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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including determining one or more physiological information estimates of a user based on activity information of first activity type that is associated with the user. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
determining one or more physiological information estimates of a user based on activity information of a first activity type that is associated with the user;
determining a plurality of power estimates based on the one or more physiological information estimates; and
providing a power output prediction from the plurality of power estimates for the user with respect to a future activity of a second activity type different from the first activity type.
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites providing a power output prediction from the plurality of power estimates for the user with respect to a future activity of a second activity type different from the first activity type, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The providing of the power output prediction does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the provided power output prediction, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
determining one or more physiological information estimates of a user based on activity information of a first activity type that is associated with the user; and
determining a plurality of power estimates based on the one or more physiological information estimates.
The determining steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the determing steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The memory is configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and the processor is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 2, 6, and 12 recite additional elements that do not add anything significantly more. Claims 3-5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 recite steps that add to the Abstract Idea as the claims recite mental processing steps. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirby et al. ‘891 (US Pub No. 2016/0345891).
Regarding claim 1, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches a method ([0046]; “methods”), comprising:
determining one or more physiological information estimates of a user based on activity information of a first activity type that is associated with the user (Fig. 8 block 804 and [0101]);
determining a plurality of power estimates based on the one or more physiological information estimates (Fig. 8 block 806 and [0102]-[0103]; “tissue oxygenation data points” is interpreted as “power estimates.”); and
providing a power output prediction from the plurality of power estimates for the user with respect to a future activity of a second activity type different from the first activity type ([0099]; “critical intensity and/or an anaerobic work capacity” Fig. 8 blocks 814, 816 and [0106]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 2, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches wherein each of the one or more physiological information estimates comprises measurement information indicative of a maximum oxygen consumption of the user during an activity ([0081]; “This maximal oxygen consumption may, alternatively, be referred to as…maximal aerobic capacity.” Because block 804 recites receiving tissue oxygenation data and block 816 recites outputting anaerobic work capacity, one of ordinary skill would understand that tissue oxygenation data is indicative of maximum oxygen consumption.).
Regarding claim 3, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches obtaining the activity information from a repository storing different types of activity information of the user that is accessible locally on an electronic device of the user ([0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches wherein the determining the one or more physiological information estimates comprises determining a physiological information estimate for one or more of a population of users ([0160]), a user during a first activity (Fig. 8 block 802 and [0100]), or a user during a second activity of different intensity than the first activity.
Regarding claim 5, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches wherein the determining the plurality of power estimates comprises:
obtaining one or more physiological measurements of the user ([0092]; “heart rate monitor”);
determining a physiological indicator from the one or more physiological measurements ([0086]; “the data used to plot graphs 628, 630, 632 may be received from a sensor configured to detect muscle oxygenation of a quadriceps muscle of an athlete.”); and
determining one of the plurality of power estimates that corresponds to the physiological indicator based on the one or more physiological information estimates of the user (Fig. 8 block 806 and [0102]-[0103]; “tissue oxygenation data points” is interpreted as “power estimates.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches wherein the physiological indicator represents a heart rate deflection data point in the one or more physiological measurements ([0092]; “heart rate monitor”).
Regarding claim 7, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches wherein the determining the plurality of power estimates comprises:
obtaining one or more power output measurements of the user ([0082]; “critical power may be calculated as…”);
determining a power output value at a physiological measure of the user from the one or more power output measurements ([0083]; “…critical intensity and a finite work capacity…are identified and/or calculated…”); and
determining one of the plurality of power estimates that corresponds to the power output value based on the one or more physiological information estimates (“…given a critical intensity and a finite work capacity associated with the athlete, the activity monitoring device may be utilized to predict one or more outcomes of a current exercise session…”).
Regarding claim 8, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches wherein the determining the plurality of power estimates comprises:
providing the one or more physiological information estimates to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained to output power output predictions at different physiological measures of the user (Figs. 24-27 and [0186]-[0190]);
determining, using the machine learning model, a power output projection at a physiological measure of the user ([0192]); and
determining one of the plurality of power estimates that corresponds to the power output projection based at least in part on the one or more physiological information estimates based on the one or more physiological information estimates (Fig. 28 block 2812 and [0196]).
Regarding claim 9, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches wherein the determining the plurality of power estimates comprises:
providing the one or more physiological information estimates to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained to output physiological predictions for the user (Fig. 28 block 2804 and [0192]); and
determining, using the machine learning model, a physiological indicator prediction (Fig. 28 block 2808 and [0194]); and
determining one of the plurality of power estimates that corresponds to the physiological indicator prediction based at least in part on the one or more physiological information estimates (Fig. 28 block 2810 and [0196]).
Regarding claim 13, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches determining a plurality of training power zones that correspond to different levels of activity intensity based on the power output prediction ([0077]; “…four intensity domains, including: moderate, heavy, severe, and extreme, which are defined based on distinct metabolic profiles of an athlete or user.”).
Regarding claims 15-19, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches a device, as claimed, as the subject matter of claim 15 is analogous to the subject matter of claims 1, 5, and 7-9, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations comprising: the claimed steps, as the subject matter of claim 20 is analogous to the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby et al. ‘891 in view of Raghuram et al. ‘367 (US Pub No. 2016/0058367).
Regarding claim 12, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein each of the plurality of power estimates includes a confidence score indicating a likelihood of a respective power estimate being a quality estimate.
Raghuram et al. ‘367 teaches estimating a final heart rate to input into an activity and intensity classifier when a confidence score is high ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each of the plurality of power estimates of Kirby et al. ‘891 to include a confidence score indicating a likelihood of a respective power estimate being a quality estimate as Raghuram et al. ‘367 teaches that this will aid in less reliance on a modeled heart rate estimate ([0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Kirby et al. ‘891 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for providing the plurality of power estimates to a machine learning model prior to the user engaging in the future activity, wherein the machine learning model is trained to output the power output prediction for the user based at least in part on a weighted combination between the plurality of power estimates and corresponding confidence scores.
Raghuram et al. ‘367 teaches estimating a final heart rate to input into an activity and intensity classifier when a confidence score is high ([0040]). The classifier is interpreted as a machine learning model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kirby et al. ‘891 to include providing the plurality of power estimates to a machine learning model prior to the user engaging in the future activity, wherein the machine learning model is trained to output the power output prediction for the user based at least in part on a weighted combination between the plurality of power estimates and corresponding confidence scores as Raghuram et al. ‘367 teaches that this will aid in less reliance on a modeled heart rate estimate ([0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sorensen et al. (“The Validity of Functional Threshold Power and Maximal Oxygen Uptake for Cycling Performance in Moderately Trained Cyclists” – 2019) teaches studying the relationship between maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and functional threshold power (FTP). Sezer et al. (“The Relationship Between FTP and VO2max Ability and Strength and Flexibility in Cyclists” – 2024) teaches investigating the relationship between VO2max and FTP.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791