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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 2 MARCH 2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 17 as well as the cancellation of claims 4, 5, 9, 11, 13 15 16 are entered and considered.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17-20 are present and have been examined.
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, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17-20 the independent claim(s) 1, 12 recite(s) method and a device, i.e. a process and an apparatus, each of which is/are a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17-20 the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 12) is/are directed, in part, to:
(Claim 1): A method for evaluating an exercise capability, comprising:
invoking, in response to an evaluation instruction for an exercise capability of a user, a target model equation pre-constructed for the user, wherein the target model equation reflects a relationship between user paces and exercise time; and
evaluating the exercise capability of the user based on at least one user pace, wherein in the target model equation each of the at least one user pace corresponds to an exercise time point adapted in one of at least one exercise dimension;
wherein the target model equation is constructed by adopting following steps:
detecting,
determining a target percentage of heart rate reserve corresponding to a maximum oxygen uptake of the user, the maximum oxygen uptake of the user being determined based on an age and a gender of the user;
determining a standard exercise heart rate of the user in a standard course based on the target percentage of heart rate reserve, the maximum heart rate of the user, and the resting heart rate of the user;
determining a standard pace of the user in the standard course based on the standard exercise heart rate and a plurality of segment model equations, the plurality of segment model equations being obtained by performing following steps:
in a case where a continuous exercise duration of the user reaches a preset duration, dividing the continuous exercise duration into a plurality of unit time periods, wherein time periods overlap between adjacent unit time periods, and a time difference between initial time points respectively corresponding to the adjacent unit time periods is an exercise period;
determining whether a historical heart rate and a historical exercise velocity within each unit time period of the plurality of unit time periods satisfy following conditions:
a heart rate fluctuation within the each unit time period being within a first preset range;
a velocity fluctuation within the each unit time period being within a second preset range; and
a real-time percentage of heart rate reserve within the each unit time period being varying within a third preset range;
calculating an average value of historical heart rates and an average value of historical exercise velocities in each target unit time period which satisfies the conditions to use as an associated data point, and classifying associated data points corresponding to a plurality of target unit time periods according to a plurality of predetermined segment exercise distances; and
obtaining the plurality of segment model equations by performing
determining a velocity of the user at maximum oxygen uptake of the user based on the standard pace of the user in the standard course; and constructing the target model equation by using the velocity at maximum oxygen uptake and a real-time pace of the user in an actual exercise.
(claim 12):
invoking, in response to an evaluation instruction for an exercise capability of a user, a target model equation pre-constructed for the user, wherein the target model equation reflects a relationship between user paces and exercise time; and
evaluating the exercise capability of the user based on at least one user pace, wherein in the target model equation each of the at least one user pace corresponds to an exercise time point adapted in one of at least one exercise dimension
wherein the target model equation is constructed by adopting following steps:
detecting,
determining a target percentage of heart rate reserve corresponding to a maximum oxygen uptake of the user, the maximum oxygen uptake of the user being determined based on an age and a gender of the user;
determining a standard exercise heart rate of the user in a standard course based on the target percentage of heart rate reserve, the maximum heart rate of the user, and the resting heart rate of the user;
determining a standard pace of the user in the standard course based on the standard exercise heart rate and a plurality of segment model equations, the plurality of segment model equations being obtained by performing following steps:
in a case where a continuous exercise duration of the user reaches a preset duration, dividing the continuous exercise duration into a plurality of unit time periods, wherein time periods overlap between adjacent unit time periods, and a time difference between initial time points respectively corresponding to the adjacent unit time periods is an exercise period;
determining whether a historical heart rate and a historical exercise velocity within each unit time period of the plurality of unit time periods satisfy following conditions:
a heart rate fluctuation within the each unit time period being within a first preset range;
a velocity fluctuation within the each unit time period being within a second preset range; and
a real-time percentage of heart rate reserve within the each unit time period being varying within a third preset range;
calculating an average value of historical heart rates and an average value of historical exercise velocities in each target unit time period which satisfies the conditions to use as an associated data point, and classifying associated data points corresponding to a plurality of target unit time periods according to a plurality of predetermined segment exercise distances; and
obtaining the plurality of segment model equations by performingpoints, air temperatures, humidities, altitudes, slopes, and body temperatures, each of the plurality of segment model equations corresponding to a corresponding segment exercise distance;
determining a velocity of the user at maximum oxygen uptake of the user based on the standard pace of the user in the standard course; and constructing the target model equation by using the velocity at maximum oxygen uptake and a real-time pace of the user in an actual exercise.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process – i.e. concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Evaluating the exercise capability of a person including invoking the relationship between pace/exercise time, and evaluating that capability based on the pace corresponding to an exercise dimension, are executable within the human mind using an observation of exercise parameters and evaluation as compared to the target model. These claim elements are also directed to mathematical concepts – i.e. relationships, formulas, equations, and calculations. The use of a “target mode” reflecting a relationship between a user pace and exercise time, and a target model equation corresponding to values are both clearly examples of mathematical concepts, as is the additional construction of the target model equation as claimed. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) 1, 12 recite(s) additional elements – a “processor” in claim 1, as well as in claim 12“An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage apparatus, which is configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to implement a method…” to perform the claim steps. Claims 1, 2 have also been amended to recite a portable heart rate detection device. The electronic device, processor, storage apparatus, portable heart rate detection device, and implementation are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Storage of data is generally considered to be the equivalent of adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified, as is collection of data (see MPEP 2106.05g). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer(s) or any other technology or technical field in the above identified elements of claims 1, 12 as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: a processor in claim 1, and “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage apparatus, which is configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to implement a method…” in claim 12. The claims are also amended to include a portable heart rate detection device. When considered individually, the device, processor, storage apparatus, heart rate detection device, and execution therein of the programs only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in:
[0048] In this embodiment, the maximum heart rate and the resting heart rate of the user may be detected by the portable heart rate detection device, and the user may also manually set when the user knows the maximum heart rate value and the resting heart rate value of the user.
[0079] FIG. 4 is a schematic structural diagram of an electronic device according to an embodiment of the present application. As shown in FIG. 4, the electronic device includes a processor 40, a storage apparatus 41 and a communication apparatus 42. A number of processors 40 in the electronic device may be one or more, one processor 40 is used as an example in FIG. 4. The processor 40, the storage apparatus 41 and the communication apparatus 42 in the electronic device may be connected by a bus or otherwise, and they being connected by a bus is used as an example in FIG. 4.
[0080] As a computer-readable storage medium, the storage apparatus 41 may be provided to store a software program, a computer-executable program, and a module such as a module corresponding to the method for evaluating the exercise capability in the embodiments of the present application (such as, the model invocation module 310 and the exercise capability evaluation module 320 in the apparatus for evaluating the exercise capability). The processor 40 is configured to execute multiple functional applications and data processing of the electronic device by running a software program, an instruction, and a module stored in the storage apparatus 41, that is, the method for evaluating the exercise capability described above is achieved.
[0081] The storage apparatus 41 may mainly include a storage program region and a storage data region. The storage program region may store an operating system, and an application program required for at least one function. The storage data region may store data and the like created according to the use of the terminal. Moreover, the storage apparatus 41 may include a high-velocity random access memory and may also include a non-volatile memory such as at least one magnetic disk storage device, flash storage device, or other non-volatile solid-state storage devices. In some instances, the storage apparatus 41 may include a memory disposed remotely with respect to a multi-function controller 40, and these remote memories may be connected to the electronic device over a network. Instances of such networks include, but are not limited to, an Internet, an intranet, a local area network, a mobile communication network, and combinations thereof.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. These passages further support Examiner’s position that the claims are not directed to an improvement, rather they recite elements of the abstract ideas/the application of the technology to those identified abstract ideas. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 3, 6-8, 10, 14, 17-20
Dependent claims 3, 6-8, 10, 14, 17-19 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as additional mathematical calculations for the user’s exercise capability, as well as different applications of the target model itself. Examiner notes that arguably as claimed, these calculations are performable in the human mind and therefore recite additional elements of the abstract idea(s) in the category of mental processes(s). While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 does not recite any additional abstract ideas, however, it does recite a “non-abstract element of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program, executed by a processor.” For similar reasons as noted with regard to claim 12 above, these elements are found to at best recite an application of the technology to the abstract idea(s) as identified above. Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the computing elements as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). As such these elements do not recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea(s) as identified.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
In reference to claim 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17-20
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17-20 are believed to be free of the prior art. Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite elements of claim 5/16 that were previously identified as non-obvious in the Non-Final Office Action as mailed on 11/28/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 2 MAR 2026 are considered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the interview are noted on page 12.
Applicant begins a discussion of the rejection under 35 USC 101 on age 12, including various portions of USPTO Guidance regarding subject matter eligibility. Applicant concludes on page 14 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant includes exemplary claim 1 in support of the finding that the claims are not directed to a mental process on page 15, however Examiner respectfully submits that the amended limitations have been added to the updated rejection above, and that the portable device is more appropriately considered at subsequent steps of the analysis, as are the processor/computing elements. That a claim recites a non-abstract element does not bar the abstract idea from being present. On page 16 Applicant argues that the claimed limitations do not recite a mathematical process. Examiner categorically disagrees, as the majority of the newly amended limitations clearly recite mathematical relationships. The construction of the model is clearly claimed. Applicant makes reference to MPEP 2106.04 being cited, however Examiner respectfully notes that this is cited, again, in subsequent steps of the analysis rather than in the discussion of the abstract idea(s). Applicant’s remarks regarding Digitech is therefore unpersuasive, as the case/example is not discussed in the rejection itself.
Applicant turns to a discussion of the additional elements on page 17, arguing that a practical application is present. Applicant’s remarks on page 18 are noted, however, the evaluation of strength is not itself a technical area to be improved for purposes of the analysis. While the improvement itself is technical in nature, a finding of an improvement must be in the computing elements and/or a technical environment/element in order to support a finding of a practical application. The discussion Applicant provides on page 18 appears to be more aligned with the discussion of the abstract idea(s) in that the technical aspects are not discussed. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion on page 19 that the claims are directed to a practical application.
Applicant discusses significantly more on page 20 of the remarks, with a discussion of Finjan Inc. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion of analogy to Finjan on page 20, in that the claims do not appear to recite any sort of improvement to the functioning of the computing element(s) themselves. At best the abstract idea(s) are applied/implemented by the computing device(s)/portable devices.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art are noted on page 21; as noted above Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior art rejection by incorporating claim 5, which was previously identified as being free from the prior art.
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 KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687