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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 2/6/2026 in which claims 1, 8, and 10 have been amended, claims 2 and 9 have been canceled and new claim 11 has been added. Thus, the claims 1, 3-8, and 10-11 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: The dependency of these claims need to be corrected as claim 2 has been canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea to determine a physical activity for a user without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 10.
Claim 1 is directed to a device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 describes an activity support device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a target physical activity amount of a user in a predetermined period and a predictive physical activity amount representing an expected expenditure of a physical activity amount; acquire an expended physical activity amount of the user up to a current time in the predetermined period; derive a total expended physical activity amount of the user in the predetermined period, based on the predictive physical activity amount and the expended physical amount, wherein the total expended physical activity amount is derived by adding the expended physical activity amount from a start of the predetermined period to the current time and the predictive physical activity amount from the current time to an end of the predetermined period; determine a physical activity to the user from among physical activity options by comparing the target physical amount and the total expended physical amount, wherein the physical activity is determined at a timing when the user moves from the current location to the destination such that the total expended physical activity amount corresponds to the target physical activity amount; acquire activity plan information concerning an activity plan of the user in the predetermined period; output an alert for prompting to modify the activity plan in a case of location information of the current location of the user in the predetermined period that is different to location information of the user based on the activity plan information; derive a new predictive physical activity amount based on the location information of the current location of the user in response to the location information of the current location of the user being different from the location information based on the activity plan information; derive a new total expended physical activity amount based on the new predictive physical activity amount and the expended physical activity amount and determine a physical activity recommended to the user from among the physical activity options by comparing the target physical activity amount and the new total expended physical activity amount acquire, from a wearable terminal used by the user, at least one of location information of the current location, a movement distance, and a number of steps regarding the user; acquire the expended physical activity amount based on the at least one of the location information, the movement distance, and the number of steps; generate activity encouragement information for encouraging the user to perform the determine physical activity in consideration of the current location of the user and the activity plan; and transmit the activity encouragement information to a user terminal used by the user, such that the user terminal displays an activity encouragement screen indicating a route and outputs an audio sound. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea to determine a physical activity for a user. Furthermore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a memory, a processor, a wearable terminal, and a user terminal do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a memory and a processor result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a memory, a processor, a wearable terminal, and a user terminal are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a memory, a processor, a wearable terminal, and a user terminal are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, a processor, a wearable terminal, and a user terminal are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claim 10 and hence the claim 10 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-8 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 3-8 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 3-8, and 10-11 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-10 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claim 1 recites that “the total expended physical activity amount is derived by adding the expended physical activity amount from a start of the predetermined period to the current time and the predictive physical activity amount from the current time to an end of the predetermined period.” Thus corresponds directly to paragraph [0036], which describes that the total is derived “by adding the expended physical activity amount from a start of the predetermined period to the current time and the predictive physical activity amount from the current time to the end of the predetermined period.” The specification at paragraph [0051] explicitly states that through this approach, “the activity support device 20 can derive the total expended physical activity amount with a more accuracy by adding a physical activity amount expended up to that time and an expected expenditure of the physical activity amount.” This is an express statement of technical improvement – the system produces a more accurate total by combining two distinct, time-bounded data streams rather than relying solely on past expenditure or static targets as in the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the total expended physical activity amount is derived by adding activity amount which is not technical improvement. It is an improvement to an abstract idea which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the present invention, because it predicts future expenditure, can recommend reduced activity when the predicted total is already sufficient. Claim 1 recites this capability through the limitation that the physical activity is determined “such that the total expended physical activity amount corresponds to the target physical activity amount” – the system adjusts the recommendation in both directions, not merely encouraging more activity. This bidirectional adjustment is only possible because of the forward-looking predictive computation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that determining a physical activity is once again an abstract concept which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim here recites an improvement to an abstract idea and not to technology. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant also states that claim 1 further reflects another technical improvement over the prior art: the ability to dynamically adapt when real-world conditions diverge from the plan. In summary, the technical improvement is not “determining a physical activity for a user.” The technical improvement is a predictive computation system that combines sensor-measured past expenditure with plan-and-map-derived future expenditure to produce a more accurate total, enabling bidirectional activity adjustment that prior art could not achieve, with dynamic recalculation when real-world conditions deviate from the plan
Examiner has considered each and every argument and concludes that the improvements stated by the Applicant are an improvement to an abstract idea and are not technical in nature. Lack of technical improvement is the reason that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. A prediction computation system does not result in improvement to technology. It simply provides an improvement to the abstract idea to predict a more accurate total.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights