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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/06/25 has been entered.
Acknowledgments
The amendments to the claims are non-compliant for the following reasons: “The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text.” 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2). However, in the interest of expedited prosecution, the amendments will be assumed to be compliant and amended as follows:
Claim 5. (Currently Amended): The wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to automatically calculate, during an exercise session, a number of repetitions a number of sets performed for a taught exercise type by comparing accelerometer data received during the exercise session to a stored exercise type profile taught user, and to add the calculated repetitions and sets to a workout session profile record.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date for the following reasons:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 14/181,331 and Provisional Application No. 61/764,956 , fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. That is, the independent claims contain at least subject matter regarding a teaching mode that is not disclosed in the prior-filed applications.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application Nos. 14/181,331 and 61/764,956, filed 02/14/14 and 02/14/13, respectively, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 14/181,331, filed 02/14/24, and Provisional Application No. 61/764,956, filed 02/014/13 (see Specification, [0001]). If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in part in light of the amendments to the Specification, filed 10/06/25. The objection to the drawings for including reference character “128” not mentioned in the description has been maintained, as presented below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejection(s) presented below based on the amendments to the claims, filed 10/06/25.
Applicant first argues that the claims should be afforded the benefit of the earlier priority date of 02/14/13 (Remarks, filed 10/06/25, pp. 22-23). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 14/181,331 and Provisional Application No. 61/764,956 , fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Particularly, the independent claims contain at least subject matter regarding a teaching mode that is not disclosed in the prior-filed applications. Accordingly, the effective filing date remains 09/13/19.
Applicant next argues that Trzecieski does not disclose RFID capable of detecting reps and sets (Remarks, filed 10/06/25, p. 24). Examiner notes that the claims do not recite wherein the RFID tag is configured to detect repetitions and sets.
Thereby, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as presented in detail below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “128” (see Fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Substitute Specification, filed 10/06/25, [0076], recites in part “Referring to FIG. 13, an embodiment of a method 500 for implementing the invention with a wearable device 414, an exercise device 412, and/or a mobile device 112 is shown”. However, Fig. 13 only depicts implementation of method 500 with a wearable device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. “a plurality of exercise routine pattern taught by the user” recited in claim 1, ln. 4-5 should likely read “a plurality of exercise movement patterns taught by the user” (see Specification, [0091], “The wearable device can also have pre-existing movement patterns that are associated and linked to a specific exercise movement and type.”);
b. “RFID” recited in claim 1, ln. 12 should likely read “radio frequency identification (RFID)” to avoid claim ambiguity;
c. “the communication circuitry” recited in claim 1, ln. 10 should likely read “the communication circuit
d. “store the exercise type profile in the at least one memory device as one of the plurality of exercise patterns taught by the user” recited in claim 1, ln. 20- 21 should likely read “store the at least one exercise type profile in the at least one WED memory device as one of the plurality of exercise routine pattern[[s]] [or “movement patterns” dependent on the claim objection to claim 1, ln. 4-5 presented in “a” above] taught by the user” for consistency purposes;
e. “a accelerometer based sensor” recited in claim 3, ln. 1-2 should likely read “an accelerometer based sensor”;
f. “the at least one processing device” recited in claim 5, ln. 1-2 should likely read “the at least one WED processing device” for consistency purposes;
g. “by a number of repetitions” recited in claim 5, ln. 3 should likely read “[[by ]]a number of repetitions”;
h. “the weight value” recited in claim 8, ln. 2 should likely read “[[the]]a weight value”;
i. “the number of repetitions” recited in claim 9, ln. 2 should likely read “[[the]]a number of repetitions”;
j. “the number of sets” recited in claim 9, ln. 3 should likely read “[[the]]a number of sets”;
k. “the exercise type profile” recited in claim 10, ln. 8 should likely read “the at least one exercise type profile” for consistency purposes;
l. “exercise patterns” recited in claim 10, ln. 9 should likely read “exercise movement patterns”;
m. “RFID” recited in claim 12, ln. 2 should likely read “radio frequency identification (RFID)” to avoid claim ambiguity;
n. “NFC tag” recited in claim 12, ln. 2 should likely read “near field communication (NFC) tag” to avoid claim ambiguity;
o. “CSAFE-connected module” recited in claim 12, ln. 3-4 should likely read “communications specification for fitness equipment (CSAFE)-connected module” to avoid claim ambiguity;
p. “the wearable electronic display device” recited in claim 14, ln. 1 should likely read “the wearable electronic
q. “the exercise type profile” recited in claim 15, ln. 1 & 4 should likely read “the at least one exercise type profile”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites in part “wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to automatically calculate, during an exercise session, a number of repetitions and a number of sets performed for a taught exercise type by comparing accelerometer data received during the exercise session to a stored exercise type profile taught by the user”. The Specification fails to disclose this limitation. That is, the Specification does not discuss automatically calculating a number of repetitions and a number of sets performed for a taught exercise type by comparing accelerometer data received during an exercise session to a stored exercise type profile taught by the user. Rather, the Specification discloses wherein motion sensor data generated by the wearable device is used to calculate the sets and repetition data (see Specification, [0079-0080]). Accordingly, claim 5 lacks written description.
Claim 15 recites in part “wherein generating the exercise type profile comprises segmenting the captured motion sensor data into repetitions and storing at least one of a repetition count, a repetition timing parameter, or a similarity threshold parameter associated with the exercise type profile. The Specification does not disclose this limitation. Rather, the Specification discloses wherein a workout session profile record, as opposed to an exercise type profile, may be created using repetition data (see Specification, [0079-0080]). Moreover, the Specification does not disclose a similarity threshold parameter associated with the exercise type profile.
No prior art is currently provided for claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the user” in ln. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites “the user” in ln. 13. It is indefinite as to whether the user of the WED is intended to be the same user who taught the plurality of exercise routine pattern, previously recited in ln. 4-5. If intended to be different users, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the user” in ln. 13 of the claim.
Claim 1 further recites in part “generate, from the captured motion sensor data, at least one exercise type profile that characterizes a user-determined exercise movement pattern”. First, it is unclear as to what data is being referred to – that is, the generated motion sensor data based on the sensed movement of the WED, or rather, the captured accelerometer data which is captured while the user performs an exercise. Second, it is indefinite as to whether, and if so, how, an exercise movement pattern differs from an exercise routine pattern, and the Specification does not offer further guidance. A recommendation for amendment to claim 1, ln. 4-5 to change “a plurality of exercise routine pattern” to a plurality of exercise movement patterns” has been suggested under claim objections, “a”, above to avoid ambiguity and to provide consistency with claim terminology used in the Specification.
Claim 1 further recites in part “analyze at least one of the motion sensor data and the exercise deice data to determine if a pre-loaded exercise routine is being followed”. It is indefinite as to whether, and if so, how, a “pre-loaded exercise routine” differs from the stored “a plurality of exercise routine pattern” previously claimed.
Claim 5 recites “The wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to automatically calculate, during an exercise session, by a number of repetitions and a number of sets performed for a taught exercise type by comparing accelerometer data received during the exercise session to a stored exercise type profile taught by the user, and to add the calculated repetitions and sets to a workout session profile record.” It is indefinite as to whether, and if so, how, a “workout session profile record” differs from the workout session file previously recited in claim 1.
No prior art is currently provided for claim 5 in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim 10 recites in part “recognizing performance of a taught exercise type by comparing the motion sensor data received during the exercise session with any of the stored exercise type profiles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the motion sensor data received during the exercise session” in ln. 17-18 of the claim. Rather, it is the “accelerometer data” that is received during the exercise session (see claim 10, ln. 10-11).
Claim 10 further recites in part “the motion sensor data received during the exercise session” in ln. 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Rather, it is the “accelerometer data” that is received during the exercise session (see claim 10, ln. 10-11).
Claim 10 further recites in part “analyzing at least one of the motion sensor data and the exercise device data to determine whether a taught exercise type corresponding to any of the stored exercise type profiles is being followed”. This limitation is indefinite, as the “motion sensor data” is the data that is used to generate at least one stored exercise type profile (see claim 10, ln. 6-9).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trzecieski (U.S. Pub. 2010/0009810 A1) in view of Ashmore (U.S. Pub. 2015/0017619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Trzecieski discloses a Wearable Electronic Device (WED) (Fig. 1a, #100), comprising:
an at least one processing device (Fig. 1b, #101, microcontroller; [0019]);
an at least one WED memory device associated with the at least one processing device (Fig. 1b, #103, memory circuit);
an at least one motion sensor, wherein the at least one motion sensor is in signal communication with the at least one WED processing device, and wherein the at least one motion sensor is configured to sense the movement of the WED associated with an exercise regimen and generate motion sensor data (Fig. 1b, #102, accelerometer; [0019]; [0040], wherein the wearable device includes an accelerometer for tracking user exercise data); and
a communication circuit, wherein the communication circuit is in signal communication with the at least one WED processing device and configured to wirelessly communicate with at least one of an exercise device and a RFID tag associated with an exercise device being used by the user of the WED (Fig. 2b, #290, wirelessly interface; [0019]; [0024-0026]; [0042-0043], where the wearable device may communicate with an exercise device (fitness equipment), such as free weights, via radio frequency identification (RFID)),
wherein the at least one WED processing device is configured to:
receive the motion sensor data from the at least one motion sensor ([0019]; [0040], where the accelerometer of the wearable device records user exercise data),
receive exercise device data from at least one of the exercise device and the RFID tag associated with the exercise device ([0026]; [0029-0030]; [0042-0043], where the wearable device receives exercise device data (e.g., a duration of use of the exercise device) from the exercise device),
generate an exercise workout session file by combining the motion sensor data and the exercise device data ([0031], where, upon the user having completed utilizing at least some of first sequence of articles of fitness equipment, a second fitness session (exercise workout session file) is generated and is indicative of a second sequence of articles of fitness equipment for the user to utilize, wherein the second sequence of articles of fitness equipment is derived from the first sequence of articles of fitness equipment; [0039], where the second fitness session is generated based upon the data stored form the first fitness session),
analyze at least one of the motion sensor data and the exercise device data to determine if a pre-loaded exercise routine is being followed ([0028]; [0038], wherein each fitness session is formed of a plurality of exercises, and where each exercise comprises a type of exercise, or action, an article of fitness equipment to use and duration or number of repetitions and a weight or resistance, and wherein the wearable device can automatically determine completion of the exercise(s) (aka whether the exercise is followed/completed) and whether each of the exercise criteria were met or exceeded), and
generate a resultant output for the WED responsive to at least one of the analyzed motion sensor data and the analyzed exercise device data ([0038], where, for example, the number of repetitions performed is generated based on the analyzed data by the wearable device before being uploaded to a server).
Trzecieski may not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one memory device stores a plurality of exercise routine pattern taught by the user. Rather, Trzecieski discloses wherein the server comprises a database for storing a plurality of user workout routines comprising a plurality of fitness sessions, wherein each fitness session comprises a plurality of exercises ([0007]; [0019-0020], wherein the wearable device accesses the workout routines through wireless communication with the server). However, Ashmore, directed to recording and tracking human motion ([0003]; [0029]; [0039], e.g., in the context of an exercise), teaches this limitation (Fig. 1B; [0021]; [0024]; [0027]; [0029]; [0033]; [0037], wherein an application for storing recorded user motions (a plurality of exercise routine pattern taught by a user) may be embedded in a wearable device comprising memory). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the workout routines (a plurality of exercise routines taught by the user) of Trzecieski on the wearable device itself that contains memory and is capable of storing said data, as taught by Ashmore, for localized and/or faster workout routine generation.
Trzecieski may not further explicitly disclose the at least one WED processing device configured to: enter a teaching mode responsive to a first user input, during which the WED captures accelerometer data while the user performs an exercise, terminate the teaching mode responsive to a second user input, generate, from the captured motion sensor data, at least one exercise type profile that characterizes a user-determined exercise movement pattern, and store the exercise type profile in the at least one memory device as one of the plurality of exercise patterns taught by the user. However, Ashmore further teaches recording human body motion using a wearable device which includes an accelerometer and storing the recorded motions in an application embedded in the wearable device (Figs. 4 & 5A-5F; [0021]; [0024]; [0027]; [0033]; [0037]; [0087], wherein a user (e.g., physical therapist) may open/activate the application, which may be embedded on the wearable device, to record a set of one or more motions, and while recording, the sensors of the wearable device (e.g., accelerometer) capture motion data, and wherein the user may further indicate when the exercise has ended, thereby stopping the recording). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the wearable device of Trzecieski that contains memory capable of storing data, a touch screen display, and button(s) (Fig. 1a; [0019]) to record and store the workout routines (a plurality of exercise routines taught by the user), as taught by Ashmore, for localized and/or faster workout routine generation.
Regarding claim 2, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the wearable electronic device is at least one of a smartwatch device, an accelerometer device, a head mounted frame device, a mobile device, a smartphone and an eyeglass device (Fig. 1a, #100; [0040]; [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the motion sensor is a accelerometer based sensor ([0019]; [0040], where the wearable device includes an accelerometer for tracking user exercise data).
Regarding claim 4, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the exercise device is at least one of a free weight device, dumbbell device, weight bench, and strength exercise machine ([0025], where the exercise device (fitness equipment) may include free weights).
Regarding claim 7, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the generated resultant output associated with the exercise device data is based on determining if the correct exercise device is being used ([0028-0029]; [0038], where each exercise comprises a correct fitness equipment to use; [0042], where the resistance of the fitness equipment is adjusted to ensure a proper resistance (correct exercise device) is being used before continuing).
Regarding claim 8, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the exercise device data is the weight value associated with the exercise device ([0024]; [0026]; [0028-0030]; [0042-0043], where each exercise comprises an article of fitness equipment to use (i.e., free weights) and a weight or resistance, and wherein the wearable device and article of fitness equipment communicate to adjust the settings (e.g., weight or resistance) of the article of fitness equipment without requiring the user to remember their personal, appropriate settings).
Regarding claim 9, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the motion sensor data is associated with at least one of the number of repetitions performed by the user of the WED and the number of sets performed by the user of the WED ([0038], where the number of repetitions performed by the user is generated based on the analyzed motion data by the wearable device before being uploaded to the server).
Regarding claim 10, Trzecieski discloses a method performed by a wearable electronic device (WED) (Fig. 1a, #100; [0006]), comprising:
receiving, during an exercise session, accelerometer data from a motion sensor of the WED ([0019]; [0040], where the accelerometer of the wearable device records user exercise data);
receiving, via a wireless communication circuitry of the WED, exercise device data from at least one of an exercise device and a wireless identifier associated with the exercise device ([0026]; [0029-0030]; [0042-0043], where the wearable device receives exercise device data (e.g., a duration of use of the exercise device) from an exercise device (fitness equipment));
identifying, upon establishing a wireless communication link with the at least one exercise device and wireless identifier associated with the exercise device, an exercise device identifier comprising an exercise device type ([0042], detecting (identifying) the fitness equipment using RFID and determining the resistance accordingly);
recognizing performance of a taught exercise type by comparing the motion sensor data received during the exercise session with any of the stored exercise type profiles, and, when available, correlating the comparison with the identified exercise device identifier ([0028]; [0038], wherein each exercise comprises a type of exercise, number of repetitions, equipment to use, and a weight/resistance (stored exercise type profile), and wherein captured motion data is used to recognize performance of a taught exercise type (e.g., completion of at least some of the exercises from the plurality of exercises and/or if each exercise criteria thereof was met or exceeded));
generating an exercise workout session file by combining the motion sensor data received during the exercise session and the exercise device data ([0031], where, upon the user having completed utilizing at least some of first sequence of articles of fitness equipment, a second fitness session (exercise workout session file) is generated and is indicative of a second sequence of articles of fitness equipment for the user to utilize, wherein the second sequence of articles of fitness equipment is derived from the first sequence of articles of fitness equipment; [0039], where the second fitness session is generated based upon the data stored form the first fitness session);
analyzing at least one of the motion sensor data and the exercise device data to determine whether a taught exercise type corresponding to any of the stored exercise type profiles is being followed ([0028]; [0038], wherein each fitness session is formed of a plurality of exercises, and where each exercise comprises a type of exercise, or action, an article of fitness equipment to use and duration or number of repetitions and a weight or resistance, and wherein the wearable device can automatically determine completion of the exercise(s) (aka whether the exercise is followed/completed) and whether each of the exercise criteria were met or exceeded); and
generating a resultant output responsive to at least one of the analyzed motion sensor data and the analyzed exercise device data ([0038], where, for example, the number of repetitions performed is generated based on the analyzed data by the wearable device before being uploaded to a server).
Trzecieski may not explicitly disclose the method performed by the WED comprising: receiving a first user input to enter a teaching mode, capturing, during the teaching mode, motion sensor data while a user performs an exercise, receiving a second user input to terminate the teaching mode, generating, from the captured motion sensor data, at least one exercise type profile that characterizes a user-determined exercise movement pattern, and storing the exercise type profile in a memory location of the WED as one of a plurality of exercise patterns taught by the user. However, Ashmore, directed to recording and tracking human motion ([0003]; [0029]; [0039], e.g., in the context of an exercise), teaches recording human body motion using a wearable device which includes an accelerometer and storing the recorded motions in an application embedded in the wearable device (Figs. 4 & 5A-5F; [0021]; [0024]; [0027]; [0033]; [0037]; [0087], wherein a user (e.g., physical therapist) may open/activate the application, which may be embedded on the wearable device, to record a set of one or more motions, and while recording, the sensors of the wearable device (e.g., accelerometer) capture motion data, and wherein the user may further indicate when the exercise has ended, thereby stopping the recording). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the wearable device of Trzecieski that contains memory capable of storing data, a touch screen display, and button(s) (Fig. 1a; [0019]) to record and store the workout routines (a plurality of exercise routines taught by the user), as taught by Ashmore, for localized and/or faster workout routine generation.
Regarding claim 11, Trzecieski may not further explicitly disclose, however, Ashmore further teaches wherein the first user input and the second user input are each provided by at least one of a physical button press on the WED, a touch screen selection on the WED, and a voice command detected by the WED (Figs. 4 & 5A-5F; [0021]; [0024]; [0027]; [0033]; [0037]; [0087], wherein, via a touch screen selection, for example, the user (e.g., physical therapist) may open/activate the application, which may be embedded on the wearable device, to record a set of one or more motions and further indicate when the exercise has ended, thereby stopping the recording). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the wearable device of Trzecieski that contains memory capable of storing data, a touch screen display, and button(s) (Fig. 1a; [0019]) to record and store the workout routines (a plurality of exercise routines taught by the user) via the wearable device, as taught by Ashmore, for localized and/or faster workout routine generation.
Regarding claim 12, Trzecieski further discloses wherein receiving the exercise device data comprises communicating with at least one of a passive or active RFID tag, an NFC tag or wireless beacon, a wireless circuit embedded within the exercise device, and a CSAFE-connected module of the exercise device ([0026]; [0029-0030]; [0042-0043], wherein the wearable device and exercise device (fitness equipment) communicate using RFID).
Regarding claim 13, Trzecieski further discloses wherein identifying the exercise device identifier further comprises obtaining at least one of: a free-weight device weight value, a resistance setting of a strength exercise machine, or a device location identifier ([0024]; [0026]; [0028-0030]; [0042-0043], where each exercise comprises an article of fitness equipment to use (i.e., free weights) and a weight or resistance, and wherein the wearable device and article of fitness equipment communicate to identify the fitness equipment and adjust the settings (e.g., weight or resistance) of the article of fitness equipment without requiring the user to remember their personal, appropriate settings).
Regarding claim 14, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the wearable electronic display device is at least one of a smartwatch device, an accelerometer device, a head mounted frame device, a mobile device, a smartphone, and an eyeglass device (Fig. 1a, #100; [0040]; [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the motion sensor is an accelerometer based sensor ([0019]; [0040], where the wearable device includes an accelerometer for tracking user exercise data).
Regarding claim 18, Trzecieski further discloses wherein the generated resultant output associated with the exercise device data is based on determining if the correct exercise device is being used by the user of the WED ([0028-0029]; [0038], where each exercise comprises a correct fitness equipment to use; [0042], where the resistance of the fitness equipment is adjusted to ensure a proper resistance (correct exercise device) is being used before continuing).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trzecieski in view of Ashmore, as applied to claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0133551 A1) (hereinafter “Chang”) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0184871 A1) (hereinafter “Jang”).
Regarding claim 6, Trzecieski does not explicitly further disclose wherein the generated resultant output associated with the motion sensor data is based on determining if a detected amount of shaking exceeds a shaking threshold value that is stored in the at least one memory device of the WED. However, Chang teaches that a user’s muscles may start shaking while performing an exercise if the user is becoming fatigued ([0057]; [0116]). Additionally, Chang teaches detecting an amount of shaking using motion sensors ([0043]; [0059]; [0086]) such that the user may be instructed to stop exercising prematurely before injury occurs based on the detected shakiness ([0087]). While Chang does not explicitly teach detecting whether shaking/fatigue exceeds a shaking/fatigue threshold value that is stored in the at least one memory device of the WED, Jang teaches this limitation ([0075-0077], where measured muscle fatigue may be compared with a threshold value corresponding to the determined type of exercise to determine the risk of the exercise, and wherein the threshold value is stored in a storage device of an exercise monitoring apparatus). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the accelerometer disclosed in Trzecieski to detect fatigue in the form of shakiness, as taught by Chang, and to determine if the user’s fatigue/shakiness exceeds a stored threshold, as taught by Jang, in order to accurately analyze the user’s motion data (i.e., an amount of repetitions performed before exceeding a fatigue/shaking threshold value) and/or prevent injury.
Regarding claim 17, Trzecieski does not explicitly further disclose wherein the generated resultant output associated with the motion sensor data is based on determining if a detected amount of shaking exceeds a shaking threshold value that is stored in the memory location of the WED. However, Chang teaches that a user’s muscles may start shaking while performing an exercise if the user is becoming fatigued ([0057]; [0116]). Additionally, Chang teaches detecting an amount of shaking using motion sensors ([0043]; [0059]; [0086]) such that the user may be instructed to stop exercising prematurely before injury occurs based on the detected shakiness ([0087]). While Chang does not explicitly teach detecting whether shaking/fatigue exceeds a shaking/fatigue threshold value that is stored in the memory location of the WED, Jang teaches this limitation ([0075-0077], where measured muscle fatigue may be compared with a threshold value corresponding to the determined type of exercise to determine the risk of the exercise, and wherein the threshold value is stored in a storage device of an exercise monitoring apparatus). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the accelerometer disclosed in Trzecieski to detect fatigue in the form of shakiness, as taught by Chang, and to determine if the user’s fatigue/shakiness exceeds a stored threshold, as taught by Jang, in order to accurately analyze the user’s motion data (i.e., an amount of repetitions performed before exceeding a fatigue/shaking threshold value) and/or prevent injury.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715