DETAILED FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the amendment of March 26, 2026, which amendment has been ENTERED.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of March 26, 2026 has been considered during examination.
The amendments and comments of March 26, 2026 have been carefully considered, and, these are found to have overcome the rejections as set forth in the office action of December 16, 2025.
The cancelling of the word, “status” in each of dependent claims 1, 11, and 19, changing “swimming stroke status” to “swimming stroke” necessitated further search and further examination. The rejections below were necessitated by this change in the independent claims.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
New Prior Art Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Downey et al (‘824).
In independent claim 1 as newly-amended, Downey et al (‘824) plainly discloses “A mobile device” (line 1), noting, for example, paragraph [0021] at lines 1-4 (“watch device 100” is a “mobile device” that is worn by a user.
The claim 1 “user input device” (line 2) is met in Downey et al (‘824) by the disclosed “one or more mechanical buttons” and/or by the “touch sensitive user interface,” noting, for example, paragraph [0025] at lines 1-3 and 10-12.
The claim 1, “satellite positioning system (SPS) receiver” (line 3) is met in Downey et al (‘824) by the disclosed GPS receiver or GNSS device, noting, for example, paragraph [0029] at lines 1-7.
The claim 1, “wireless communication signal transceiver” (line 4) is met in Downey et al (‘824) by the listed “wireless transmission components” listed in paragraph [0027] at lines 1-6, also, noting, “transmission” on page 5, right column at lines 1-2, and noting wireless reception on page 5, right column at lines 13-15; and, transmitting and receiving in paragraph [0065] at lines 10-13.
The claim 1, “at least one motion sensor” (line 5) is met in Downey et al (‘824), at least, by any one or more of the sensors listed in paragraph [0032].
The claim 1, “a processor communicatively coupled to the user input device and the SPS receiver” (line 6) is met in Downey et al (‘824) by “processing system 110” in Figure 5 and as discussed in paragraph [0028].
The claim 1 limitation, “receive, from the user device, a swimming indication of swimming by a user” (line 8) is met by Downey et al (‘824), noting, for example, paragraph [0025] at lines 1-12, and, paragraph [0039] at lines 1-9.
The claim 1 limitation, “determine, in response to the swimming indication, a swimming stroke based on one or more signals received by the SPS receiver” (lines 10-11) is met by Downey et al (‘824), noting, for example, paragraph [0039] at lines 9-16 (noting, “automatically identify the stroke used”), noting that the “location determining component 112” may use satellite signals (paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0042] at lines 1-8; paragraph [0043]; noting that the “location determining component 112” may use satellite signals).
In that Downey et al (‘824) plainly discloses each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Downey et al (‘824).
The further limitations of dependent claim 2 are met in Downey et al (‘824) by using “acceleration signatures corresponding to the various strokes,” noting, for example, paragraph [0039] at lines 9-16.
Next, as for the further limitations of dependent claim 4, in Downey et al (‘824), please note paragraph [0039], particularly the use of “user interface 108” and automatic determination of the stroke being used.
Regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 6, these are met by Downey et al (‘824) in that Downey et al (‘824) determines the position of the watch device with respect to the water, noting, for example, paragraph [0037] at lines 5-7 (“out of the water”), and, page 3, right column at lines 13-14 (“when the watch device 100 is out of the water”).
The further limitations of dependent claim 8 are met in Downey et al (‘824) by the use of the “acceleration signatures” to identify strokes, noting, for example, paragraph [0039] at lines 9-16.
Next, with reference to dependent claims 9 and 10, these are met by Downey et al (‘824) in that Downey et al (‘824) discloses that the “watch device 100” is “worn on the arm of the user,” noting, for example, paragraph [0021] at lines 1-4.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 11 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1.
As for dependent claim 12, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2.
As for dependent claim 14, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 4.
As for dependent claim 16, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 6.
As for dependent claim 18, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 8.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 19 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 20 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2.
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, 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 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 5, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downey et al (‘824).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of sports monitoring devices.
Although the further limitations of dependent claim 5 are not specifically disclosed in Downey et al (‘824), Downey et al (‘824) discloses that “control functions that are most commonly used while swimming” are used (mentioning “lap” in paragraph [0025] at line 9), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use “pool length” as a “swimming indication” in Downey et al (‘824) in order to facilitate the measuring of laps, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Although the further limitations of dependent claim 15 are not specifically disclosed in Downey et al (‘824), Downey et al (‘824) discloses that “control functions that are most commonly used while swimming” are used (mentioning “lap” in paragraph [0025] at line 9), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use “pool length” as a “swimming indication” in Downey et al (‘824) in order to facilitate the measuring of laps, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 7, although these are not specifically disclosed in Downey et al (‘824), Downey et al (‘824) notes in paragraph [0036] that GPS signals are not able to “penetrate water to a meaningful depth.” Continuing, Downey et al (‘824) notes that the system determines the position of the watch device 100 so as to be “in the best position to receive satellite navigation signals” on page 3, right column at lines 10-14. With these facts in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine when the watch device 100 is “in the best position to receive satellite navigation signals” (including positions underwater) so that the “location determining component 112” is not “functional” when a satellite signal can not be received in order to conserve energy, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 17, although these are not specifically disclosed in Downey et al (‘824), Downey et al (‘824) notes in paragraph [0036] that GPS signals are not able to “penetrate water to a meaningful depth.” Continuing, Downey et al (‘824) notes that the system determines the position of the watch device 100 so as to be “in the best position to receive satellite navigation signals” on page 3, right column at lines 10-14. With these facts in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine when the watch device 100 is “in the best position to receive satellite navigation signals” (including positions underwater) so that the “location determining component 112” is not “functional” when a satellite signal cannot be received in order to conserve energy, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Finality of this Office Action
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights