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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7 and 10-16) in the reply filed on 5 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 61, delete “513”, and insert --515--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of claim 2, delete “2”, and insert –1-- to correct the dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 11 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.
On line 2 of claim 3, the claim recites “a second feature associated with a touch screen gesture.” However, claim 3 depends from claim 2 which recites a different second feature. The claim appears to recite two different features both identified as “a second feature.” Claim 3 may have been intended to depend from claim 1. Either the claim dependency should be changed or the claim should be amended to clearly identify the two different features. Claim 11 which depends from claim 10 contains similarly indefinite language and is rejected for the same reason.
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 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites determining a first set of vertical accelerations obtained from an inertial sensor of a wearable device; determining a second set of vertical accelerations obtained from pressure data; determining a first feature associated with a correlation between the first and second sets of vertical accelerations; and determining whether the wearable device is submerged or not submerged in water based on a machine learning model applied to the first feature. The claim limitations for determining the first and second set of vertical accelerations are disclosed as estimations using the data from a sensor and other parameters (pars. 55, 56). Determining a correlations is a mathematical relationship. The determination of whether the wearable device is submerged or not submerged is disclosed as a consideration of the correlation along with other parameters which can be considered by a human mind (pars. 56-58). Therefore the claim recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I and III).
The additional element is at least one processor.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of the processor amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, which is mere instructions to apply the exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-7 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-7 are rejected for the same reason.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 10 is directed to an apparatus, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract similar to the abstract idea recited in claim 1, which falls into the mathematical processes and mental concepts grouping.
The additional elements in claim 10 are at least one motion sensor, at least one pressure sensor, at least one processor and a memory storing instructions.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The motion sensor and the pressure sensor are used for data collection in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of the processor amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, which is mere instructions to apply the exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the additional elements does not provide anything beyond the insignificant extra-solution activity along with the generic computer for implementing the abstract idea.
Per step 2B, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above. Further, the courts have recognized that data collection in various manners is well understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claims 11-16 depend from claim 10 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 11-16 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 11-16 are rejected for the same reason.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
US Patent Application Publication 2021/0068713 to Dervisoglu teaches using the pressure to determine device submersion (Fig. 4, pars. 73-75). US Patent Application Publication 2024/0085855 to Collins et al. teaches using an acceleration sensor in combination with a pressure sensor to determine depth. However, none of the cited prior art teaches a method or apparatus that includes determining a feature associated with a correlation between the first and second sets of vertical accelerations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2025/0065191 to Zhang teaches determining that an underwater workout scenario is satisfied based on an acceleration measurement and a pressure measurement (par. 117).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights