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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/23/2026.
Claims 9, 13, 25, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 50, and 51 were previously presented. Claims 3-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-19, 21-24, 26-28, 31-32, 34-37, 40-42, 44, 46, 49, and 52-70 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51, are pending, of which claims 1 and 29 are independent.
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, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because 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. Each of Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method and a system in claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, each of Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51, are directed to collecting activity data and creating/securing a “digital asset” representing that data – i.e., a method of organizing human activity (recording and tokenizing a record of an economic/personal event) and/or a mental process of generating data representation. Registering/validating a token on a blockchain is a fundamental method of managing transactions/records. Further, dependent Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, and 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 29 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system and method merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. Additionally the additional elements of: a first activity data sensor, a processing system, and a fungible or non-fungible token registered on and validated by a blockchain platform, are generically recited. For example, applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent Claims is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite a first activity data sensor, a processing system, and a fungible or non-fungible token registered on and validated by a blockchain platform. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Furthermore, the recitation of the above-identified generic computer limitations in the Claims amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, none of the Claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, and 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 30 recites “… the insole further comprises…” and includes a generally a very large as definite alternatives, but as amended Claims 2/30 recite alternatives/members (e.g., facial recognition sensor, voice sensor, radar, lidar, height sensor) are not plausibly “comprised’ by an insole, raising a 112(b) clarity concern for those members. Clarification is recommended.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 51 recites “The method of claim 29,” but claim 29 is a system Claim. A method claim cannot properly depend from a system claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 25, 29-30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 50 and 51 are rejected as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0290965 A1 to Oren in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0087446 to Redmond et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0117446 A1 to Tran et al.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claim 29, (Currently Amended) Oren discloses a method for creating a cryptographically secured digital asset, comprising:
a. using at least a first activity data sensor to collect data relating to an activity carried out by a user, ((fig. 13, para. [0148] discloses session data 1312 that includes sensor data such as resistance, cadence, user heartrate; paras. [0114]-[0116], [0139], [0143] discloses various sensors that collects user data from the rider),
wherein the first activity data sensor is a force sensor that is carried by an insole that is worn by the user, and wherein the force sensor measures force applied between a foot of the user and a surface;
b. transmitting the data to a processing system (fig. 13, session data 1312; paras. [0148] discloses the local system 1310 transmits session data 1312 to the distribution platform 1320 and he session data 1312 is provided to a content provider/host system 1340);
c. using the processing system to generate a digital asset based on the data (fig. 13, content generation 1342, paras. [0094]-[0095], [0149] discloses the content generation module 1342 may use stored content data 1346 and user data 1348 (e.g., information on previous content generated for user) to generate the digital asset 1360); and
d. cryptographically securing the digital asset with a fungible or non-fungible token registered on and validated by a blockchain platform (paras. [0010], [0035] discloses the digital assets can be secured by encryption).
However Oren does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first activity data sensor is a force sensor that is carried by an insole that is worn by the user, and wherein the force sensor measures force applied between a foot of the user and a surface; and “… ”with a fungible or non-fungible toke registered on and validated by a blockchain platform.”
In a related invention, Redmond discloses wherein the first activity data sensor is a force sensor that is carried by an insole that is worn by the user, and wherein the force sensor measures force applied between a foot of the user and a surface (fig. 6, paras. [0013] and [0060] discloses a measurement device for measuring a cyclist's power output, in response to an external force provided by said cyclist applied to a bicycle, comprising a force sensor, characterised in that said force sensor is embedded in a bicycle cleat and IG. 6 there is illustrated a system to implement the present invention indicated generally by the reference numeral 20. A pair of cleats 11 are indicated by the dotted line and are in communication with a control and display unit 16, for example over a radio link 17. Each cleat 11 comprises of one or more force sensor(s) 13, an accelerometer 14 and related measurement electronics 15 embedded in each cleat).
Oren and Redmond are analogous art in wearable activity/athletic monitoring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Redmond’s foot-force sensing with Oren’s activity data system in order to obtain accurate foot-loading data, a predictable substitution of one known footwear force-sensor location for another.
The combination of Oren and Redmond, however, does not explicitly disclose: “… with a fungible or non-fungible toke registered on and validated by a blockchain platform.”
In a related invention, Tran discloses a smart device system in which cryptographically securing the digital asset with a fungible or non-fungible token registered on and validated by a blockchain platform (paras. [0031]-[0034], [0039]-[0045], [0064] discloses data collection by sensors for the device….and paras. [0135]-[0137], [0212]-[0214] discloses using blockchain technology to secure data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the blockchain/NFT feature of Tran with the system of Oren in order to further improve data protection of the received data of user’s activity and further secure the resulting data record.
Regarding Claim 2, (Currently amended) Oren in view of Redmond and Tran discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the insole further comprises a shear sensor, a weight sensor, a body-mass-index sensor, a temperature sensor, a moisture sensors, a heart rate sensor, a heart rate variability sensor, a blood pressure sensor, a blood flow sensor, a cardiac output sensor, a perfusion sensor, an inductance sensor, a resistance sensor, a dielectric sensor, a capacitance sensor, a conductance sensor, an odor sensor, a taste sensor, a hydration sensor, a respiratory flow rate sensor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a limb positioning measurement device, a sensor for detecting the presence of a chemical marker, a blood glucose sensor, a sweat glucose sensor, a blood alcohol sensor, an oxygen sensor, a carbon dioxide sensor, a drug level sensor, an electrolyte sensor, a pH sensor, an acidity sensor, an EEG sensor, an EMG sensor, an ECG sensor, a lung function meter, an impairment sensor, a sleep sensor, a body fat sensor, a height sensor, a fatigue sensor, an audio sensor, an RFID tag sensor, radar, lidar, an airflow meter, a spirometer, a lung volume sensor, a facial recognition sensor, a voice sensor, an emotion sensor, a stress sensor, an endorphin sensor, a cortisol sensor, an adrenaline sensor, an infrared sensor, or a bacterial load sensor ((Oren, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0148] discloses various different types of sensors such as magnetic resistance power measurement sensors and … a wide range of other sensors to measure speed, pedal cadence, wheel rotational speed, resistance, cadence, user heartrate; Redmond, fig. 6, paras. [0013] and [0060]).
Regarding Claim 5, (Currently Amended) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the insole further comprises a timer, weather sensor, a GPS sensor, an audio sensor, a light sensor, an altimeter, radar, lidar, a milestone sensor, an equipment-based sensor, or a proximity sensor (Oren, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0148] discloses include a wide range of other sensors to measure speed, pedal cadence, wheel rotational speed, etc. The stationary bike may also include sensors to measure rider heart-rate, respiration, hydration, or any other physical characteristic; Redmond, fig. 6, paras. [0013] and [0060]).
Regarding Claim 13, (Previously Presented) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital asset comprises a visual representation of the data (Oren, paras. [0114]-[0116], [0142]-[0144], [0148]).
Regarding Claim 30, (Currently Amended) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the insole further comprises a shear sensor, a weight sensor, a body-mass-index sensor, a temperature sensor, a moisture sensors, a heart rate sensor, a heart rate variability sensor, a blood pressure sensor, a blood flow sensor, a cardiac output sensor, a perfusion sensor, an inductance sensor, a resistance sensor, a dielectric sensor, a capacitance sensor, a conductance sensor, an odor sensor, a taste sensor, a hydration sensor, a respiratory flow rate sensor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a limb positioning measurement device, a sensor for detecting the presence of a chemical marker, a blood glucose sensor, a sweat glucose sensor, a blood alcohol sensor, an oxygen sensor, a carbon dioxide sensor, a drug level sensor, an electrolyte sensor, a pH sensor, an acidity sensor, an EEG sensor, an EMG sensor, an ECG sensor, a lung function meter, an impairment sensor, a sleep sensor, a body fat sensor, a height sensor, a fatigue sensor, an audio sensor, an RFID tag sensor, radar, lidar, an airflow meter, a spirometer, a lung volume sensor, a facial recognition sensor, a voice sensor, an emotion sensor, a stress sensor, an endorphin sensor, a cortisol sensor, an adrenaline sensor, an infrared sensor, or a bacterial load sensor (Oren, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0148] discloses various different types of sensors such as magnetic resistance power measurement sensors and … a wide range of other sensors to measure speed, pedal cadence, wheel rotational speed, resistance, cadence, user heartrate).
Regarding Claim 33, (Currently Amended) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein insole further comprises a timer, weather sensor, a GPS sensor, an audio sensor, a light sensor, an altimeter, a finish-line sensor, an equipment-based sensor, or a proximity sensor (Oren, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0148] discloses include a wide range of other sensors to measure speed, pedal cadence, wheel rotational speed, etc. The stationary bike may also include sensors to measure rider heart-rate, respiration, hydration, or any other physical characteristic).
Regarding Claim 38, (Previously Presented) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the digital asset comprises a visual representation of the data (Oren, paras. [0114]-[0116], [0142]-[0144], [0148]).
Regarding Claim 39, (Previously Presented) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the processing system is configured to apply a set of instructions to the data to generate the digital asset (Oren, paras. [0094]-[0095], [0149] discloses the content generation module 1342 may use stored content data 1346 and user data 1348 (e.g., information on previous content generated for user) to generate the digital asset 1360).
Regarding Claim 43, (Previously Presented) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the processing system is configured to generate the digital asset based on the data and additional non-sensor based data relating to the activity carried out by the user (Oren, para. [0148]).
Regarding Claim 47, (Previously Presented) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the processing system is configured to use the data to authenticate at least one statistic relating to the activity (Oren, paras. [0412]-[0144]).
Regarding Claim 48, (Previously Presented) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the processing system is configured to automatically detect a nature of the activity (Oren, paras. [0148], [0152]).
Regarding Claim 50, (Previously Presented) Oren in view of Redmon and Tran discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the system is configured to generate the digital asset proportionally to the data (Oren, paras. [0152]).
Claims 9, 20, 25, 45, and 51 are rejected as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0290965 A1 to Oren in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0087446 to Redmond et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0117446 A1 to Tran et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent 8,221,290 B2 to Vincent et al. (as recited by the IDS).
Regarding Claim 9, (Previously Presented) the combination of Oren, Redmond, and Tran discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the activity comprises a gaming activity or athletic activity.
In a related invention, Vincent discloses wherein the activity comprises a gaming activity or athletic activity (figs. 44-45, Col. 44:1 – Col. 45:line 34). Vincent discloses a sports electronic system for monitoring and providing feedback to an individual based on data received. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature of Vincent with the system of Oren in order to further improve the measurements of user’s activity during performance.
Regarding Claim 20, (Currently Amended) Oren, Redmond, and Tran discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising using the data to authenticate the user, but does not explicitly disclose wherein:
In a related invention, Vincent discloses:
using the data to authenticate the user comprises using the processing system to analyze the user's gait based on the data, and authenticating the user based on the analysis of the user's gait (Col. 13:10-14, 52-67, Col. 14:1-15, Col. 40:36 – Col. 41:10, Col. 42:5-17, Col. 42:60 – Col. 43:8).
Vincent discloses a sports electronic system for monitoring and providing feedback to an individual based on data received. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature of Vincent with the system of Oren and Tran in order to further improve the measurements of user’s activity during performance.
Regarding Claim 25, and similarly recited Claim 51, (Previously presented) Oren in view of Redmond, Tran and Vincent discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cryptographically secured digital asset comprises a skin or an attribute that is usable in gaming (Vincent, Col. 44:1 – Col. 45:34 discloses digital assets may be usable in game).
Regarding Claim 45, (Currently Amended) Oren in view of Redmond, Tran and Vincent discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the processing system is configured to use the data to authenticate the user, wherein:
based on the analysis of the user's gait (Oren, para. [0079], [0142]-[0144] discloses authentication by the user).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 over US 2019/0290965 to Oren in view of US 2018/0117446 and further in view of US Patent 8,221,290 to Vincent is withdrawn as applied to amended independent claims 1 and 29. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive on the following points:
Amended Claim 1 and 29 now requires the first activity data sensor to be ‘a force sensor that is carried by an insole that is worn by the user” and that the force sensor measures force applied between a foot of the user and a surface. The combination as previously applied does not teach or suggest the amended “force sensor carried by an insole…” limitation and therefore the rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn.
A new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments under 35 USC 101, 112, and 103 are set forth above.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, and 30, 33, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights