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 .
DETAILS ACTION
Claims status
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 USC §101 rejections.
Claims 7 and 8 are cancelled claims.
Remarks
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/21/2026, with respect to pending claims 1-6 and 9-12 have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended. The arguments addressed to the 101 rejection are not persuasive, but the arguments are persuasive with respect to 102/103 rejection. The double patenting rejection is overcome by the amendments filed on 08/21/2026.
101 Rejection
Applicant argues (page 7, line 12 through page 8, line 4, 11-28):
“As amended, independent Claims 1 and 12 are directed to statutory smart-watch apparatus and system claims, respectively, that recite a particular wearable-sensor specific implementation for processing accelerometer signals, not a result-oriented instruction to determine an activity using generic computer components.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Applicants submit that, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims as amended are not directed merely to a mental process. Instead, the amended claims require a 3-axis accelerometer of a smart watch to measure and store position and acceleration information, and require the processor to determine physical activity using a specific accelerometer-signal-processing technique.
In particular, the amended claims now recite dividing physical activities into rhythmic and non-rhythmic activities, performing spectral analysis on accelerometer data for a rhythmic activity to identify a frequency of movement, and performing time-domain analysis for a non- rhythmic activity in which each oscillation in the accelerometer data is considered independently.
These operations are tied to measured physical acceleration signals generated by a wearable device and are not activities that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2
… the claims as amended integrate any such idea into a practical application.
For examiner, the amended claims do not merely collect data and store a label. Instead, they recite a concrete technological process for analyzing wrist-worn accelerometer data differently depending on whether the detected activity is rhythmic or non-rhythmic. The present specification as filed explains that rhythmic activities such as walking, running, and biking are characterized by repeated motions following a periodic pattern, and that spectral analysis of accelerometer data can identify the frequency of movement, which indicates cadence.
The present specification further explains that, for non-rhythmic activity, time-domain analysis considers each oscillation independently and can reject or count oscillations based on requirements such as duration, strength, or shape. As such, this processing ‘allows for accurate counting of steps … even when the user is engaged in primarily non-rhythmic activity.’”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At Prong 1, claim 1 recites mathematical calculations being carried out, including performing spectral analysis and/or performing time-domain analysis. This considered to be an abstract idea at Prong 1.
At Prong 2, the Examiner agrees that there are additional elements recited in the claims, but they appear to be generic computer components and sensors recited at a high degree of generality, which do not integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Claim 1 recites carrying out spectral analysis and/or time-domain analysis, but it does not recite a particular end-result that is obtained from the analysis or a particular purpose for these calculations. The above argument refers to improving the accuracy of step-counting by using frequency of movement (cadence) in the rhythmic case and counting oscillations in the non-rhythmic case, but claim 1 does not specify this as a particular practical application that is being improved. The Examiner suggests that claim 1 could recite a step of “determining a step count based on the identified frequency of movement and/or on the time domain analysis” which would integrate the claim into a particular practical application for the reasons argued above by the applicant.
Applicant argues page 9, lines 1-11):
“In addition, for similar reasons, the amended claims also recite significantly more under Step 2B. The ordered combination of a smart watch, 3-axis accelerometer, memory, and processor configured to perform the claimed rhythmic/non-rhythmic accelerometer-analysis workflow is not merely the use of generic computer components to implement an abstract idea. The claims require processing physical sensor signals from the smart watch using different signal-analysis techniques depending on the activity classification, thereby producing a concrete technical improvement in activity detection and step counting.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument for the reasons given above regarding Prong 2 analysis.
102/103 Rejection
Claims 1 and 11 are amended to include the features of claim 8 and intervening claim 7. Therefore, based on these amendments, filed on 08/21/2026, the previous prior art rejection is 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 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as addressed below.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The below claim is considered to be in a statutory being a thing or product. See MPEP 2106.03.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claim 1 includes abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) below.
“ Claim 1. A smart watch comprising:
a 3-axis accelerometer configured to measure and store position and acceleration information for the smart watch;
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor communicatively connected to the 3-axis accelerometer and the memory; the processor configured to execute the instructions at least to:
receive the stored position and acceleration information from the 3-axis accelerometer;
determine one or more physical activities corresponding to the stored position and acceleration information; and
store the determined one or more physical activities, and
divide the physical activities into two categories,
wherein the two categories are rhythmic activities and non-rhythmic activities,
and
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions at least to:
in a case that a physical activity is classified as rhythmic,
perform a spectral analysis on the data captured by the accelerometer to identify the frequency of movement; and
in a case that a physical activity is classified as non-rhythmic, perform a time- domain analysis, in which each oscillation in the data collected by the accelerometer is considered independently.”
“12. A smart watch system comprising:
a smart watch including: a 3-axis accelerometer configured to measure and store position and acceleration information for the smart watch;
a transceiver configured to connect the smart watch to an external computer device for data communication;
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor communicatively connected to the 3-axis accelerometer and the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions at least to:
receive the stored position and acceleration information from the 3-axis accelerometer; determine one or more physical activities corresponding to the stored position and acceleration information; and
store the determined one or more physical activities; and
the external computer device; and
divide the physical activities into two categories,
wherein the two categories are rhythmic activities and non-rhythmic activities,
and
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions at least to:
in a case that a physical activity is classified as rhythmic,
perform a spectral analysis on the data captured by the accelerometer to identify the frequency of movement; and
in a case that a physical activity is classified as non-rhythmic, perform a time- domain analysis, in which each oscillation in the data collected by the accelerometer is considered independently,
wherein the external computer device is configured to be communicatively connected to the smart watch, wherein the external computer device obtains data from the smart watch, and wherein external computer device displays information related to the data to a user.”
The highlighted steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is considered a mathematical calculation, which may be performed by a computer or not, or a mental process, covering performance of the limitation in a human mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
Under step 2A prong 2, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1 and 12 recite the additional limitations of “smart watch”, “accelerometer”, “memory”, “transceiver”, “processor”, “computer device” etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
The Step of “store the determined one or more physical activities” just insignificant additional step.
Under step 2B. The additional elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-6 and 9-11 depend on claim 1. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “power source”, “semiconductor crystal”, “transceiver”, “external computer”, “processor”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer components and functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). It is noted that the acts of training and using learning models falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations or as additional elements of the generic computer component-type.
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology.
There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-6 and 9-12 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 1, Bonomi et al., (US Pub.20210267471A1), discloses a smart watch comprising:
a 3-axis accelerometer configured to measure and store position and acceleration information for the smart watch(para 0060, 0062, 0066 “motion signal providing unit 20”, “a multi-dimensional accelerometer”);
a memory configured to store instructions(para 0016, 0074-0075); and
a processor communicatively connected to the 3-axis accelerometer and the memory (para [0060], [0062], [0066] “motion signal providing unit 20”, “a multi-dimensional accelerometer”);
the processor configured to execute the instructions (para 0016, 0074-0075) at least to:
receive the stored position and acceleration information from the 3-axis accelerometer (para 0016-0017, 0074-0075);
determine one or more physical activities corresponding to the stored position and acceleration information (PPG signal measuring motion activity by the accelerometer,
see para [005]); para [0016]-[0017], [0074]-[0075]; para [0024]); and
store the determined one or more physical activities (para 0063-0065).
Thiemjares at al., (WO2020236091A2) discloses divide the physical activities into two categories, wherein the two categories are rhythmic activities and non-rhythmic activities (Page 8, lines 12-21, where step of classifying activities, postures, and falls 23, there is the sample information of activities and postures including lying down, sitting, standing, walking, running, jumping, static activity, dynamic activity, fall, prior-to-fall activity, or post-fall activity at least one or the combination thereof, e.g., running, jumping corresponds to the rhythmic activity and fall, prior-to-fall activity, or post-fall activity corresponds to the non-rhythmic activity);
Martikka et al., (US Pub.2017/0202486A) discloses the processor is further configured to execute the instructions at least to: in a case that a physical activity is classified as rhythmic, perform a spectral analysis on the data captured by the accelerometer to identify the frequency of movement (para [0083], where second step is checking that the cadence is at an allowed frequency range (corresponding to frequency of wrist movement during walking and/or running)).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a smart watch having the steps of “that a physical activity is classified as non-rhythmic, perform a time-domain analysis, in which each oscillation in the data collected by the accelerometer is considered independently”.
Claim 1 is therefore distinguished over the prior art. Claims 2-6 and 9-11 are also distinguished due to being dependent from base claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Bonomi discloses a smart watch system comprising:
a smart watch including:
a 3-axis accelerometer configured to measure and store position and acceleration
information for the smart watch (para [0060], [0062], and [0066] “motion signal providing unit 20”, “a multi-dimensional accelerometer”);
a transceiver configured to connect the smart watch to an external computer
device for data communication (para [0060]);
a memory configured to store instructions (para [0016], and [0074]-[0075]); and
a processor communicatively connected to the 3-axis accelerometer and the
memory (para [0060], [0062], and [0066] “motion signal providing unit 20”, “a multi-dimensional accelerometer”), the processor configured to execute the instructions at least to:
receive the stored position and acceleration information from the 3-axis
accelerometer (para [0016]-[0017], [0074]-[0075]);
determine one or more physical activities corresponding to the stored
position and acceleration information (PPG signal measuring motion activity by the accelerometer (see para [005]); para [0016]-[0017], [0074]-[0075], where PPG signal is stored, measurement unit such as a PPG sensor; The PPG signal and the motion signal preferably correspond to each other; para [0024], where vibration, rotation or acceleration sensors capable of detecting peculiar motion of nearby body parts of the subject with respect to the body part the PPG signal originates from); and
store the determined one or more physical activities; and
the external computer device (para [0060] “more or all of the units can be provided at different and/or remote locations, such as implemented on a server”), wherein the external computer device is configured to be communicatively connected to the smart watch, wherein the external computer device obtains data from the smart watch, and wherein external computer device displays information related to the data to a user (para [0082]-[0083] “output”).
Thiemjares at al., (WO2020236091A2) discloses divide the physical activities into two categories, wherein the two categories are rhythmic activities and non-rhythmic activities (Page 8, lines 12-21, where step of classifying activities, postures, and falls 23, there is the sample information of activities and postures including lying down, sitting, standing, walking, running, jumping, static activity, dynamic activity, fall, prior-to-fall activity, or post-fall activity at least one or the combination thereof, e.g., running, jumping corresponds to the rhythmic activity and fall, prior-to-fall activity, or post-fall activity corresponds to the non-rhythmic activity);
Martikka et al., (US Pub.2017/0202486A) disclose the processor is further configured to execute the instructions at least to: in a case that a physical activity is classified as rhythmic, perform a spectral analysis on the data captured by the accelerometer to identify the frequency of movement (para [0083], where second step is checking that the cadence is at an allowed frequency range (corresponding to frequency of wrist movement during walking and/or running)).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a smart watch having the steps of “that a physical activity is classified as non-rhythmic, perform a time-domain analysis, in which each oscillation in the data collected by the accelerometer is considered independently”.
Claim 12 is therefore distinguished over the prior art.
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 KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights