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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 8, 15, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a machine” in line 3 of claim 8 should read as “the machine”
“power output predictions” in line 4 of claim 8 should read as “the power output prediction”
“a machine” in line 3 of claim 9 should read as “the machine”
“a machine” in line 5 of claim 11 should read as “the machine”
“a machine” in line 2 of claim 14 should read as “the machine”
“a machine” in line 3 of claim 18 should read as “the machine”
“a machine” in line 3 of claim 19 should read as “the machine”
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 1-20 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 the plurality of power estimates as input to a machine learning model trained to output a power output prediction.
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. The provide step also describes a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Thus, the claim is also drawn the Organizing Human Activity, which is also 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 generating, using the machine learning model and prior to the user engaging in a future activity of a second activity type different from the first activity type, the power output prediction comprising one or more training power zones corresponding to different levels of activity intensity and usable to configured the future activity, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The generating 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 generated 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 determining 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.
Response to Arguments
An updated 101 analysis was performed based on the amendments. Examiner suggests to amend the independent claims to recite how the power output prediction can configure the future activity. Examiner suggests to include how the power output prediction would transform the system as a whole to configure future activity. It is also noted that there are no structural components used to perform any of the steps. Examiner also suggests to include what structural components perform each step. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. It is noted that an updated search and consideration was performed. Although it was found that Zhou et al. ‘618 (US Pub No. 2020/0258618) teaches determining a confidence score, or power estimate, based on a physiological measurement, the confidence score is not input into the machine learning model. Rather, the confidence score is the output of the machine learning model. Raghuram et al. ‘367 (US Pub No. 2016/0058367) also teaches a confidence score being the output of a machine learning model.
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 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
Prosecution Insights