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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 61, delete “513”, and insert --515--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that claim 1 is not claiming or preempting a mathematical formula, but rather the limitations are merely based on involve mathematical concepts described in the specification. However, claim limitations for determining a first feature associated with a correlation between the first and second sets of vertical accelerations require determining the correlation which is a mathematical operation. Applicant states that the human mind is “not equipped” to perform practically at least the steps of “determining, with the at least one processor, whether the wearable device is submerged or not submerged in water based on a machine learning model applied to the first feature,” as claimed. Applicant states that the steps occur too quickly for the human mind to accurately process and analyze, at the speed required for audio processing. However, the claim limitation simply requires making a determination based on applying the first feature to a machine learning model. This is an observation or opinion based on observing the feature. The claim does not make any requirements for the complexity or speed of the model used to make the judgement or opinion.
Applicant states that in the Examiner’s analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner failed to consider all the features in the claim as a whole and how they interact and impact each other. Applicant states that nor did the examiner evaluate the specification to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. However, the only additional element recited in claim 1 is a processor. When considered in combination with the other claim limitations, 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)). The additional elements in claim 10 include a motion sensor and a pressure sensor in addition to the processor. 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)). 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.
Applicant states that in the present application, the elements labeled by the Examiner as abstract are not insignificant post-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. However, the combination of well known sensors with for collecting data along with an processor for implementing an abstract idea has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional. (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II, For example, example i., Receiving and transmitting data over a network, example iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Further, motion and pressure sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional as shown in the cited prior art (US 2024/0085855 to Collins, pars. 27, 29, 42, 48; US 2021/0068713 to Dervisoglu et al., pars. 13, 41, 43, 48).
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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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