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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 03/31/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-19 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been canceled. Currently, Claims 1, 16, and 17 have been amended.
The amendments to Claims 1, 16, and 17 are sufficient to overcome the corresponding 35 USC 112 rejections. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of obtaining, […], position data of the athlete during performance of a set of movements, the position data indicating position of the athlete over time during the performance of the set of movements; determining movement metrics for the set of movements based on the position data, the movement metrics including measures of acceleration and power; calculating performance metrics for the athlete based on the movement metrics, the performance metrics including strength and speed; defining a reference data set based on a plurality of attributes associated with the athlete, the reference data set including performance data of other athletes having similar attributes; applying the performance metrics to the reference data set to determine a performance category for the athlete, the performance category indicating 1) relative strength and speed of the athlete among other athletes represented in the reference data set based on a percentile comparison of the performance metrics to the reference data set, and 2) a degree of balance between the relative strength and speed based on a difference between a strength percentile and a speed percentile; and generating a training regimen for the athlete based on the performance category. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar limitations are additionally found in claim 17). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A method of evaluating an athlete, comprising: […], from one or more measurement instruments, […]; […]; […]; […]; […]; and generating […]”. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to take data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 1 and 17 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-16 and 19-20 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-16 and 19-20 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2-16 and 19-20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to Claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of Claims 1-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “First, the claims as amended require "obtaining, from one or more measurement
instruments, position data of the athlete during performance of a set of movements, the position data indicating position of the athlete over time during the performance of the set of movements." The claims now explicitly recite obtaining position data from measurement instruments, which ties the claims to physical instrumentation and is not something that can be performed mentally. The specification describes that "[t]he athlete may perform the movements in connection with one or more instruments configured to collect position/movement data of the athlete during the performance.. [t]he instruments may include, for example, isokinetic dynamometers, hand held dynamometers, force plates, markerless motion capture systems, heart rate variability (HRV) wearables, body composition scanners, and cable machines." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0025]. Obtaining position data from measurement instruments indicating the position of an athlete over time during physical movements is not something that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Second, the claims as amended recite a specific technical process that is not practically performable in the human mind: a percentile-based comparison of performance metrics against a reference data set of other athletes, determining a degree of balance based on the difference between percentiles, and selecting from defined performance categories. The specification describes explicit numerical thresholds for this categorization: "If P<50 - Classification: Low Strength"; "If P>50 and A-P>5 - Classification: Speed Dominant"; "If P>50 and P-A>5 -Classification: Strength Dominant"; and "If P>50 and P-A|<5 - Classification: High Strength and Speed." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0028]. This systematic, data-driven categorization based on percentile comparisons across a population of athletes is not a mental process.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above (i.e., one or more measurement instruments) are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. Wherein the steps of data gathering and using a table, as described in paragraph 28, is an abstract idea of evaluation of performance and categorizing skills (i.e., a mental process). The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Third, the claims produce a specific, actionable output: a training regimen with specific exercises selected based on the performance category. The specification shows concrete examples of this output: "the athlete is guided to perform two exercises (dumbbell bench press and chest press) and is guided to perform those exercises at a speed above 0.75 m/s" for athletes classified as "high strength and speed," while athletes classified as "strength dominant" are guided to "perform those exercises at a greater speed (i.e., 1.25 m/s) to improve the athlete's speed relative to strength." As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0048]-[0049]. This represents a practical application that improves athletic training technology by providing automated, objective evaluation and personalized training recommendations.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing a means of producing a specific, actionable output (as stated in quoted remarks above) is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc., but rather a means for recommending exercises and guidance to perform said exercises to an athlete to improve their performance. Managing and maintaining an athlete’s data in order to provide rules or instructions pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. Furthermore, the cited portions of the Applicant’s specification shown above are not currently in the claims as presented. The Applicant’s disclosure (¶ 23) does provide support for user evaluation/engagement, wherein, evaluation of an athlete's strength and speed and providing a corresponding training regimen to enable the athlete to improve their performance, e.g., so as to entice such athletes to continue working towards a goal; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for providing information (i.e., exercises and how to perform them) to an athlete. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-19 are herein maintained.
Conclusion
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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6).
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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights