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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/29/2026 with respect to the rejection of Independent Claim 52 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of Non-Patent Literature: Goldfarb, A.H., Jamurtas, A.Z. β-Endorphin Response to Exercise. Sports Med 24, 8–16 (1997) (“Goldfarb”) and M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/ web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance.com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the combination of Matsushita, Goldfarb and Fitzgerald “does not disclose or suggest a customized muscle stimulation session being a recovery session, nor does the cited art disclose or suggest determining a duration of time available for a recovery session and creating the customized muscle stimulation session based on the duration of time available.” Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2014/0249601 A1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent Claims 53-65, 67-70 and 72-77 are based on Applicant’s arguments regarding Independent Claim 52. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive for the same reasons explained above. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2014/0249601 A1.
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.
Claim 52, and Claims 53-65, 67-70, 72-77 and 95 by dependency, 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Regarding Independent Claim 52, Claim 52 recites “determining a duration of time available for the recovery session for the user based on one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information.” The claim elements “the third-party information” and “the user-based information” are each a broad genus comprising a number of discrete species. The Present Specification describes the contents of the genus “user-based information” at Para. [0012]. The Present Specification describes the contents of the genus “third-party information” at Para. [0012]. The Present Specification describes determination of Claim 52 at Paras. [0093] through [0095]. The Present Specification does not support the “determining a duration of time available for the recovery session for the user” recited by Claim 52 being done “based on one or more of” the genus “third-party information” and the genus “user-based information.” Instead, the Present Specification supports “determining a duration of time available for the recovery session for the user” being done based on a single species within the genus “user-based information:” the species of “querying a user” “to specify how much time they have available for a recovery session” (see Present Specification at Para. [0095]). That is to say, of the multiple individual species which collectively comprise the genus “third-party information” and the genus “user-based information,” only a single such species (i.e., “querying a user” “to specify how much time they have available for a recovery session”) is described as useable to “determin[e] a duration of time available for the recovery session for the user.” The Present Specification does not support the use of the entire genus for such “determining.” Claim 52 thus contains 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 had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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.
Claim 52, and Claims 53-65, 67-70, 72-77 and 95 by dependency, 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.
Regarding Independent Claim 52, Claim 52 recites “wherein simultaneously running the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session comprises causing at least one of the EMS devices to transmit electrical impulses in accordance with the predetermined muscle stimulation session and at least one of the EMS devices to transmit electrical impulses in accordance with the customized muscle stimulation session for the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user.” It is grammatically unclear which claim element the term “for the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user” is intended to modify. For example, it is unclear whether the term “for the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user” modifies only the electrical impulses transmitted in accordance with the customized muscle stimulation session, both the customized muscle stimulation session and the predetermined muscle session, or something else. If the former, it is unclear in what sense the running is “simultaneous.” If the latter, it is not clear whether/where the Present Specification provides support for “the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user” influencing the duration of the “predetermined muscle stimulation session.”
For purposes of this Office Action, the term “for the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user” is being interpreted to limit only the “customized muscle stimulation session.” The impact of this interpretation on the word “simultaneous” is being ignored.
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.
Claim 52-57, 59-60, 62, 69 and 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/201812081018 05/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as evidenced by previously cited Non-Patent Literature: Goldfarb, A.H., Jamurtas, A.Z. β-Endorphin Response to Exercise. Sports Med 24, 8–16 (1997) (“Goldfarb”).
Regarding Independent Claim 52, Matsushita teaches:
A method for customizing muscle stimulation sessions, the method comprising: (Abstract, “In an exercise instrument controller, a type determination unit specifies… the type of exercise for which an exercise instrument is used.”);
receiving third-party information regarding a user activity of a user, the third-party information including data received from a third-party data source; (Para. [0029], “An exercise instrument controller according to the present embodiment includes: a communication processing unit that receives information via a predetermined communication means from an exercise instrument used for physical exercise…”)
Consistent with its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “third-party information” is being interpreted to mean information derived from a source other than the device on which the information is processed.
This interpretation might merit reconsideration were the claim to more succinctly recite such “third-party” information/data sources as described in Paras. [0091] and [0092] of the Present Specification.
Matsushita’s “information via a predetermined communication means from an exercise instrument” is such “third-party information” as claimed.
Matsushita’s “exercise instrument used for physical exercise” is such a “third-party data source” as claimed (i.e., the exercise instrument is a third party relative to the exercise instrument controller).
querying, via a graphical user interface, the user for additional, user-based information; Para. [0069], “At the time of the initial starting, the display control unit 65 displays a screen allowing for the selection of any one of (1) account registration, (2) login (for a user who already has an account), and (3) start training without registration….” (quotation shortened for brevity));
Consistent with its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “user-based information” is being interpreted as information that is based on the user, whether via user input, measurement, sensing or otherwise.
Para. [0069] requires “user-based information” such as “email address, password, nickname, birth date, height, weight, sex” to be input via “display control unit 65.”
receiving, via the graphical user interface, the user-based information; (Para. [0064], “The information management server 14 includes a control unit 80 and a communication unit 81;” Para. [0065], “The control unit 80 includes a communication processing unit 85 and an information management unit 86. The communication processing unit 85 transmits and/or receives information to/from the plurality of exercise instrument controllers 12 via the communication unit 81. The information management unit 86 accumulates and manages information received from the plurality of exercise instrument controllers 12.”);
evaluating the third-party information and the user-based information to select one or more of a predetermined muscle stimulation session and a customized muscle stimulation session, (Para. [0112], “In a variation, an exercise program may be designed such that not only exercise time but also a body part to be used, an exercise frequency or schedule, set intensity, etc., are optimized according to an exercise purpose, a user attribute, an exercise record, etc. In this case, a notification may be issued that requests exercise to be performed according to a proper schedule. Also, automatic adjustment may be performed, for example, where the intensity is gradually increased based on a record or lowered according to the degree of fatigue.”);
Matsushita selects one or more of a predetermined muscle stimulation session (i.e., an un-adjusted exercise program) and a customized muscle stimulation session (i.e., a muscle session that is adjusted automatically based on either record or fatigue).
It is noted that Matsushita’s adjustments of Para. [0112] align with such a “predetermined muscle stimulation session” as described at Para. [0097] of the Present Specification, which states “In some instances, the aforementioned selection is not mutually exclusive. For example, a predetermined muscle stimulation session may be selected and then altered to create a customized muscle stimulation session.”
Matsushita’s selection is made by evaluating user-based information (“exercise purpose” and “a user attribute” are “user-based information”) and third-party information (“exercise record” is “third-party information”). More particularly, Matsushita evaluates Matsushita’s user-based information and third-party information to select one or more of an adjusted workout and an un-adjusted workout.
when the predetermined muscle stimulation session is selected, providing, via the graphical user interface, a recommendation to the user of one or more predetermined muscle stimulation sessions targeting one or more muscle groups to provide blood circulation and endorphin generation stimulation modalities for flushing lactic acid from blood of the user, (Para. [0110], “…a body part that is predicted to lack exercise may be automatically set based on an exercise program and a record;” Para. [0088], “…a screen that shows body parts to be exercised on a human body model in a determined manner may be displayed instead of a part setting screen;” Para. [0095], “FIGS. 13A-13B schematically show an exemplary screen displayed during exercise. The display control unit 65 displays an exercising screen 190 such as the one shown in FIG. 13A during the training is performed using an exercise instrument. In the exercising screen 190, the movement of a body part that is exercised by electrostimulation is displayed by a video image also called a visualizer that visually expresses the movement dynamically using an image of the human body model 145;” Para. [0112], as quoted above);
Matsushita discloses providing a recommended body part for muscle stimulation at Para. [0110].
Matsushita discloses selection of such a “predetermined muscle stimulation session” as claimed at Para. [0112], as explained above.
The recitation “to provide blood circulation and endorphin generation stimulation modalities for flushing lactic acid from blood of the user” is being interpreted as an effect of the “muscle stimulation sessions.” Exercise inherently has the effects of “providing blood circulation and endorphin generation” and “flushing lactic acid from blood.” See Goldfarb at Pg. 9, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Right Column First Paragraph (“Aerobic exercise of sufficient intensity and duration has previously demonstrated increases in circulating β-endorphin.lI-4,16] The more recent reports seem to support these papers. In one study, 16 males were examined cycling at 85 and 100% of their individual anaerobic threshold (lAT), to exhaustion for the 100% IAT and for the same length of time at 85% lAT. 16] β-endorphin measured in 8 of the participants increased only in the 100% IAT sample from 13.42 to 42.09 pmollL.”). Matsushita’s stimulation exercises the stimulated body parts (see Matsushita at Para. [0095], “…a body part that is exercised by electrostimulation…”), and thus inherently achieves the recited effect.
when the customized muscle stimulation session is selected, creating the customized muscle stimulation session … (Para. [0112]);
As explained above, Matsushita’s muscle session that is adjusted automatically based on either record or fatigue as described at Matsushita’s Para. [0112] is such a “customized muscle stimulation session” as claimed, and is described at Para. [0112] as being created upon its selection.
providing, via the graphical user interface, the customized muscle stimulation session to the user, the customized muscle stimulation session targeting one or more muscle groups to provide blood circulation and endorphin generation stimulation modalities for flushing lactic acid from blood of the user; (Para. [0110], “…a body part that is predicted to lack exercise may be automatically set based on an exercise program and a record;” Para. [0088], “…a screen that shows body parts to be exercised on a human body model in a determined manner may be displayed instead of a part setting screen;” Para. [0095], “FIGS. 13A-13B schematically show an exemplary screen displayed during exercise. The display control unit 65 displays an exercising screen 190 such as the one shown in FIG. 13A during the training is performed using an exercise instrument. In the exercising screen 190, the movement of a body part that is exercised by electrostimulation is displayed by a video image also called a visualizer that visually expresses the movement dynamically using an image of the human body model 145;” Para. [0112], as quoted above);
Matsushita discloses providing a recommended body part for muscle stimulation at Para. [0110].
Matsushita’s muscle session that is adjusted automatically based on either record or fatigue is such a “customized muscle stimulation session” as claimed at Para. [0112], as explained above.
The recitation “to provide blood circulation and endorphin generation stimulation modalities for flushing lactic acid from blood of the user” is being interpreted as an effect of the “muscle stimulation sessions.” For the same reasons explained above with respect to the similar recitation regarding the recited “predetermined muscle stimulation session,” Matsushita inherently has this effect, as evidenced by Goldfarb at Pg. 9, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Right Column First Paragraph.
and simultaneously running the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session on at least two electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) devices engaged with the user, (Para. [0038], “The plurality of muscle electrostimulation devices 10 a to 10 f each communicate with the exercise instrument controller 12 by short-distance wireless communication such as Bluetooth (registered trademark) so as to transmit and/or receive information. An exercise instrument control program that is executed by the exercise instrument controller 12 communicates with the plurality of muscle electrostimulation devices 10 a to 10 f and controls the setting and operation of each of the plurality of muscle electrostimulation devices 10 a to 10 f;” Para. [0106], “When the start button 187 is pushed in the exercise instrument controller 12 (S128), the exercise instrument controller 12 transmits an instruction to start voltage application to the muscle electrostimulation device 10 (S130), the muscle electrostimulation device 10 starts the voltage application (S132)…;” Para. [0006]; Claim 1; Claim 2; Claim 17; Para. [0029]; Para. [0032]; Para. [0038]; Para. [0055]; Para. [0060]; Para. [0112]);
Para. [0028] indicates that “the plurality of muscle electrostimulation devices 10 a to 10 f” can be used simultaneously.
It is noted that support for the limitation “simultaneously running the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session” is being interpreted to stem from Para. [0097] of the Present Specification, which states “In some instances, the aforementioned selection is not mutually exclusive. For example, a predetermined muscle stimulation session may be selected and then altered to create a customized muscle stimulation session. In other implementations, a predetermined muscle stimulation session may be selected and used without any alterations. Similarly, in certain implementations, a customized muscle stimulation session may be created from scratch” (emphasis added).
Matsushita’s simultaneous initiation of Matsushita’s programs via the instruction described at Para. [0112] in conjunction with such alteration as described at Para. [0112] constitutes such “simultaneously running the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session” as claimed to the extent such simultaneous running is supported by the Specification, in that it aligns with the example set forth in the Present Specification as noted above.
wherein simultaneously running the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session comprises causing at least one of the EMS devices to transmit electrical impulses in accordance with the predetermined muscle stimulation session and at least one of the EMS devices to transmit electrical impulses in accordance with the customized muscle stimulation session (Claim 1, “…an instrument control unit that controls, by transmitting information indicating the operation detail via the predetermined communication means for each exercise instrument based on the association between the body part and the exercise instrument that has been specified and the operation detail that has been set, exercise by the exercise instrument … wherein, based on a plurality of types of exercise specified for a plurality of exercise instruments, the association determination unit can specify association of the plurality of body parts respectively with different exercise instruments, and wherein the setting processing unit can set different operation details respectively for the plurality of body parts;” Para. [0112] "…automatic adjustment may be performed, for example, where the intensity is gradually increased based on a record or lowered according to the degree of fatigue;” see also Para. [0006]; Claim 2; Claim 17; Para. [0029]; Para. [0032]; Para. [0038]; Para. [0055]; Para. [0060]).
The above limitation requires that at least one of the recited EMS devices transmit electrical impulses in accordance with the predetermined muscle stimulation session and at least one of the EMS devices to transmit electrical impulses in accordance with the customized muscle stimulation session. The extent to which this is supported by the Present Specification is the Para. [0097] statement that “In some instances, the aforementioned selection is not mutually exclusive.” Para. [0097] proceeds to list examples of such non-mutually exclusive manners of selection, stating “For example, a predetermined muscle stimulation session may be selected and then altered to create a customized muscle stimulation session.”
As evidenced by Claim 1 and the other cited portions, Matsushita controls different ones of Matsushita’s “devices 10 a to 10 f” using “different operation details respectively” for each, including such adjustments as described at Para. [0112].
Matsushita differs from the Invention of Claim 1 in two main ways. First, Matsushita does not specific that Matsushita’s “customized muscle stimulation session” is a recovery session. Second, Matsushita does not consider time in determining Matsushita’s stimulation sessions.
Matsushita thus does not disclose:
wherein the customized muscle stimulation session is a recovery session;
estimating a time the user spent above a predetermined threshold level based on one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information;
determining a duration of time available for the recovery session for the user based on one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information;
wherein the recommendation is based on the estimated time the user spent above the predetermined threshold level;
based on the estimated time the user spent above the predetermined threshold level and the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user;
for the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user.
Fitzgerald describes “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running” (Title). Fitzgerald is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (both are concerned with athletic performance enhancement: see Present Specification at Para. [0003]), and is thus analogous art. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Fitzgerald teaches:
estimating a time the user spent above a predetermined threshold level based on one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information; (Fitzgerald at Pg. 3, Second and Third Paragraphs, “The next step is to determine your Lactate Threshold Heart Rate (LTHR) from your TP. … you can find your LTHR independently through a time trial. Begin with a warm-up that consists of 15 minutes of easy jogging with a few 15-second surges at the pace you intend to run for the time trial. Next, increase your effort to the highest level you feel you can sustain for 30 minutes and hit the lap button on your heart rate monitor watch. 10 minutes into the time trial, press the lap button again. At the end of the 30-minute time-trial, hit the lap button one last time. Your LTHR is your average heart rate in beats per minute (BPM) for the final 20 minutes of the 30-minute test. The reason we use the last 20 minutes of the 30-minute test is that it often takes up to 10 minutes at lactate threshold effort for heart rate to “catch up” to your output.”).
Fitzgerald estimates the amount of time spent above lactate threshold to determine a heart rate that training should elicit.
wherein the recommendation is based on the estimated time the user spent above the predetermined threshold level; (Fitzgerald at Pg. 1, Second Paragraph, “Your personal intensity zones can be automatically calculated based on the protocols described below at the 80/20 Zone Calculator.”);
based on the estimated time the user spent above the predetermined threshold level (Fitzgerald at Pg. 1, Second Paragraph, “Your personal intensity zones can be automatically calculated based on the protocols described below at the 80/20 Zone Calculator.”);
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsushita with the teachings of Fitzgerald (i.e., to additionally gather as either “third-party information” or “user-based information” such a “Lactate Threshold Heart Rate” as taught by Fitzgerald, and to subsequently base one or both of the recommendation that of predetermined stimulation and the creation of a customized stimulation session on that “Lactate Threshold Heart Rate”) in order to ensure appropriate intensity (Fitzgerald at Pg. 1, Second Paragraph).
Alternatively or in addition, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsushita with the teachings of Fitzgerald (i.e., to additionally gather as either “third-party information” or “user-based information” such a “Lactate Threshold Heart Rate” as taught by Fitzgerald, and to subsequently base one or both of the recommendation that of predetermined stimulation and the creation of a customized stimulation session on that “Lactate Threshold Heart Rate”) because such a modification entails use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
A method of enhancing a particular class of methods (i.e., stimulation-enhanced methods for improving athletic performance) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations (i.e., traditional exercise-based methods for improving athletic performance). The prior art contained a “base” method (i.e., that of Matsushita) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.” The prior art contained a “comparable” method that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention (i.e., Fitzgerald’s improvement). One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Bachinski describes “Methods and devices for providing noninvasive electrotherapy and electrical stimulation…” (Abstract), particularly in the context of “during or after exercise for one or both of rehabilitative and prophylactic treatment” (Para. [0006]). Bachinski is analogous art.
Bachinski teaches:
wherein the customized muscle stimulation session is a recovery session; (Para. [0153], “…a program may be provided to improve a particular muscle condition, such as ‘endurance,’ ‘force,’ or ‘active recovery.’”);
determining a duration of time available for the recovery session for the user based on one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information; (Para. [0153], “A program may be described by any one or more of the following parameters: … treatment duration, ….”);
Bachinksi’s determination is “based on one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information” in that it is based on user input (see Bachinski at Para. [0029]; Claim 14; Para. [0116]) (see Present Specification at Paras. [0012] and [0095] in support of this interpretation).
based on … the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user; (Para. [0153], “A program may be described by any one or more of the following parameters: … treatment duration, ….”);
for the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user (Para. [0153], “A program may be described by any one or more of the following parameters: … treatment duration, ….”).
As explained above, the term “for the duration of time available for the recovery session for the user” is being interpreted to limit only the “customized muscle stimulation session.” The impact of this interpretation on the word “simultaneous” is being ignored.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita and Fitzgerald with the teachings of Bachinski (i.e., to receive as “user-based information” such an input regarding treatment duration as taught by Bachinski) in order to tailor stimulation to a particular condition (Bachinski at Para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita and Goldfarb with the teachings of Bachinski (i.e., to include as the “customized muscle stimulation session” of Matsushita such a “recovery session” as taught by Bachinski) in order to “improve a particular muscle condition” via treatment (Bachinski at Para. [0153]).
Regarding Claim 53, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein querying the user includes prompting the user to select a workout type from a list of activities, and wherein the user-based information includes the workout type (Para. [0105], “The exercise instrument controller 12 specifies and then displays, in a list, an exercise instrument or an exercise type (S116) and determines the exercise instrument and the exercise type based on the pushing of the OK button 184 by the user (S118).”).
Regarding Claim 54, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein querying the user includes prompting the user to select one or more preferences related to muscle stimulation sessions, and wherein the user-based information includes the one or more preferences related to muscle stimulation sessions (Para. [0030], “The ‘operation details’ may be, in the case of, for example, a muscle electrostimulation device, a setting related to the intensity of electrostimulation by the muscle electrostimulation device or may be other parameters for determining the operation details or control details of an exercise instrument such as exercise time, the number of exercise, a frequency, and the type of a waveform pattern.”).
Regarding Claim 55, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 54 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more preferences related to muscle stimulation sessions include at least one of a duration, an intensity, a muscle group, and an attribute related to one or more electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) devices (Para. [0030], “The ‘operation details’ may be, in the case of, for example, a muscle electrostimulation device, a setting related to the intensity of electrostimulation by the muscle electrostimulation device or may be other parameters for determining the operation details or control details of an exercise instrument such as exercise time, the number of exercise, a frequency, and the type of a waveform pattern.”).
Regarding Claim 56, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein the user-based information includes one or more of a workout type, a workout intensity, and a workout length (Para. [0092], “Every time the user pushes the plus button 182 or the minus button 183, electricity is applied to the abdominal muscle at intensity at a level incremented or decremented by one, and the user adjusts the intensity of the electricity while feeling the intensity and sets the intensity to be desired intensity. When the user pushes an OK button 184, the screen switches to an intensity setting screen for other body parts or to an intensity confirmation screen if the intensity setting has already been finished for all body parts.”).
Matsushita’s intensity information is input by a user, and is thus such “user-based information” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 57, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein the user-based information includes an identification of one or more muscles for targeting in a muscle stimulation session (Para. [0088], “FIG. 9 schematically shows an exemplary screen for setting body parts on which exercise instruments are used. In the example in the figure, on which body part “Arm”, i.e., an exercise instrument to be worn on an arm is used is specified.”).
Regarding Claim 59, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein the user-based information includes a user history of one or more of muscle stimulation sessions and user activities (Para. [0063], “As the registration and attribute information of the user, for example, information such as email address, password, nickname, birth date, height, weight, sex, and the like is stored. As a result of exercise for each body part, the information management unit 66 determines the amount of exercise based on an operation detail that is set and performed for each body part using a coefficient for each body part and records a cumulative exercise amount.”).
Regarding Claim 60, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein the user-based information includes one or more of physiological data and demographic data (Para. [0069], “…the setting processing unit 63 allows the user to enter information such as email address, password, nickname, birth date, height, weight, sex, and the like, transmits the information that has been entered to the information management server 14 via the communication unit 71, and also stores the information in the information management unit 66. … Alternatively, setting may be done by allowing the user to enter, for example, a purpose for exercise such as muscle enhancement, weight loss, muscle endurance enhancement, or the like. For example, an association relationship between information such as a purpose of exercise, age, sex, height, weight, and the like and an appropriate program may be stored in advance in a table, and a program or advice according to the attribute or situation of the user may be presented.”).
Regarding Claim 62, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
wherein the third-party information is received from the third-party data source in response to a query from a stimulation session application (Para. [0099], “The recognition of an exercise instrument is started when the communication processing unit 60 is in a connection standby state. When the user holds down a plus button 20 a of a muscle electrostimulation device 10 and the communication processing unit 60 detects information received from the muscle electrostimulation device 10 (Y in S10), the type determination unit 61 specifies the type of exercise based on the type of the exercise instrument, and the display control unit 65 displays the type (S12).”).
Regarding Claim 69, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
further comprising scheduling one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session (Para. [0112], “In a variation, an exercise program may be designed such that not only exercise time but also a body part to be used, an exercise frequency or schedule, set intensity, etc., are optimized according to an exercise purpose, a user attribute, an exercise record, etc. In this case, a notification may be issued that requests exercise to be performed according to a proper schedule.”).
Regarding Claim 72, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Fitzgerald additionally discloses:
wherein the predetermined threshold level comprises a predetermined lactate threshold level (Fitzgerald at Pg. 3, Second and Third Paragraphs, “The next step is to determine your Lactate Threshold Heart Rate (LTHR) from your TP. … you can find your LTHR independently through a time trial. Begin with a warm-up that consists of 15 minutes of easy jogging with a few 15-second surges at the pace you intend to run for the time trial. Next, increase your effort to the highest level you feel you can sustain for 30 minutes and hit the lap button on your heart rate monitor watch. 10 minutes into the time trial, press the lap button again. At the end of the 30-minute time-trial, hit the lap button one last time. Your LTHR is your average heart rate in beats per minute (BPM) for the final 20 minutes of the 30-minute test. The reason we use the last 20 minutes of the 30-minute test is that it often takes up to 10 minutes at lactate threshold effort for heart rate to “catch up” to your output.”).
Regarding Claim 73, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Matsushita additionally discloses:
further comprising querying the user for feedback regarding one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session (Fig. 16, “Present Parts S32,” “Any Parts Selection? S34;” Para. [0100], “When it is necessary to specify a body part for one or a plurality of exercise types that have been specified (Y in S30), the exercise instrument controller 12 presents choices for body parts (S32), stands by until the user selects the body part (N in S34), and, when the user selects the body part (Y in S34), determines the association between the exercise instrument and the body part (S36). When there is other exercise instruments that need the specification of a body part (Y in S38), the step goes back to S32 so as to determine the body part.”).
Matsushita “quer[ies] the user for feedback” by presenting body parts for stimulation between which the user is to choose. Such a choice is “regarding one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session” when the term is afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation, because the choice pertains to said sessions.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as applied to Claim 52 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent No. 9,474,934 B1 to Krueger et al. (“Krueger”).
Regarding Claim 58, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
wherein the user-based information includes data related to muscle fatigue or muscle soreness
Kreuger describes “stand-alone exercise workout generation apparatus, systems, and methods designed to meet the specific needs of each user based on information provided by the user, newly-collected and previously-stored data obtained from direct measurement of the user, exercise resource information compiled via other methods described herein, and a workout generation engine configured to apply best practices in the art and science of physical conditioning” (Col. 3, Ln. 47-54). Kreuger is thus analogous art.
Kreuger discloses:
wherein the user-based information includes data related to muscle fatigue or muscle soreness (Col. 32, Ln. 59-64, “In another embodiment, data from the user's profile relating to present physical condition, prior physical activity, injury, and the like may be used in combination with the user's selected intensity in determining the number of sets, repetitions, and rest between sets;” Col. 40, Ln. 4-7, “The user may be instructed to perform the required repetitions at a slower pace or to stop performing the exercise in the event of pain or discomfort beyond that attributable to normal muscle fatigue.”)
Kreuger discloses obtaining user-based information regarding injury at Col. 32, Ln. 59-64, which information is explained to be related to muscle fatigue at Col. 40, Ln. 4-7 et seq.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Kreuger (i.e., to obtain as user-based information such information regarding injury as taught by Kreuger) in order to “accommodate a user with an increased risk of harm due to prior injury” (Kreuger at Col. 40, Ln. 11-12).
Claims 61, 63 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as applied to Claim 52 above, and further in view of previously cited 2018/0307801 A1 to Hardee et al. (“Hardee”).
Regarding Claim 61, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
wherein one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information includes one or more of physical data, geographic data, measured data, and sensed data
Hardee describes “an improved data processing apparatus and method and more specifically to mechanisms for personalizing training based on a planned course and individual personal assessment” (Para. [0001]). Hardee is thus analogous art.
Hardee discloses:
wherein one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information includes one or more of physical data, geographic data, measured data, and sensed data (Para. [0019], “In addition, the cognitive system ingests personal data about the user including data regarding the user's previous performance on similar types of courses or in similar athletic events … as well as health information including physical attributes, measurements of fitness and physical capabilities, and the like. This personal data about the user may also include health information obtained from sensors associated with the user, such as wearable sensors, e.g., FitBit, instrumented clothing, heart rate monitors, biometric processing units and sensors, or other wearable activity/health sensor.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Hardee (i.e., to configure the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski to obtain data from such wearable sensors as described by Hardee) in order to “determine areas where the individual needs to focus training to increase their capabilities” (Hardee at Para. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 63, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
wherein the third-party information includes one or more of a workout type, a workout intensity, and a workout length
Hardee describes “an improved data processing apparatus and method and more specifically to mechanisms for personalizing training based on a planned course and individual personal assessment” (Para. [0001]). Hardee is thus analogous art.
Hardee discloses:
wherein the third-party information includes one or more of a workout type, a workout intensity, and a workout length (Para. [0019], “In addition, the cognitive system ingests personal data about the user including data regarding the user's previous performance on similar types of courses or in similar athletic events (e.g., other bicycle races, bicycling events, or the like in the above example….”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Hardee (i.e., to configure the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski to obtain such data regarding workout type as described by Hardee) in order to “determine areas where the individual needs to focus training to increase their capabilities” (Hardee at Para. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 64, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
wherein the third-party information includes heart rate data
Hardee describes “an improved data processing apparatus and method and more specifically to mechanisms for personalizing training based on a planned course and individual personal assessment” (Para. [0001]). Hardee is thus analogous art.
Hardee discloses:
wherein the third-party information includes heart rate data (Para. [0019], “This personal data about the user may also include health information obtained from sensors associated with the user, such as wearable sensors, e.g., FitBit, instrumented clothing, heart rate monitors, biometric processing units and sensors, or other wearable activity/health sensor.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Hardee (i.e., to configure the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski to obtain data from such wearable sensors as described by Hardee) in order to “determine areas where the individual needs to focus training to increase their capabilities” (Hardee at Para. [0014]).
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as applied to Claim 52 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent No. 10,065,074 B1 to Hoang et al. (“Hoang”).
Regarding Claim 65, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
wherein the third-party information includes accelerometer data
Hoang describes “A training system based on mobile technology and kinematics of human motion characterizes, analyzes, and supplies feedback to a user based on the user's movements” (Abstract). Hoang is thus analogous art.
Hoang discloses:
wherein the third-party information includes accelerometer data (Col. 24, Ln. 18-25, “If desired, a left or right sensor band(s) may be substituted with a smart wrist device or a device equivalent to a smart watch or fitness band, such as a Fitbit HR or Apple Watch, to analyze motion, if the substituting device has an accelerometer, magnetometer, and/or a gyroscope with a compatible wireless internet protocol such that it can synchronize and connect with the system to transmit data and provide feedback.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Hoang (i.e., to configure the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski to obtain accelerometer data from such third-party device having an accelerometer as described by Hoang) in order to “aid in providing data visualization and help in guiding the user on achieving performance goals” (Hoang at Col. 24, Ln. 27-29; see Col. 14, Ln. 7-14 regarding specific benefit of measuring acceleration).
Claims 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as applied to Claim 52 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0156666 A1 to Surbur et al. (“Surbur”).
Regarding Claim 67, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
further comprising sending a notification to a user in response to receiving one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information
Surbur describes a “System for providing insightful lifestyle notifications,” which “system can compare tracked physical activity data with historical data in set increments in light of the information in the time synchronous applications and then communicate notifications to the user.” Surbur is thus analogous art.
Surbur discloses:
further comprising sending a notification to a user in response to receiving one or more of the third-party information and the user-based information (Para. [0035], “In an embodiment, the insight engine 158 can monitor one or more time synchronous applications;” Para. [0036], “Some example types of information scheduled or logged into the time synchronous applications can include … a workout at the gym from 7 to 8 PM;” Para. [0037], “The insight engine can then generate the notifications with suggestions regarding the sleep and physical activity to the user.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Surbur (i.e., to configure to device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski to monitor time synchronous applications and provide notifications in response to receipt of third-party information therefrom) in order to facilitate interaction with the lifestyle of a user (Surbur at Para. [0002]).
Regarding Claim 68, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald, Bachinski and Surbur renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
Surbur additionally discloses:
wherein the notification includes an invitation to schedule a muscle stimulation session (Para. [0069], “The notifications can suggest actionable items. As an example, after analyzing the tracked data, the insight engine can realize the user's physical activity is below daily average and there is no scheduled meeting or appointment on the user's calendar in the next few hours. Then, the insight engine may send a notification suggesting the user to take a walk.”).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as applied to Claim 52 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0185750 A1 to Kang et al. (“Kang”).
Regarding Claim 70, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
further comprising scheduling one or more muscle stimulation sessions for implementation after one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session
Kang describes “an electronic device for automatically dividing a stored exercise schedule and automatically synchronizing the divided exercise schedules with an external device and a method therefor” (Para. [0006]). Kang is thus analogous art.
Kang discloses:
further comprising scheduling one or more muscle stimulation sessions for implementation after one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session (Para. [0040], “The exercise schedule may be data including an exercise plan for each date provided from an exercise application installed in the electronic device 100. The electronic device 100 may divide an exercise schedule, for example, for each date. The electronic device 100 may automatically select an exercise schedule corresponding to, for example, a current time among the divided exercise schedules. The electronic device 100 may automatically send the selected exercise schedule to the external device 20 at a specified time.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Kang (i.e., to configure the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski to schedule several predetermined muscle stimulation session and/or the customized muscle stimulation session at once in the manner of Kang) in order to facilitate management of various exercise schedules (Kang at Para. [0005]).
Claims 74-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as applied to Claim 52 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent No. 9,098,615 B1 to Tuthill et al. (“Tuthill”).
Regarding Claim 74, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
further comprising receiving feedback from the user regarding one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session
Tuthill describes “systems and methods for providing a user with an interactive, feedback-driven exercise program through the use of exercise equipment which provides tactile, visual and auditory feedback through proactive and reactive control, as well as portable electronic devices in communication with the exercise equipment to sense user activity, store user data and feedback for providing automated exercise program modifications, and provide visual and auditory feedback in the form of an interactive visual exercise experience using displays and other device feedback” (Abstract). Tuthill is thus analogous art.
Tuthill discloses:
further comprising receiving feedback from the user regarding one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session (Col. 3, Ln. 59-63, “The peripheral devices 102 may include one or more wearable devices which sense user activity, including motion, physiological data such as heart rate, blood pressure, etc. and report the information back to the exercise device 104 for altering the exercise program based on this feedback.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Tuthill (i.e., to configure the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski to receive such feedback as described by Tuthill) in order to allow customization of the exercise being performed.
Regarding Claim 75, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald, Bachinski and Tuthill renders obvious the entirety of Claim 74 as explained above.
Tuthill additionally discloses:
wherein the feedback includes one or more of measured information and sensed information (Col. 3, Ln. 59-63, “The peripheral devices 102 may include one or more wearable devices which sense user activity, including motion, physiological data such as heart rate, blood pressure, etc. and report the information back to the exercise device 104 for altering the exercise program based on this feedback.”)
Regarding Claim 76, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald, Bachinski and Tuthill renders obvious the entirety of Claim 74 as explained above.
Tuthill additionally discloses:
wherein the feedback includes information regarding an effectiveness of one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session (Col. 3, Ln. 59-63, “The peripheral devices 102 may include one or more wearable devices which sense user activity, including motion, physiological data such as heart rate, blood pressure, etc. and report the information back to the exercise device 104 for altering the exercise program based on this feedback.”).
Information regarding heart rate is such “information regarding an effectiveness” as claimed when the term is afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 77, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald, Bachinski and Tuthill renders obvious the entirety of Claim 74 as explained above.
Tuthill additionally discloses:
further comprising, based on the feedback, selecting one or more muscle stimulation sessions for implementation after one or more of the predetermined muscle stimulation session and the customized muscle stimulation session (Col. 11, Ln. 63 through Col. 12, Ln. 6, “Feedback from the exercise equipment and one or more sensors is then received at the base unit or remote cloud server, where it is stored (step 222). Next, an application running on the base unit or remote cloud server will modify the exercise program based on the feedback (step 224), such as increasing the requirements if the user is improving, or decreasing the requirements if the user is not improving. The user profile and corresponding exercise programs is then updated (step 226), after which the updated profile and exercise programs can be displayed to the user on the base unit or another visual display (step 228).”)
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304074 A1 to Matsushita (“Matsushita”) in view of previously cited M. Fitzgerald, “Intensity Guidelines for 80/20 Running," 8020endurance.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20181208101805/http://8020endurance. com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/, December 8, 2018, accessed 6/27/2025 (“Fitzgerald”) and US 2014/0249601 A1 to Bachinski et al. (“Bachinski”) as applied to Claim 52 above, and further in view of Doucet BM, Lam A, Griffin L. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for skeletal muscle function. Yale J Biol Med. 2012 Jun;85(2):201-15. Epub 2012 Jun 25 (“Doucet”).
Regarding Claim 95, the combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski renders obvious the entirety of Claim 52 as explained above.
The combination of Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski does not disclose:
wherein the electrical impulses associated with the recovery session are wider than the electrical impulses associated with the predetermined muscle stimulation session.
Doucet describes “Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Skeletal Muscle Function” (Title) in the context of “electrical stimulation used for rehabilitation and functional purposes” (Abstract). Doucet is analogous art.
Doucet teaches:
wherein the electrical impulses associated with the recovery session are wider than the electrical impulses associated with the predetermined muscle stimulation session (Pg. 204, Left Column, Second Paragraph, “Some investigators have suggested that low frequency stimulation with short pulse durations (500µs-1000µs) will exhibit a lower fatigue index [35]. However, even shorter pulse widths (10µs-50µs) have been shown to affect the recruitment of muscle fibers and can generate a larger maximum torque in a smaller number of fibers before causing a contraction in another muscle fascicle [36]. This is important as a greater recruitment ratio within muscle fascicles can possibly increase performance time; therefore, pulse width can be increased to potentially recruit more fibers in the surrounding area as fatigue ensues.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Matsushita, Fitzgerald and Bachinski with the teachings of Doucet (i.e., to use wider electrical impulses during recovery muscle stimulation sessions than in the predetermined muscle stimulation sessions) in order to “recruit more fibers in the surrounding area as fatigue ensues” (Doucet at Pg. 204, Left Column, Second Paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights