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 § 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 1-17 and 19-21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 recite(s):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by wearable electronic device worn by a user, a target time contribution for each of a set of workout target effort zones for a workout of the user, thereby determining target time contributions, wherein each of the set of workout target effort zones corresponds to a target range of values for a biosignal to be collected form a sensor in the wearable electronic device worn by the user;
determining, by wearable electronic device worn by a user, a time series of workout target effort zones for the user based on the target time contributions determined for the set of workout target effort zones;
generating, by the wearable electronic device, the workout based on the determined target time contributions for each of the set of workout target effort zones based on the the determined time series of workout target effort zones;
receiving, by the wearable electronic dvice, during a workout time period, real-time biosignal data from the sensor in the wearable electronic device being worn by the user;
generating, by the wearable electronic device, during the workout time period, an audio, visual, or haptic stimulus based on the real-time biosignal data and a workout target effort zone in the time series of workout target effort zones; and
outputting, by the wearable electronic device, during the workout time period, the audio, visual, or haptic stimulus.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting ”computer”, “computing , “sensor in a wearable electronic”, “generate/outputting audio, visual and haptic stimulus”, “memories” and “ processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher/coach observing students’ behaviors during an exercise and adjusting the exercise level of the student accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computer-implemented” , “processor”, “computing wearable electronic device”, “sensor in a wearable electronic”, and “computer-readable storage medium”.
The ”computer”, “computing , “sensor in a wearable electronic”, “generate/outputting audio, visual and haptic stimulus”, “memories” and “ processors” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 14, 16).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-16, and 19-21 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 19-21 are either directed to the type of data being monitored, or further expound the abstract idea explained above. Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the current amendment is now directed to a wearable device that uses a biosignal from a sensor on the wearable device to determine whether a target range of values for a biosignal is being met for each of the set of workout target effort zones and are not directed to managing interaction between people. The current amendment has required some adjustment to the rejection rationale. The current rejection rationale relies on “mental process” grouping of the abstract idea.
The applicant argued that the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is not warranted; the applicant argued that the “claims reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or tec. Specifically, the applicant points paragraph 18, 19 as evidence of improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. However, improvement to the person performing the workout has not been deemed as an improvement by the courts. A review of relevant court decision found in MPEP 2106.05(a) does not show any examples where the use of a computer to improve a person workout has been found to be deemed as improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the examiner takes the position that the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 shall be maintained.
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights