DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This Office Action is responsive to amendment filed 13 April 2026.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are amended.
Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are pending.
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 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites acquiring item information related to characteristics of a predetermined wearable item; acquiring prediction condition information related to a situation in which a predetermined exercise is performed; predicting a user state as if the user had worn the wearable item and performed the predetermined exercise in the situation, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise, based on the physical information, the item information, and the prediction condition information; outputting information related to the user state, modeling an avatar representing the user based on the physical information; acquiring exercise data and reference movement information; predicting, based on the item information, the exercise data, and the reference movement information, a user movement as if the user had worn the wearable item and performed the predetermined exercise, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise while wearing the wearable item; generating and outputting an avatar image by reflecting the predicted user state in the modeled avatar; and predicting a post-exercise user state as if the user had continued performing the predetermined exercise for a predetermined period with the predicted user movement while wearing the predetermined wearable item, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise, which is an abstract
idea reasonably categorized as a mental process (i.e., observation and evaluation of observed information).
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include a processor. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to
amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on
which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5-11 describe further observation and evaluation of data and thus further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites acquiring physical information of a user; acquiring item information related to characteristics of predetermined wearable items; acquiring prediction condition information related to a situation in which a predetermined exercise is performed; predicting, based on the physical information, the item information, and the prediction condition information, user states for the respective predetermined wearable items as if the user had worn the wearable items and performed the predetermined exercise in the situation, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise; generating evaluation information regarding the predetermined wearable items based on the predicted user states for the respective predetermined wearable items; generating recommendation information indicating one of the predetermined wearable items for the user to wear based on the evaluation information regarding the predetermined wearable items and outputting the recommendation information, modeling an avatar representing the user based on the physical information; acquiring exercise data and reference movement information; predicting, based on the item information, the exercise data, and the reference movement information, a user movement as if the user had worn the wearable item and performed the predetermined exercise, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise while wearing the wearable item; generating and outputting an avatar image by reflecting the predicted user state in the modeled avatar; and predicting a post-exercise user state as if the user had continued performing the predetermined exercise for a predetermined period with the predicted user movement while wearing the predetermined wearable item, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise, which is an abstract idea reasonably categorized as a mental process (i.e., observation and evaluation of observed information).
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include a processor. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to
amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 13 describes further observation and evaluation of data and thus further describes the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites acquiring item information related to characteristics of a predetermined wearable item; acquiring prediction condition information related to a situation in which a predetermined exercise is performed; predicting a user state as if the user had worn the wearable item and performed the predetermined exercise in the situation, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise, based on the physical information, the item information, and the prediction condition information; and outputting information related to the user state; modeling an avatar representing the user based on the physical information; acquiring exercise data and reference movement information; predicting, based on the item information, the exercise data, and the reference movement information, a user movement as if the user had worn the wearable item and performed the predetermined exercise, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise while wearing the wearable item; generating and outputting an avatar image by reflecting the predicted user state in the modeled avatar; and predicting a post-exercise user state as if the user had continued performing the predetermined exercise for a predetermined period with the predicted user movement while wearing the predetermined wearable item, even though the user has not actually performed the predetermined exercise, which is an abstract idea reasonably categorized as a mental process (i.e., observation and evaluation of observed information).
The claim consists entirely of an abstract idea and includes no additional elements to evaluate.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f)
Applicant’s amendments render the claim interpretation under § 112(f) inapplicable.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections under § 112(b). These rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant submits that “(a) human cannot, as a practical matter, mentally ingest recorded exercise data of the user, compare it to a standard biomechanical movement model, adjust the result based on the physical characteristics of a specific wearable item . . . , and then propagate that predicted movement forward to predict a post-exercise state after continued performance over a predetermined period.” “These are computational operations that,” Applicant continues, “require a processor; they are not observations or evaluations a person could perform in the mind or with pen and paper.” It is unclear from Applicant’s argument why any/all of these steps could not be performed mentally. Examiner does not disagree that such steps could be performed faster and more efficiently utilizing a computer processor, but “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant further submits that “model(ing) an avatar representing the user in a virtual space based on the physical information and generat(ing) an avatar image by reflecting the predicted user state in the modeled avatar in the virtual space” are “operations performed by a processor on a virtual-space representation and cannot practically be performed in the human mind.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and invites Applicant to imagine his appearance before/during/after exercise wearing a particular article of clothing. Examiner submits that such activities are well within the capability of the human mind.
Citing Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Applicant submits that the lack of prior art rejections “confirms that this specific combination is . . . not a conventional set of activities” and thus the claims are eligible. Examiner notes that the novelty/non-obviousness of the claims stems from the abstract idea itself and not from any additional elements unencompassed by that abstract idea. Indeed, the only additional element present in the claims appears to be the generic “processor” on which the abstract idea is implemented. Berkheimer requires a factual determination to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(1). No such conclusion is present in the rejections of record. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §§ 102 & 103
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections under §§ 102 & 103. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFF ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
JEFF ZIMMERMAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights