DETAILED ACTION The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Switzerland on 6/6/16/2010 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Switzerland application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The references listed on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2023 have been considered by the examiner. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry. STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03 , or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04 STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim s 33-50 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) . Claim 51 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. article of manufacture). Claim 52 is directed toward a wearable device (i.e. a machine) . Therefore, claim s 33-52 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c) Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection . Claim 1 recites: 33 . A method for preventing injuries to a runner during a running activity, the method comprising: measuring a sequence of acceleration data, in at least a vertical direction, while a device is fastened to the runner and the runner performs the running activity, wherein the device includes an accelerometer and a digital processor that measure the sequence of acceleration data, wherein the running activity comprises a particular distance along a running course ; determining, during or at an end of the running activity, an asymmetry of movement of the runner based on a motion of a center of gravity, the acceleration data, the particular distance and a time period ; and displaying the asymmetry of movement of the runner on a display of the device . The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “ determining … an asymmetry of movement of the runner based on a motion of a center of gravity, the acceleration data, the particular distance and a time period ” merely requires a person to determine the ratio of the COM vertical acceleration between right and left steps during an exercise for a period of time . 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) . It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.): 33. A method for preventing injuries to a runner during a running activity, the method comprising: measuring a sequence of acceleration data, in at least a vertical direction, while a device is fastened to the runner and the runner performs the running activity, wherein the device includes an accelerometer and a digital processor that measure the sequence of acceleration data, wherein the running activity comprises a particular distance along a running course ; determining, during or at an end of the running activity, an asymmetry of movement of the runner based on a motion of a center of gravity, the acceleration data, the particular distance and a time period ; and displaying the asymmetry of movement of the runner on a display of the device . For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “ measuring a sequence of acceleration data, in at least a vertical direction, while a device is fastened to the runner and the runner performs the running activity, wherein the device includes an accelerometer and a digital processor that measure the sequence of acceleration data ” the examiner submits that th is limitation amounts to mere data gathering using a broadly claimed accelerometer and the use of a digital processor, i.e. generic computer, to process the data . The additional limitation of “ displaying the asymmetry of movement of the runner on a display of the device ” merely comprises outputting the result of the mental process (the determination of the asymmetry), which is also a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05 . Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a digital processor amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As further discussed above, with regard to the additional limitations of “ measuring a sequence of acceleration data … ” and “ displaying the asymmetry … ” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 51 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a wearable device, cause the wearable device to perform the method of claim 33. The claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 51 is rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 33. Claim 5 2 is directed toward a wearable device that is configured to perform the method of claim 33. The only additional limitation that is not present in claim 33 is “a fastening system that mechanically couples the wearable device to the runner”. This limitation merely applies the abstract idea to a field of use and is a necessary element to perform the data gathering. Furthermore, fastening sensors to a human for the purposes of medical evaluation is a well-understood, routine and conventional practice. Therefore, claim 5 2 is rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 33. Dependent claim(s) 34-50 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . For example, claim 34 merely adds a display of “a training plan, a radar chart, or a Kiviat diagram”, i.e. outputting data. Claims 35-41 , 44, 46 and 47 recite further mental steps regarding diagnosing the runner and/or selecting sports equipment for the runner, e.g. shoes . Claims 35 , 36, 38 and 39 further recite displaying the selected sports equipment which is merely outputting the result of the mental process. Claims 42-43 and 48-49 merely recite what data is gathered or structural aspects of the generic computer, i.e. mobile phone, that is used to perform the mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 34-50 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 33 . Therefore, claim(s) 33-52 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 33, 42-45 and 47-52 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ( Lee JB, Sutter KJ, Askew CD, Burkett BJ. Identifying symmetry in running gait using a single inertial sensor. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2010 Sep 1;13(5):559- 5 63 ) in view of Rigoberto et al. ( Rigoberto MM, Toshiyo T, Masaki S. Smart phone as a tool for measuring anticipatory postural adjustments in healthy subjects, a step toward more personalized healthcare. In 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 2010 Aug 31 (pp. 82-85) ) . Regarding claim 33 , Lee teaches a method for preventing injuries to a runner during a running activity, the method comprising: measuring a sequence of acceleration data, in at least a vertical direction, while a device is fastened to the runner and the runner performs the running activity, wherein the device includes an accelerometer and a digital processor that measure the sequence of acceleration data, wherein the running activity comprises a particular distance along a running course ( see Lee section 2 “Methods” which teaches a method comprising: attaching an inertial sensor (comprising a tri-axial accelerometer) to the sacrum of a runner and measuring the vertical acceleration to determine the ratio of COM (center of mass) vertical acceleration between the left and right steps ) ; determining, during or at an end of the running activity, an asymmetry of movement of the runner based on a motion of a center of gravity, the acceleration data, the particular distance and a time period ( see Lee section 2 “Methods” where the ratio of the COM vertical acceleration between the right and left steps was used as a measure of symmetry. Section 2 also teaches where the measurements were taken on a treadmill with the runner running at a self-selected pace for a duration of 5 min. Since the running was at a specific pace and for a duration of 5 mins, the symmetry/asymmetry is based on: the COM acceleration (which includes the motion of a center of gravity), a particular distance and a time period ) ; and displaying the asymmetry of movement of the runner on a display of the device ( see fig. 2 ) . As noted above, Lee teaches displaying the asymmetry of movement of the runner on a display, but is silent regarding displaying the asymmetry of movement of the runner on a display of the device , i.e. the same device that comprises the accelerometer. Rigoberto teaches where a method of measuring the leg movement of a person can be performed in a single device comprising an accelerometer and a display that displays the processed accelerometer data ( see Rigoberto section II “Methods” regarding the use of an iPhone attached to a person to measure the accelerations induced by the leg when taking a step. See also section IV “DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS” where the iPhone can be programmed to run the analysis and display the results). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify Lee such that the device used to capture the acceleration data and the device used to process the data and display the asymmetry of movement are the same device because this would reduce the complexity of the system by using a single off the shelf device that incorporates all of the components. Regarding claim 42, modified Lee further teaches t he method of claim 33, wherein the sequence of acceleration data is further measured along a lateral direction using the accelerometer ( see Lee section 2 “Methods” regarding the use of a triaxial accelerometer and the measurement of the mediolateral acceleration ) . Regarding claim 43 , modified Lee teaches t he method of claim 42, wherein the sequence of acceleration data in the lateral direction is processed separately from the sequence of acceleration data in the vertical direction ( see Lee section 2 “Methods” where the mediolateral acceleration was separately processed to identify the left and right side and the vertical acceleration was separately processed to calculate the symmetry ) . Regarding claim 44, modified Lee teaches t he method of claim 33, wherein the determined asymmetry of movement of the runner is based on asymmetry between at least one movement of a left leg and at least one corresponding movement of a right leg and/or asymmetry between at least one forward movement of the runner and at least one corresponding backward movement of the runner ( see Lee section 2 “Methods” and section 3 “Results”. See also fig. 2 ) . Regarding claim 45, modified Lee teaches t he method of claim 33, wherein the sequence of acceleration data includes data in at least an anteroposterior direction that is measured by the accelerometer and processed separately from the sequence of acceleration data in the vertical direction ( see Lee section 2 “Methods” regarding the use of a triaxial accelerometer and the measurement of the anterio posterior acceleration ) . Regarding claim 47, modified Lee teaches t he method of claim 33, further comprising: calculating at least one of a balance, explosive power, mobility, resistance, or stability of the runner based on the asymmetr y of movement of the runner ( see Lee “Practical implications” where the ability to monitor gait characteristics will provide a means of analyzing performance and studying fatigue ) . Regarding claim 48 , modified Lee teaches t he method of claim 33, wherein the device is portable device, arranged for running a computer program in order to execute said method ( see the rejection of claim 33 regarding the modification of Lee to use the iPhone of Rigoberto ) . Regarding claim 49, modified Lee teaches t he method of claim 48, wherein the portable device is a mobile phone ( see the rejection of claim 33 regarding the modification of Lee to use the iPhone of Rigoberto ) . Regarding claim 50, modified Lee teaches t he method of claim 33, wherein the device is fastened proximate to the center of gravity of the runner ( see Lee section 2 regarding the positioning of the sensor on the sacrum ) . Regarding claim 51 , the claim is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a wearable device, perform the method of claim 33. The cited portions of Lee and Rigoberto teach where the method is performed using a processor in a wearable device. Therefore, claim 51 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 33. Regarding claim 52, the claim is directed toward a wearable device that is configured to perform the method of claim 33. The cited portions of Lee and Rigoberto teach the claimed wearable device. Therefore, claim 52 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 33. Claim 46 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ( Lee JB, Sutter KJ, Askew CD, Burkett BJ. Identifying symmetry in running gait using a single inertial sensor. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2010 Sep 1;13(5):559- 5 63 ) in view of Rigoberto et al. ( Rigoberto MM, Toshiyo T, Masaki S. Smart phone as a tool for measuring anticipatory postural adjustments in healthy subjects, a step toward more personalized healthcare. In 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 2010 Aug 31 (pp. 82-85) ) and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 20120035509 A1) . Regarding claim 46, modified Lee teaches where the determined symmetry can be used to detecting or reducing the risk of injury but does not explicitly teach : t he method of claim 33, further comprising: determining an injury risk indicator calculated based on the asymmetry of movement of the runner. Wilson teaches calculating an injury risk indicator based on the asymmetry of movement of a runner (see Wilson [044] ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Lee such that the gait data is used to determine an injury risk indicator, as taught in Wilson, because this enables a health care professional to prevent injuries (see Wilson [0044]). Subject Matter Not Taught By The Prior Art Of Record Claims 34-41 comprise subject matter not taught by the prior art of record but are still rejected under 35 USC 101 (see above). Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached form PTO-892. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner Peter Nolan, whose telephone number is 571-270-7016. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm. The fax number for the organization to which this application or procee ding is assigned is 571-273-8300 . Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Peter D Nolan/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661