first running pace feature…”.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended to recite “…between a first running pace feature…”;
line 5 should be amended to recite “…unspecified runners, and a recommended running pace…”;
lines 7-8 should be amended to recite “…calculating a second running pace feature…”; and
line 12 should be amended to recite “…based on the second running pace feature…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action (i.e., the correlation storage step, the running pace feature calculation step, and the recommended running pace calculation step of Claim 3). Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the correlation storage device, the running pace feature calculation device, and the recommended running pace calculation device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 1 recites a system, and Claim 3 recites a method. Thus, the claims are to a machine and a method, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A recommended running pace calculation system comprising:
a correlation storage device in which a second correlation is stored, the second correlation being a correlation between running pace feature that is defined using an average running pace and a variation of running paces in a distance running having a predetermined length run by unspecified runners and recommended running pace in the distance running;
a running pace feature calculation device configured to calculate a running pace feature that is defined using an average running pace and a variation of running paces in the distance running run by a runner to be evaluated [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and
a recommended running pace calculation device configured to calculate a recommended running pace in the distance running recommended to the runner to be evaluated, based on the running pace feature of the runner to be evaluated calculated by the running pace feature calculation device and the second correlation stored in the correlation storage device [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., “a correlation storage device in which a second correlation is stored, the second correlation being a correlation between running pace feature that is defined using an average running pace and a variation of running paces in a distance running having a predetermined length run by unspecified runners and recommended running pace in the distance running”; a running pace feature calculation device, and a recommended running pace calculation device. The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the abstract idea is performed. The correlation storing device is merely generic computer hardware for storing data for use in the abstract idea. The running pace feature calculation device and the recommended running pace calculation device are merely generic computer hardware for performing the calculating steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements identified in Step 2A do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements identified in Step 2A are not unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; and simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the same storing, calculating, and calculating steps as Claim 1, and is also not patent eligible. Dependent Claim 2 merely recites further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and is also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gindre et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0266505, hereinafter “Gindre”, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 1/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Gindre teaches a recommended running pace calculation system (Fig. 11; paragraph [0106]) comprising: a correlation storage device in which a second correlation is stored (paragraph [0060]), the second correlation being a correlation between running pace feature that is defined using an average running pace and a variation of running paces in a distance running having a predetermined length run by unspecified runners and recommended running pace in the distance running (Fig. 3, paragraph [0064], race profiles of athletes include average values and variations; each race profile includes various paces necessary to match the race profile, i.e., the paces are correlated to the race profiles, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0074]-[0076]; see also paragraphs [0009]-[0013]); a running pace feature calculation device (Fig. 11; paragraph [0106]) configured to calculate a running pace feature that is defined using an average running pace and a variation of running paces in the distance running run by a runner to be evaluated (paragraphs [0078]-[0080], race profile is assigned to user based on the pace of the user, which includes average speed over various distances, as determined based on the actual current time at a plurality of measured distances, and variations in speed of the user at different distances, e.g., going from “fast starter” to” average runner”); and a recommended running pace calculation device (Fig. 11; paragraph [0106]) configured to calculate a recommended running pace in the distance running recommended to the runner to be evaluated, based on the running pace feature of the runner to be evaluated calculated by the running pace feature calculation device and the second correlation stored in the correlation storage device (paragraphs [0014]-[0021], retrieved race profile is used to indicate whether the pace followed by the athlete is too fast, adequate, or too slow to achieve target time; adequate pace is equated to recommended running pace).
Regarding Claim 2, Gindre teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Gindre further teaches wherein the second correlation is created through statistical processing or machine learning using the running pace feature of the unspecified runners and the recommended running pace (Fig. 3, paragraph [0064], the displayed variations on the vertical axis are a type of statistical processing; paragraphs [0009]-[0013], analytic function; paragraph [0106], classifier that uses a neural network).
Regarding Claim 3, Gindre teaches a recommended running pace calculation method comprising: a correlation storage step of storing a second correlation, the second correlation being a correlation between running pace feature that is defined using an average running pace and a variation of running paces in a distance running having a predetermined length run by unspecified runners and recommended running pace in the distance running (Fig. 3, paragraph [0064], race profiles of athletes include average values and variations; each race profile includes various paces necessary to match the race profile, i.e., the paces are correlated to the race profiles, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0074]-[0076]; see also paragraphs [0009]-[0013]); a running pace feature calculation step of calculating a running pace feature that is defined using an average running pace and a variation of running paces in the distance running run by a runner to be evaluated (paragraphs [0078]-[0080], race profile is assigned to user based on the pace of the user, which includes average speed over various distances, as determined based on the actual current time at a plurality of measured distances, and variations in speed of the user at different distances, e.g., going from “fast starter” to” average runner”); and a recommended running pace calculation step of calculating a recommended running pace in the distance running recommended to the runner to be evaluated, based on the running pace feature of the runner to be evaluated calculated in the running pace feature calculation step and the second correlation stored in the correlation storage step (paragraphs [0014]-[0021], retrieved race profile is used to indicate whether the pace followed by the athlete is too fast, adequate, or too slow to achieve target time; adequate pace is equated to recommended running pace).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ikegami (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0150119) teaches applying statistical processing to marathon running times (see Fig. 18 and paragraphs [0279]-[0308]).
Ono (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0261775) teaches using a pace of another runner to determine a pace for a user (paragraph [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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 A 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights