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 .
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 4/13/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 10 and 11 are amended, and claims 5-9 are canceled. Claims 1-4 and 10-12 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 4/13/2026 with respect to
the rejection of claims 1-12 directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. (See the detailed response presented below).
On pages 9-15 of Applicant’s response, Applicant alleges that “In view of the above, the activities as currently recited in amended claim 1 are not a mental process. … Further, the activities recited in amended claim I also do not involve any mathematical concept, either a mathematical relationship, a mathematical formula or equation, or mathematical calculation. … The activities in claim I do not involve such mathematical operation or act of calculating using mathematical methods, and hence are not mathematical calculation. … even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea at some level, the claims as a whole can be integrated into a practical application. In assessing whether a claim recites addition elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Prong Two of Step 2A, … Similarly, amended claim 1 of the present application, as quoted above, is directed to a particular manner to achieve the improvement in the technical field of equivalent speed determination, for example, by providing a plurality of sensors in a particular manner and setting forth a particular method to determine the user's equivalent speed in a standard environment based on the heart rates and speeds detected in real time by the plurality of sensors of a wearable device worn by the user, respectively …… claim I of the present application as a whole improves upon previous technology and the alleged judicial exception, if any, is integrated into the overall processing scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception. … amended claim I is not directed to the alleged judicial exception. Other claims are also not directed to the alleged judicial exception for similar reasons. … amended claim 1 of the present application recites specific steps, such as "acquiring environmental information in real time. … Applicant respectfully submits that, at least on top of these additional claim elements that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, the claimed subject matter is directed to a technical improvement and solution. The additional elements improve the technological process or otherwise improve the functioning of a computer, give particularity, and impose meaningful
limits on the claimed subject matter.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that the features related to “determining whether the slope is within a preset slope range, …” manually calculating or inferring if the slope, altitude and temperature are within each preset range which is indicative of a mathematical calculation, where the slope, the altitude and the temperature are indicative of routine data and mathematical values used for mathematical calculation. The features related to
“selecting a determination method …, the first determination method including determining an equivalent speed of the user … ; and the second determination method including determining an equivalent speed equation, determining an equivalent coefficient based on the equivalent speed equation…, and determining the equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first speed and the equivalent coefficient” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the equivalent speed based on mathematical values/amounts/factors such as the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship, calculating or inferring equivalent coefficient based on the collected routine data and mathematical equation (i.e., equivalent speed equation), where the first and second determination methods are indicative of mathematical concepts used to calculating or inferring the equivalent speed (see at least paragraphs 0040 and 0070-0078). The features related to “in response to determining that the slope is within the preset slope range, …, determining the equivalent speed …” and “in response to determining that the slope is outside the preset slope range, … , determining the equivalent speed according to the second determination method” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the equivalent speed based on mathematical values/amounts/factors corresponding to the acquired environment information (i.e., the slope, the altitude, and the temperature) using mathematical concepts of the first and second determination methods (see at least paragraphs 0040 and 0070-0078).
The features of “acquiring a heart rate-speed relationship of a user in a standard environment”, “detecting a first heart rate and a first speed of the user in real time by a plurality of sensors, respectively, the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user”, and “acquiring environmental information in real time, the environmental information including slope, altitude, and temperature of an environment where the user is located” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather data (i.e., a heart rate-speed relationship, a first heart rate and a first speed of the user, and environmental information) to be used for performing a mathematical process to calculate the equivalent speed with the acquired data, where “the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user” is indicative of a field of use about sensor’s arrangement which is well known in the art. The claims do not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to determine an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims do not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 4/13/2026 with respect to
the rejection of claims 1-12 directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn. Examiner notes that no prior art teaches the claimed feature related to two different methods to determine the equivalent speed for situations that the environmental information within a preset range and that the environmental information outside the preset range, respectively (i.e., “selecting a determination method from a plurality of determination methods based on environmental information in real time, the plurality of determination methods including a first determination method and a second determination method different from the first determination method, the first determination method including determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship; and the second determination method including determining an equivalent speed equation, determining an equivalent coefficient based on the equivalent speed equation and the environmental information, and determining the equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first speed and the equivalent coefficient; in response to determining that the slope is within the preset slope range, the altitude is within the preset altitude range, and the temperature is within the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the first determination method; and in response to determining that the slope is outside the preset slope range, the altitude is outside the preset altitude range, or the temperature is outside the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the second determination method”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A method for determining an equivalent speed, comprising: acquiring a heart rate-speed relationship of a user in a standard environment;
Step2A Prong one: Yes
“acquiring a heart rate-speed relationship ~” is insignificant extra-solution activities to collect data.
detecting a first heart rate and a first speed of the user in real time by a plurality of sensors, respectively, the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user;
“detecting a first heart rate and a first speed of the user ~” is insignificant extra-solution activities to collect data.
Sensors are a high level of generality.
“the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user” is indicative of a field of use about sensor’s configuration which is well known in the art.
acquiring environmental information in real time, the environmental information including slope, altitude, and temperature of an environment where the user is located;
“acquiring environmental information in real time ~” is insignificant extra-solution activities to collect data.
determining whether the slope is within a preset slope range, the altitude is within a preset altitude range, and the temperature is within a preset temperature range;
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“determining whether the slope is within a preset slope range ~” is a math process. (Para 0075-0077).
selecting a determination method from a plurality of determination methods based on environmental information in real time, the plurality of determination methods including a first determination method and a second determination method different from the first determination method, the first determination method including determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship; and the second determination method including determining an equivalent speed equation, determining an equivalent coefficient based on the equivalent speed equation and the environmental information, and determining the equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first speed and the equivalent coefficient;
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“selecting a determination method ~” is a math process. (Para 0069-0077).
The first and second determination methods are indicative of mathematical concepts used to determine/calculate equivalent speed.
“… determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship … and … determining the equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first speed and the equivalent coefficient” is a math process. (Para 0069-0077).
in response to determining that the slope is within the preset slope range, the altitude is within the preset altitude range, and the temperature is within the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the first determination method; and
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“in response to determining … determining the equivalent speed according to the first determination method” is a math process. (Para 0069-0077).
in response to determining that the slope is outside the preset slope range, the altitude is outside the preset altitude range, or the temperature is outside the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the second determination method.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“in response to determining … determining the equivalent speed according to the second determination method” is a math process. (Para 0069-0077).
Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “determining whether the slope is within a preset slope range, the altitude is within a preset altitude range, and the temperature is within a preset temperature range” manually calculating or inferring if the slope, altitude and temperature are within each preset range which is indicative of a mathematical calculation, where the slope, the altitude and the temperature are indicative of routine data and mathematical values used for mathematical calculation.
Similarly, “selecting a determination method from a plurality of determination methods based on environmental information in real time, the plurality of determination methods including a first determination method and a second determination method different from the first determination method, the first determination method including determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship; and the second determination method including determining an equivalent speed equation, determining an equivalent coefficient based on the equivalent speed equation and the environmental information, and determining the equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first speed and the equivalent coefficient” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the equivalent speed based on mathematical values/amounts/factors such as the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship, calculating or inferring equivalent coefficient based on the collected routine data and mathematical equation (i.e., equivalent speed equation), where the first and second determination methods are indicative of mathematical concepts used to calculating or inferring the equivalent speed (see at least paragraphs 0040 and 0070-0078). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
For example, “in response to determining that the slope is within the preset slope range, the altitude is within the preset altitude range, and the temperature is within the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the first determination method” and “in response to determining that the slope is outside the preset slope range, the altitude is outside the preset altitude range, or the temperature is outside the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the second determination method” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the equivalent speed based on mathematical values/amounts/factors corresponding to the acquired environment information (i.e., the slope, the altitude, and the temperature) using mathematical concepts of the first and second determination methods (see at least paragraphs 0040 and 0070-0078). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a computer processor to perform mathematical calculations or mental processes of “determining whether the slope is within a preset slope range, the altitude is within a preset altitude range, and the temperature is within a preset temperature range”, “selecting a determination method from a plurality of determination methods based on environmental information in real time, the plurality of determination methods including a first determination method and a second determination method different from the first determination method, the first determination method including determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship; and the second determination method including determining an equivalent speed equation, determining an equivalent coefficient based on the equivalent speed equation and the environmental information, and determining the equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first speed and the equivalent coefficient”, “in response to determining that the slope is within the preset slope range, the altitude is within the preset altitude range, and the temperature is within the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the first determination method” and “in response to determining that the slope is outside the preset slope range, the altitude is outside the preset altitude range, or the temperature is outside the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the second determination method”.
The limitations of “acquiring a heart rate-speed relationship of a user in a standard environment”, “detecting a first heart rate and a first speed of the user in real time by a plurality of sensors, respectively, the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user”, and “acquiring environmental information in real time, the environmental information including slope, altitude, and temperature of an environment where the user is located” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather data (i.e., a heart rate-speed relationship, a first heart rate and a first speed of the user, and environmental information) to be used for performing a mathematical process to calculate the equivalent speed with the acquired data, where “the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user” is indicative of a field of use about sensor’s arrangement which is well known in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The sensors are high level of generality to merely perform a generic computer function of generic computer component. Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to determine an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Claim 1 does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, there is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “acquiring a heart rate-speed relationship of a user in a standard environment”, “detecting a first heart rate and a first speed of the user in real time by a plurality of sensors, respectively, the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user”, and “acquiring environmental information in real time, the environmental information including slope, altitude, and temperature of an environment where the user is located” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather data (i.e., a heart rate-speed relationship, a first heart rate and a first speed of the user, and environmental information) be used for performing a mathematical process to calculate the equivalent speed with the acquired data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a computer system to perform “acquiring a heart rate-speed relationship of a user in a standard environment”, “detecting a first heart rate and a first speed of the user in real time by a plurality of sensors, respectively, the plurality of sensors being disposed on a wearable device worn by the user”, “acquiring environmental information in real time, the environmental information including slope, altitude, and temperature of an environment where the user is located”, “determining whether the slope is within a preset slope range, the altitude is within a preset altitude range, and the temperature is within a preset temperature range”, “selecting a determination method from a plurality of determination methods based on environmental information in real time, the plurality of determination methods including a first determination method and a second determination method different from the first determination method, the first determination method including determining an equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first heart rate, the first speed, and the heart rate-speed relationship; and the second determination method including determining an equivalent speed equation, determining an equivalent coefficient based on the equivalent speed equation and the environmental information, and determining the equivalent speed of the user in the standard environment according to the first speed and the equivalent coefficient”, “in response to determining that the slope is within the preset slope range, the altitude is within the preset altitude range, and the temperature is within the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the first determination method” and “in response to determining that the slope is outside the preset slope range, the altitude is outside the preset altitude range, or the temperature is outside the preset temperature range, determining the equivalent speed according to the second determination method” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 10, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “acquiring a second heart rate and a second speed of the user in the standard environment” in Claim 3 is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely gather data to be used for performing a mathematical process to calculate the equivalent speed with the acquired data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations of “determining the heart rate-speed relationship according to the second heart rate and the second speed” in Claim 3, “determining, according to the environmental information, whether the user is in the standard environment; wherein acquiring the second heart rate and the second speed of the user in the standard environment comprises: determining heart rate data and speed data corresponding to the user in the standard environment as the second heart rate and the second speed respectively when it is determined that the user is in the standard environment” in Claim 4 may encompass manually calculating or inferring the environmental information, the heart rate data and the speed data, and if each of the slope, the altitude and the temperature is within each preset range (see at least paragraphs 0040 and 0070-0078). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitation of “determining, according to the environmental information, a fourth heart rate and a fourth speed of the user in a standard environment from the first heart rate and the first speed; and correcting the heart rate-speed relationship according to the fourth heart rate and the fourth speed” in Claim 10 in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the equivalent speed, based on mathematical values/amounts/factors such as the first heart rate, the first speed, the fourth speed, and the fourth heart rate and the fourth speed of the user (see at least paragraphs 0040 and 0070-0078). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For the reasons described above with respect to Claims 2-4 and 10, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 12, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium type claim and dependent on claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional element of the processor is recited at high-level of generality to merely perform a generic computer function of mathematical calculations.
Regarding Claim 11, it is a device type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the processor and the memory are recited at high-level of generalities to merely perform a generic computer function of mathematical calculations and storing data such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as presented in the table above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SUN, Cheng-yu et al. (CN 104460976 B) teaches “based on heart rate walking speed conversion application in passive roaming control module, a passive control module as the basis for conversion, conversion to obtain the corresponding daily walking speed to drive roaming viewpoint moves through the heart collected operator leg movement speed. construction and other heart rate walking speed conversion function comprises three steps: step one, the recording operator various rates for walking in the passive module, corresponding to the heart rate. step two, and experimental heart rate recording operator walking on flat ground at different rates. step three, obtaining the acquisition rate, daily rate and timing of different heart-related trend equation by solving the equation to obtain the heart such as walking speed conversion function”.
Ackland et al. (US 11023903 B2) teaches “Exercise and activity devices that measure biometric and environmental data such as heart rate, speed, leg or arm turnover or stroke rate, altitude, temperature, R-R, power, slope, distance per turnover, location, distance and time currently exist” and “The measure of effort or change in effort may be a measure of speed or change in speed, a measure of heart rate or change in heart rate, or a measure of power or change in power, or any combination thereof. The measure of resistance or change in resistance may be a measure of altitude or change in altitude, a measure of slope or change in slope, or a measure of gradient or change in gradient, or any combination thereof. Alternatively or in addition, the measure of resistance or change in resistance may be determined from stride rate or change in stride rate, stroke rate or change in stroke rate, cadence or change in cadence, or any combination thereof”.
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 BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights