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 .
Response to Amendment
In an amendment filed 04/06/2026, no claims were amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowallis et al. (US 20060035768 A1), further in view of Just et al. (US 20230078009 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kowallis teaches a method comprising: capturing first sensor data, by a first magnetometer on a user, a change in a magnetic field indicative of a ferromagnetic object moving in relation to the user; (fig. 1B and Figs 6-7A. Para 30,52, 82-83. magnetometer 610a, ferromagnetic object 608a. measures one or more exercise repetitions based on varying strengths in a given magnetic field.)
determining, based on the first sensor data, one or more characteristics of a user motion; (Para 84. Carriages 606a and 606b, rails 604a and 604b, and housing 602 are each configured so that carriages 606a and 606b travel in response to an exercise force exerted by a user. So characteristics of a user motion is travel of the carriage in response to an exercise force exerted by a user)
determining a count of repetitions of the user motion based on the one or more characteristics of the user motion; (Para 72, 85. So user’s motion is counted)
and generating a notification of the count of repetitions. (Para 72. Count of repetition is updated after user finished each motion)
However Kowallis does not teaches the user is a wearable device.
However Just teaches user is a wearable device. (Fig. 5. user with wearable device 130. Please note that the magnetometer of Kowallis would be on the wearable depending on view perspective.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kowallis with Just to teach the user is a wearable device so the user can have wearable device during exercise to enhance its exercise experience such as listening to music.
Regarding claim 2, Kowallis and Just already teach the method of claim 1, and Kowallis further teaches wherein determining the one or more characteristics comprises: applying the first sensor data to a model configured to classify user motion based on sensor data from the first magnetometer. (Para 81. User motion can be classified as distance or intensity of user exercise motion)
Regarding claim 3, Kowallis and Just already teach the method of claim 1, and Kowallis further teaches further comprising: capturing second sensor data by a second magnetometer, wherein determining the one or more characteristics of the user motion is further based on the second sensor data. (fig. 1B and Figs 6-7A. Para 30,52, 82-83. magnetometer 610b. determination is based on magnetometer 610a and 610b as shown in paragraph 84)
Regarding claim 7, Kowallis and Just already teach the method claim 1,
And Kowallis further teaches further comprising: detecting an initiation of a motion type from one or more additional sensors; (fig. 1B and Figs 6-7A. Para 30,52, 82-83. magnetometer 610b is considered the one or more additional sensor)
and wherein determining the one or more characteristics of the user motion is triggered in response to the detected initiation of the motion type. (Para 82-83. characteristics of a user motion is travel of the carriage in response to an exercise force exerted by a user. determination is based on magnetometer 610a and 610b as shown in paragraph 84)
Regarding claim 9-11, refer to rejection for claims 1-3 respectively.
Regarding claim 13, Kowallis and Just already teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11,
And Kowallis further teaches wherein the one or more characteristics of the user motion comprises determining an arm performing the user motion. (Para 84. Carriages 606a and 606b, rails 604a and 604b, and housing 602 are each configured so that carriages 606a and 606b travel in response to an exercise force exerted by a user. So characteristics of a user motion is travel of the carriage in response to an exercise force exerted by a user’s arm)
Regarding claim 15, refer to rejection for claim 7.
Regarding claim 17-19, refer to rejection for claim 1-3 respectively.
Claims 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowallis et al. (US 20060035768 A1), in view of Just et al. (US 20230078009 A1), further in view of Udesen (US 20200196058 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kowallis and Just already teaches the method of claim 1, However Kowallis and Just do not teach further comprising: capturing head tracking sensor data from one or more additional sensors; and determining a head position based on the head tracking sensor data, wherein one or more characteristics of the user motion are further determined based on the head position.
However Udesen teaches capturing head tracking sensor data from one or more additional sensors; (Para 13. a head tracking sensor in the hearing device)
and determining a head position based on the head tracking sensor data, wherein one or more characteristics of the user motion are further determined based on the head position. (Para 13. So the one or more characteristics of the user motion are further determined based on the head position is the head position of the user while wearing the earphone)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kowallis and Just with Udesen to teach capturing head tracking sensor data from one or more additional sensors; and determining a head position based on the head tracking sensor data, wherein one or more characteristics of the user motion are further determined based on the head position in order to improve music listening experience by increasing the perceived sound externalization of the two virtual speakers.
Regarding claim 14, refer to rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Kowallis and Just already teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9,
And Kowallis already teaches a first portion of the user motion is attributable to a movement of the ferromagnetic object. (fig. 1B and Figs 6-7A. Para 30,52, 82-83. magnetometer 610a, ferromagnetic object 608a.)
However Kowallis and Just do not teach further comprising computer readable code to: capture second sensor data by an inertial measurement unit; and determine a classification of the user motion based on the first sensor data and the second sensor data, wherein the classification is based on a determination that a first portion of the user motion is attributable to a movement of the ferromagnetic object and a second portion of the user motion is attributable to a movement of a body of the user.
However Udesen teaches capture second sensor data by an inertial measurement unit; (Para 46. Accelerometer is an inertial measurement unit)
and determine a classification of the user motion based on the first sensor data and the second sensor data, wherein the classification is based on a determination that a first portion of the user motion is attributable to a movement of the ferromagnetic object and a second portion of the user motion is attributable to a movement of a body of the user. (Udesen teaches that the user is listening to music while moving the user’s head, Kowallis teaches the that the user is exercising. The classification therefore it is that the user is exercising while moving its head.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kowallis and Just with Udesen to teach capture second sensor data by an inertial measurement unit; and determine a classification of the user motion based on the first sensor data and the second sensor data, wherein the classification is based on a determination that a first portion of the user motion is attributable to a movement of the ferromagnetic object and a second portion of the user motion is attributable to a movement of a body of the user in order to improve music listening experience by increasing the perceived sound externalization of the two virtual speakers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 8, 12 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, applicant alleged that “Initially, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has failed to show prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2143.01 states that "[a] statement that modifications of the prior art to meet the claimed invention would have been "'well within the ordinary skill of the art at the time the claimed invention was made"' because the references relied upon teach that all aspects of the claimed invention were individually known in the art is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness without some objective reason to combine the teachings of the references. Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "'[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006))."
In the current case, the Examiner takes the position that "it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kowallis with Just to teach the user is a wearable device so the user can have wearable device during exercise to enhance its exercise experience such as listening to music." However, this reasoning falls short of providing prima facie obviousness for several reasons. First, combining Kowallis with an audio device for listening to music has nothing to do with "capturing first sensor data, by a first magnetometer on a wearable device, a change in a magnetic field indicative of a ferromagnetic object moving in relation to the wearable device." In fact, nothing in Just indicates that the audio device even has a magnetometer. Accordingly, the Examiner has not provided any "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning" to support the obviousness rejection.”
Examiner finds the argument not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner clearly gives the motivation of “so the user can have wearable device during exercise to enhance its exercise experience such as listening to music”
On page 11, applicant alleged that “Further, the sensors and housing of Kowallis are coupled to fixed members of the exercise machine frame, and the system is designed to monitor the movement of the machine's own cables and carriages-not the movement of a user's body. See Kowallis [0053], [0082]-[0083]. Initially, the Examiner has provided no reasoned basis for why one of ordinary skill would dismantle the machine-integrated architecture of Kowallis and graft it onto a wearable device. Further, the fundamental operating principle of Kowallis-detecting changes in a magnetic field caused by a ferromagnetic object (i.e., the machine's magnet-bearing carriage) moving relative to fixed machine-mounted sensors-is entirely incompatible with placing those sensors on a wearable device worn by the user. If the sensors of Kowallis were moved to a wearable device as the Examiner proposes, the sensors would move with the user's body, thereby destroying the relative motion between the sensor and the ferromagnetic object that is essential to the operation of Kowallis.”
Examiner finds the argument not persuasive. In this case, the exercise is carried out with user’s hands, not head as the sensors can be integrated within the earphone of the users as shown in fig. 5 of Just.
On pages 11-12, applicant alleged that “Even setting aside the impropriety of the combination, Kowallis does not teach the "capturing" and "determining" features as recited in independent claim 1. Claim 1 requires "capturing first sensor data, by a first magnetometer on a wearable device, a change in a magnetic field indicative of a ferromagnetic object moving in relation to the wearable device." In Kowallis, it is the sensors 610a, 610b that are fixed to the exercise machine housing 602, not to any wearable device. See Kowallis Figs. 7A-7B, [0082]-[0083]. The ferromagnetic objects (magnets 608a, 608b) are mounted on carriages 606a, 606b that travel along rails in the machine housing. See Kowallis [0082]-[0083]. There is no teaching in Kowallis of a magnetometer on a wearable device capturing a change in a magnetic field indicative of a ferromagnetic object moving in relation to that wearable device.
Just does not cure these deficiencies. As noted above, the Examiner cites Just only for the disclosure of a wearable device (Fig. 5, depicting smart watch 120 and audio device 130 worn by a user). See Office Action at page 4. However, Just does not teach or suggest capturing first sensor data by a magnetometer on a wearable device reflecting a change in a magnetic field indicative of a ferromagnetic object moving in relation to the wearable device in the manner required by claim 1. While Just discloses that a wearable device may include a magnetometer, Just's magnetometer is used to generate environment data for predicting equipment type (e.g., distinguishing barbells from dumbbells based on characteristic magnetic field profiles), not to capture changes in magnetic field indicative of a ferromagnetic object moving in relation to the wearable device so as to determine characteristics of a user's motion. See Just [0109], [0204]-[0205], [0224]. Thus, the combination of Kowallis and Just fail to disclose or otherwise render obviousness "capturing first sensor data, by a first magnetometer on a wearable device, a change in a magnetic field indicative of a ferromagnetic object moving in relation to the wearable device" and "determining, based on the first sensor data, one or more characteristics of a user motion" because neither reference, nor the combination of references, discloses magnetometer sensor data from a wearable device used to determine user motion.”
Examiner finds the argument not persuasive. In this case, data are captured and determined as shown in paragraphs 72 and 85 wherein the number of repetitions are displayed.
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 HANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/HANG LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights