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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to communications received on 03/23/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 7, 18-20 and 22-24 and has left the rest of claims as previously presented. Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 18-24 are currently pending in the application and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the Claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant’s amendments to the claims are also sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 102 rejections and the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
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 1-4, 6-14 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining an action type of a user.
The limitation of determining an action type of a user is a method and system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device”, “processors”, “memory”, “computer code” and “computer instructions”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “an electronic device”, “processors”, “memory”, “computer code” and “computer instructions” language, “determining” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper using the obtained sensor data to determine a type of action. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “an electronic device”, “processors”, “memory”, “computer code” and “computer instructions”. These additional elements are all clamed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components and instructions to implement the abstract idea using the generic components. Furthermore, the generic components are used in manners consistent with their known usage in the field, with the electronic device being used to receive and transmit data, the processors and memory being used to perform computing functions, store data and execute the computer instructions, and the computer code and instructions being used to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements are not held to be significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
With respect to the dependent claims, they are drawn to types of data output, determining different types of user actions, receiving different types of sensor data, which neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims are also rejected as being drawn to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 USC 101 argument that sum acceleration data cannot be processed by the mind – it is noted that using captured data to make a determination is still interpreted as an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind or pen and paper with a user utilizing presented data to make a determination, therefore the argument is unpersuasive. With respect to the argument that outputting first and second prompts is not a mental process, it is noted that the outputting of the prompts is not identified as an abstraction, but is rather an extra-solution step of displaying data related to the abstraction. This is also not interpreted as significantly more than the abstract idea nor does it integrate the abstract idea into a practical application beyond merely displaying data. The argument is therefore held to be unpersuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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 JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday (7-5).
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights