DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on January 9, 2026 for the patent application 17/567,376 originally filed on January 3, 2022. Claims 21, 36, and 41 are amended. Claims 1-20 and 34 are canceled. Claims 21-33 and 35-42 remain pending. The first office action of April 1, 2025 and the second office action of October 10, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
The Applicant’s amendments are sufficient for overcoming the rejections of claims 21-33, 35, and 42 under 35 USC 101. Therefore, the rejections of claims 21-33, 35, and 42 under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn. The Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient for overcoming the rejections of claims 36-41 under 35 USC 101, for reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103. However, new rejections under 35 USC 103 are applied to the claims in light of newly found prior art, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-33 and 35-42 are rejected under 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a user.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in claim 21. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the user”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 21. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under 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 regards as the invention. Claims 22-33, 35, and 42 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their respective dependencies to claim 21.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “user input controls.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 21. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the user input controls”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 21. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected under 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 regards as the invention. Claims 27-29 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their respective dependencies to claim 26.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the user’s workout data.” The limitation is not previously introduced earlier in claim 36. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected under 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 regards as the invention. Claims 37-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their respective dependencies to claim 36.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the second user.” The limitation is not previously introduced earlier in claim 36. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected under 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 regards as the invention. Claims 37-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their respective dependencies to claim 36.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the second portable fitness monitoring device.” The limitation is not previously introduced earlier in claim 36. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected under 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 regards as the invention. Claims 37-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their respective dependencies to claim 36.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “a second user.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 36. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the second user”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 36. Therefore, claim 40 is rejected under 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “the user.” The limitation is not previously introduced earlier in claim 41. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected under 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 regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 36 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process) and claim 41 is directed to “a fitness monitoring system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing real-time feedback and coaching to a user,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations of independent claim 36:
“receiving… a training category selection from the user…
scheduling a plurality of training activities based on the selected training category, wherein a first training activity comprises a predetermined goal;
sending the predetermined goal…
providing real-time feedback… regarding whether the user meets the predetermined goal based on information collected…
receiving workout data associated with the predetermined goal…
defining an updated goal for a subsequent scheduled training activity based on the user's workout data; and
…transmitting information… and receiving… information from… a second user.”
and the following limitations of independent claim 41:
“a training plan… comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities…
provide real-time feedback and coaching… in response to a user performing a predetermined activity based on information collected…
wherein a second training plan is stored… comprising a second plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities…
provide real-time feedback and coaching… in response to a second user performing a second predetermined activity”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “portable fitness monitoring device,” “user input controls,” “a memory,” “a transceiver,” and “a sensor” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “providing real-time feedback and coaching to a user,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., “portable fitness monitoring device,” “user input controls,” “a memory,” “a transceiver,” and “a sensor” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed fitness monitoring system comprising “portable fitness monitoring device,” “user input controls,” “a memory,” “a transceiver,” and “a sensor” is not explicitly defined in the specification, but is described in paragraph [0072] as possibly including “multiple portable output devices 106.” Portable output devices may take the form of headphones, a speaker, a wrist band having a visual display, or a wrist watch, as disclosed in paragraphs [0073-0075]. Paragraph [0072] states that “the portable fitness monitoring device 102 itself may include an output device 106.”
Paragraph [0067] describes the portable fitness monitoring device 102 (i.e. “a first portable fitness monitoring device” and “a second portable fitness monitoring device”) as being “a device such as, for example, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a music file player (e.g. and MP3 player), a tablet computer, an intelligent article for wearing (e.g. a fitness monitoring garment, wrist band, or watch), a dongle (e.g. a small hardware device that is capable of physically coupling to a first electronic device and/or wirelessly coupling to additional electronic devices), or any other suitable dedicated or non-dedicated portable fitness monitoring device 102” (emphasis added).
As for the “user input controls,” “a memory,” and “a transceiver,” these components are described in paragraph [0076] as exemplary components of a portable fitness monitoring device.
Regarding the “sensor,” paragraph [0068] states that “the portable fitness monitoring device 102 itself may include a sensor 104. In other words, the sensor 104 may be integrally coupled to and/or included within the same housing as the portable fitness monitoring device 102. Such a sensor 104may be, for example, a sensor 104 for detecting information that may be used to measure and/or calculate the athlete's 100 location, distance traveled, pace and/or speed.” (emphasis added)
All of these elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 37-40 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 37-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their dependencies to independent claim 36.
Therefore, claims 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from pre-AIA to AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 21-31, 35, 41, and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haughay, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Haughay,” US 2010/0062818) in view of Riley et al. (hereinafter “Riley,” US 2008/0096726).
Regarding claim 21, Haughay discloses a fitness monitoring system (Haughay [0001], “The invention relates generally to interactive fitness systems”), comprising:
a first portable fitness monitoring device and a second portable fitness monitoring device (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing two users simultaneously performing an exercise routine, each user having a portable electronic device 100), wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device and the second portable fitness monitoring device each comprise:
user input controls (Haughay [0019], “Electronic device 100 includes… a user input device 112, a sensor input 114”);
a memory (Haughay [0019], “Electronic device 100 includes… a memory 104”); and
a transceiver (Haughay [0019], “Electronic device 100 includes… a network interface 116, an antenna 118, and a network cable 120”),
…
a first set of sensors and a second set of sensors, wherein the first set of sensors are configured to be worn on at least two specific locations of a user, and the second set of sensors comprise other sensors configured to be worn on the at least two specific locations of another user (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing two users, each having sensors 208 and 210 at two specific locations of the user),
wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device is configured to communicate with the first set of sensors, and wherein the second portable fitness monitoring device is configured to communicate with the second set of sensors (Haughay [0037], “While user 202 runs on treadmill 204, sensor 210 detects physiological data and transmits the information to electronic device 100. Similarly, sensor 208 detects user movements and other non-physiological data and transmits the information to electronic device 100. Electronic device 100 compares the information received from sensors 208 and 210 to that of a virtual competitor and may provide feedback to user 202 in the form of audio or visual cues.”),
wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device is configured to provide real-time feedback and coaching to the first portable fitness monitoring device in response to a user performing a predetermined activity based on information collected by the first set of sensors (Haughay [0004], “a sensor for receiving a plurality of user performance metrics associated with the user, a processor for generating a comparison between the plurality of user performance metrics and a competitor workout file associated with the virtual competitor, and a display for displaying a summary of the comparison in real-time.”; also Haughay [0037], “While user 202 runs on treadmill 204, sensor 210 detects physiological data and transmits the information to electronic device 100. Similarly, sensor 208 detects user movements and other non-physiological data and transmits the information to electronic device 100. Electronic device 100 compares the information received from sensors 208 and 210 to that of a virtual competitor and may provide feedback to user 202 in the form of audio or visual cues.”), and
wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device is configured to communicate with the second portable fitness monitoring device (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing user 202 and user 402, each having a device 100 that communicate with each other over the network; also Haughay [0049], “While user 202 and user 402 run on respective treadmills 204, performance metrics associated each user are transmitted to server 154 over network 162. Server 154 may be configured to display locally for user 402, graphics associated with the performance metrics of user 202. Likewise, server 154 may be configured to display locally for user 202, graphics associated with the performance metrics of user 402.”).
Haughay does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein a training plan is stored on the first portable fitness monitoring device, the training plan comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities and accessed via the user input controls of the first portable fitness monitoring device.
Haughay does disclose storing and managing workout files on the electronic device 100, which is a portable fitness monitoring device (Haughay [0032], “Media management application (MMA) 153 may be configured to manage workout files stored on electronic device 100 or host device 152 and to facilitate browsing, searching, downloading, and/or uploading workout files to and from community workout server 158.”). However, Haughay does not explicitly teach that the workout files are training plans comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities.
Riley discloses workout files that are training plans comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities (Riley [0077], “reference number 604 may represent or include an input device through which a user can enter information regarding the athletic or training activities he/she has done or plans to do, such as track and/or field training or events, team sporting events, free weight lifting, etc. Reference number 604 also may relate to a physical or physiological parameter measuring system, such as a scale, heart rate monitor, blood pressure measuring system, body temperature measuring system, etc.”; also Riley [0083], “The workouts or information relating to the workout may be downloaded to the portable electronic device 508”).
Riley is analogous to Haughay, as both are drawn to the art of fitness devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method as taught by Haughay, to include workout files that are training plans comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities, as taught by Riley, in order to help keep users entertained and motivated (Riley Abstract). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the function of the user input controls of the first portable fitness monitoring device is determined based on an operating mode of the first portable fitness monitoring device (Haughay [0048], “The portable electronic device may also include a user input device for receiving an instruction to play the workout file and an output module for playing media associated with the plurality of performance metrics associated with the user and the workout file associated with the virtual competitor.”; also Haughay [0007], “a user input device configured to receive commands to control the user avatar.”; also Haughay [0008], “the portable electronic device may be configured to receive a user input during the exercise routine,” for example, the function the interface elements is based on what is displayed on the screen).
Regarding claim 23, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the user input controls of the first portable fitness monitoring device comprise touch screen input controls (Haughay [0026], “User input device 112 may be configured to allow a user to interact with electronic device 100. User input component 112 may include a clickwheel similar to that incorporated in some models of iPods. The clickwheel can include one or more buttons and a touchpad. The touchpad can permit a user to scroll by running the user's finger around the track of the clickwheel.”).
Regarding claim 24, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the user input controls of the first portable fitness monitoring device comprise voice-activated controls (Haughay [0026], “user input device 112 can include, for example, one or more buttons, a touchpad, a touchscreen display, electronics for accepting voice commands”).
Regarding claim 25, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the user input controls are integrally coupled to a housing of the first portable fitness monitoring device (Haughay [0026], “User input device 112 may be configured to allow a user to interact with electronic device 100. User input component 112 may include a clickwheel similar to that incorporated in some models of iPods. The clickwheel can include one or more buttons and a touchpad. The touchpad can permit a user to scroll by running the user's finger around the track of the clickwheel,” wherein a touchpad or clickwheel are integrally coupled to the housing of the device).
Regarding claim 26, Haughay in view of Riley discloses a separate visual display output device, comprising: a visual display; and user input controls, wherein commands entered via the user input controls on the separate visual display output device are transmitted to the first portable fitness monitoring device (see Haughay Fig. 6, showing separate visual displays of a treadmill display 203 and a computer 504).
Regarding claim 27, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the commands entered via the user input controls on the separate visual display output device are transmitted wirelessly (see Haughay Fig. 3 and [0036], “System 200 includes a treadmill 204, a treadmill display 203, an armband 205, a headset 206 coupled to electronic device 100, a sensor 208, a sensor 210 and a network 162 coupled to community workout server 154 and workout file database 156. While system 200 shows several elements communicating wirelessly, those skilled in the art will appreciate that system 200 may be operated with wired connections or a combination of both.”).
Regarding claim 28, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the separate visual display output device does not include a positioning system receiver (see Haughay Fig. 6, wherein there is no mention of treadmill display 203 or computer 504 including a positioning system receiver, and positioning system receivers were not conventional for these types of devices).
Regarding claim 29, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the visual display provides numerical performance parameter information during an activity (Haughay [0039], “treadmill 204 may be configured to receive data from electronic device 100 and/or server 212 and display, via display 203, real-time graphics that compare the data sets and provide feedback to user 202 during the exercise routine.”).
Regarding claim 30, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device does not include a positioning system receiver (there is no mention in the disclosure of the device 100 having any positioning system receiver).
Regarding claim 31, Haughay in view of Riley discloses a server configured to communicate with the first portable fitness monitoring device (Haughay [0039], “Server 154 may communicate with electronic device 100 either wirelessly or over a wired connection”).
Regarding claim 35, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the communication is directly between the first and second portable fitness monitoring devices (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing communication between the device 100 of user 202 and the device 100 of user 402; also Haughay [0035], “Network 162 can also include wireless networks such as Bluetooth or mobile telephony networks,” showing that the connection can be direct, such as through Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 41, Haughay discloses a fitness monitoring system (Haughay [0001], “The invention relates generally to interactive fitness systems”), comprising:
a first portable fitness monitoring device and a second portable fitness monitoring device (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing two users simultaneously performing an exercise routine, each user having a portable electronic device 100), wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device and the second portable fitness monitoring device each comprise:
user input controls (Haughay [0019], “Electronic device 100 includes… a user input device 112, a sensor input 114”);
a memory (Haughay [0019], “Electronic device 100 includes… a memory 104”); and
a transceiver (Haughay [0019], “Electronic device 100 includes… a network interface 116, an antenna 118, and a network cable 120”), and
a sensor configured to be worn by the user (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing sensors 208 and 210),
…
wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device is configured to provide real-time feedback and coaching to the first portable fitness monitoring device in response to a user performing a predetermined activity based on information collected by the sensor (Haughay [0004], “a sensor for receiving a plurality of user performance metrics associated with the user, a processor for generating a comparison between the plurality of user performance metrics and a competitor workout file associated with the virtual competitor, and a display for displaying a summary of the comparison in real-time.”; also Haughay [0037], “While user 202 runs on treadmill 204, sensor 210 detects physiological data and transmits the information to electronic device 100. Similarly, sensor 208 detects user movements and other non-physiological data and transmits the information to electronic device 100. Electronic device 100 compares the information received from sensors 208 and 210 to that of a virtual competitor and may provide feedback to user 202 in the form of audio or visual cues.”), and
wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device is configured to communicate with the second portable fitness monitoring device (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing user 202 and user 402, each having a device 100 that communicate with each other over the network; also Haughay [0049], “While user 202 and user 402 run on respective treadmills 204, performance metrics associated each user are transmitted to server 154 over network 162. Server 154 may be configured to display locally for user 402, graphics associated with the performance metrics of user 202. Likewise, server 154 may be configured to display locally for user 202, graphics associated with the performance metrics of user 402.”)
…
wherein the second portable fitness monitoring device is configured to provide real-time feedback and coaching to the second portable fitness monitoring device in response to a second user performing a second predetermined activity based on information collected by the sensor (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing the second user 402 having the exact same component setup as the first user 202).
Haughay does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein a training plan is stored on the first portable fitness monitoring device, the training plan comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities and accessed via the user input controls of the first portable fitness monitoring device … wherein a second training plan is stored on the second portable fitness monitoring device, the second training plan comprising a second plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities and accessed via the user input controls of the second portable fitness monitoring device.
Haughay does disclose storing and managing workout files on the electronic device 100, which is a portable fitness monitoring device (Haughay [0032], “Media management application (MMA) 153 may be configured to manage workout files stored on electronic device 100 or host device 152 and to facilitate browsing, searching, downloading, and/or uploading workout files to and from community workout server 158.”). Haughay also discloses a second user having the same setup as the first user (see Haughay Fig. 5, showing the second user 402 having the exact same component setup as the first user 202). However, Haughay does not explicitly teach that the workout files are training plans comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities.
Riley discloses workout files that are training plans comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities (Riley [0077], “reference number 604 may represent or include an input device through which a user can enter information regarding the athletic or training activities he/she has done or plans to do, such as track and/or field training or events, team sporting events, free weight lifting, etc. Reference number 604 also may relate to a physical or physiological parameter measuring system, such as a scale, heart rate monitor, blood pressure measuring system, body temperature measuring system, etc.”; also Riley [0083], “The workouts or information relating to the workout may be downloaded to the portable electronic device 508”).
Riley is analogous to Haughay, as both are drawn to the art of fitness devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method as taught by Haughay, to include workout files that are training plans comprising a plurality of scheduled training activities with predetermined activities, as taught by Riley, in order to help keep users entertained and motivated (Riley Abstract). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 42, Haughay in view of Riley discloses wherein the first portable fitness monitoring device is configured to communicate the training plan to the second portable fitness monitoring device (Haughay [0044], “the data sets may be analyzed and displayed in real-time to provide user 202 with a comprehensive picture of his or her performance relative to either a previous exercise routine performed by user 202 or one performed by user 402. The output of step 308 may be directed to display 203, a display integrated on electronic device 100”).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haughay in view of Riley, and in further view of DiBenedetto et al. (hereinafter “DiBenedetto2,” US 2010/0292050).
Regarding claim 32, Haughay in view of Riley does not explicitly teach wherein the server is configured to communicate with the first portable fitness monitoring device such that prior to conducting an activity with the first portable fitness monitoring device, the server sends an activity goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device in accordance with the training plan.
However, DiBenedetto2 discloses wherein the server is configured to communicate with the first portable fitness monitoring device such that prior to conducting an activity with the first portable fitness monitoring device, the server sends an activity goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device in accordance with the training plan (DiBenedetto2 [0078], “After a workout routine 608 is selected or created, it may be sent through wired or wireless transmission from the computer 600 or server 602 to the portable fitness monitoring device 100 via the computer input/output 110. One or more workout routines 608 may be received by the portable fitness monitoring device 100 and stored in the memory 104.”).
DiBenedetto2 is analogous to Haughay in view of Riley, as both are drawn to the art of fitness devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method as taught by Haughay in view of Riley, to include wherein the server is configured to communicate with the first portable fitness monitoring device such that prior to conducting an activity with the first portable fitness monitoring device, the server sends an activity goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device in accordance with the training plan, as taught by DiBenedetto2, in order to offer individuals a variety of options while exercising (DiBenedetto2 [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Haughay in view of Riley does not explicitly teach wherein in response to an activity being completed with the first portable fitness monitoring device, the server sends an updated activity goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device and updates the training plan.
However, DiBenedetto2 discloses wherein in response to an activity being completed with the first portable fitness monitoring device, the server sends an updated activity goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device and updates the training plan (DiBenedetto2 [0147], “the portable fitness monitoring system 20 may be adapted to selectively adjust the limits of the zones in response to the athlete's 10 performance and/or feedback received from the athlete, if such adjustments are warranted. In this manner, the portable fitness monitoring system 20 may provide a training feedback loop. As described above, the zones may be defined based on user input. User performance parameter data is detected during a physical activity via the sensors 200, as described above. The performance parameter data is transmitted to the computer 600 and/or the server 602 for processing. A determination is made as to whether the zones need to be adjusted. If adjustments are warranted, this data is communicated back to portable fitness monitoring device 100.”).
DiBenedetto2 is analogous to Haughay in view of Riley, as both are drawn to the art of fitness devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method as taught by Haughay in view of Riley, to include wherein in response to an activity being completed with the first portable fitness monitoring device, the server sends an updated activity goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device and updates the training plan, as taught by DiBenedetto2, in order to offer individuals a variety of options while exercising (DiBenedetto2 [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 36-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riley in view of DiBenedetto et al. (hereinafter “DiBenedetto,” US 2010/0292600), and in further view of Haughay.
Regarding claim 36, Riley discloses a method of scheduling a plurality of training activities for a user of a first portable fitness monitoring device, the method comprising:
receiving at the first portable fitness monitoring device a training category selection from the user via input user controls (Riley [0079], “data may be provided, for example, by manually entering workout information into the electronic device 508. FIG. 8 shows an example of the electronic device 508 with a display screen 800 having an example user interface 810 allowing user input of information relating to a workout or activity in this situation… this user interface 810 includes "start," "stop," and "pause" buttons that allow users to record time and/or timing information associated with the workout or activity, if desired. Again, if the sensor included with the module 502 is able to detect at least some data associated with these types of workouts, such as step count, heart rate, pulse rate, or other data, this data may be collected, sent to the electronic device 508, stored, presented on display screen 800, and/or associated with the specific workout.”);
scheduling a plurality of training activities based on the selected training category, wherein a first training activity comprises a predetermined goal (Riley [0089], “The characteristics or parameters of the workout may be varied widely, depending at least in part on the selected workout level. For example, if desired, the types of activities included as part of the workout may be changed, depending on the selected workout level. As another example, the time duration(s) of one or more of the activities may be changed, depending on the selected workout level. As yet another example, if desired, one or more of the amount of resistance, timing/pace/distance goals, calorie burn goals, overall workout times, incline levels, number of free weight lifting sets, number of repetitions per set, free weight lifting weight levels, and the like, may be varied to increase or decrease the "workout level."”);
Riley does not teach every limitation of sending the predetermined goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device; providing real-time feedback with the first portable fitness monitoring device regarding whether the user meets the predetermined goal based on information collected by a sensor worn by the user; and receiving workout data associated with the predetermined goal from the sensor worn by the user; defining an updated goal for a subsequent scheduled training activity based on the user's workout data.
However, DiBenedetto discloses sending the predetermined goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device; providing real-time feedback with the first portable fitness monitoring device regarding whether the user meets the predetermined goal based on information collected by a sensor worn by the user; and receiving workout data associated with the predetermined goal from the sensor worn by the user; defining an updated goal for a subsequent scheduled training activity based on the user's workout data (DiBenedetto [0168-0169], “the portable fitness monitoring system may be adapted to selectively adjust the limits of the zones in response to the athlete's 100 performance and/or feedback received from the athlete 100… the portable fitness monitoring system may provide a training feedback loop. As described above, the zones may be defined based on user input. User 100 performance parameter data is detected during a physical activity via the sensors 104… A determination is made as to whether the zones need to be adjusted. If adjustments are warranted, this data may be communicated back to a portable fitness monitoring device 102… The determination as to whether or not the zones need to be adjusted may be based on, for example, the factors described above with respect to success rate calculations. In one embodiment, if the athlete 100 performs outside the specified heart rate zone for all or a portion of the interval, the heart rate zone may be adjusted. For example, if the athlete 100 is consistently above the specified zone, the zone range may be increased. If the athlete 100 is consistently below the specified zone, the zone range may be decreased.”).
DiBenedetto is analogous to Riley, as both are drawn to the art of fitness devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method as taught by Riley, to include sending the predetermined goal to the first portable fitness monitoring device; providing real-time feedback with the first portable fitness monitoring device regarding whether the user meets the predetermined goal based on information collected by a sensor worn by the user; and receiving workout data associated with the predetermined goal from the sensor worn by the user; defining an updated goal for a subsequent scheduled training activity based on the user's workout data, as taught by DiBenedetto, in order to allow athletes to “better use data generated from past performances to gauge their improvement, to set goals for the future, to share their performance data with others, to stay motivated, and/or to enable them to exercise at intensities appropriate for their current fitness level and goals” (DiBenedetto [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Riley in view of DiBenedetto does not explicitly teach while the user wears the first portable fitness monitoring device and the second user wears the second portable fitness monitoring device, transmitting information from the second portable fitness monitoring device to the first portable fitness monitoring device and receiving, at the first portable fitness monitoring device, information from a second portable fitness monitoring device of a second user.
However, Haughay discloses while the user wears the first portable fitness monitoring device and the second user wears the second portable fitness monitoring device, transmitting information from the second portable fitness monitoring device to the first portable fitness monitoring device and receiving, at the first portable fitness monitoring device, information from a second portable fitness monitoring device of a second user (see Haughay Fig. 5 and [0048], “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary system 400 for providing real-time interaction between two or more users simultaneously performing an exercise routine according to some embodiments of the invention. System 300 is similar in many respects to system 200, except that in system 300 user 202 engages in live competition against user 402 over a network. In some embodiments, user 202 and user 204 may be in remote locations.”).
Haughay is analogous to Riley in view of DiBenedetto, as both are drawn to the art of fitness devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method as taught by Riley in view of DiBenedetto, to include while the user wears the first portable fitness monitoring device and the second user wears the second portable fitness monitoring device, transmitting information from the second portable fitness monitoring device to the first portable fitness monitoring device and receiving, at the first portable fitness monitoring device, information from a second portable fitness monitoring device of a second user, as taught by Haughay, since it uses known techniques of device communication to improve similar fitness monitoring devices in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 37, Riley in view of DiBenedetto and Haughay discloses receiving commands from a separate visual display output device at the portable fitness monitoring device such that an activity is selected (see Riley Fig. 2 and [0049], “The electronic device 110 may include additional input and/or output elements, e.g., such as ports 126 and 128 shown in FIG. 2, e.g., for headphones (or other audio output), power supplies, wireless communications, infrared input, microphone input, or other devices. If desired, and if these ports 126 and/or 128 would be covered when the interface device 112 is attached to the electronic device 110,” showing interface device 112 and separate electronic device 110 with additional output elements).
Regarding claim 38, Riley in view of DiBenedetto and Haughay discloses displaying numerical performance information during an activity on a separate visual display output device than the portable fitness monitoring device (Riley [0068], “the equipment 604 may be designed to send information to the user's equipment (e.g., via transmission/reception system 606) relating to the workout parameters of an individual workout or training exercise, such as: data detectable or sensed by gym or workout equipment, such as distance traveled, speed, elevation changes, number of steps, number of floors climbed, overall time, speed or other data as a function of time, calories burned, revolutions per minute, number of rotations, resistance settings, hill or incline information, amount of weight lifted, number of repetitions, weight machines used, etc. Any measured physiological characteristics also may be sent to the user's portable equipment, such as heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen levels, EEG data, EKG data, body temperature, air intake/expel rates, etc.”).
Regarding claim 39, Riley in view of DiBenedetto and Haughay discloses wherein the performance information further comprises color-coded performance zone information (Riley [0151-0152], “User movement or activity when working out or participating in an athletic event or performance may make it difficult, in at least some instances (e.g., during particularly intensive portions of the workout or event, etc.), to read detailed information provided on a screen 800 of a small electronic device 508 (e.g., particularly if the information is presented in small fonts, etc.). Systems and methods according to at least some examples of this invention may be designed to provide at least some information to users in a quickly identifiable manner, e.g., in a manner that will not require reading small print… One way of providing information to users in a quickly identifiable manner relates to the background color present on the display screen 800. For example, if desired, systems and methods according to at least some examples of this invention may make certain background colors correspond to a physical or physiological parameter associated with the workout. As more specific examples, the background color may be correlated to physical or physiological parameters such as current heart rate, total calories burned, total distance traveled, current pace, percentage of workout completed, etc.”).
Regarding claim 40, Riley in view of DiBenedetto and and Haughay discloses receiving, from a network, information from a second portable fitness monitoring device of a second user (Riley [0074], “In some instances, the remote system 704 (or system 702) may be accessed by multiple users (e.g., over a network, such as the internet or a gym based network), and such systems may provide a wide variety of data and information to users (e.g., each individual user may have his/her own webpage(s), user ID, password, etc.).”; also Riley [0085], “examples of this invention may receive data from multiple users, users can compete against one another and/or otherwise compare their athletic performances, even when the users are not physically located in the same area and/or are not competing at the same time (e.g., virtual races or competitions).”).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on January 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues that “the alleged judicial exception is implemented with a ‘first portable fitness monitoring device’ because the first portable fitness monitoring device is ‘configured to provide’ the alleged judicial exception ‘based on information collected by the first set of sensors.’ These additional elements, including the further components already recited as being part of both portable fitness monitoring devices, encompass too much detail to be reduced to the type of ‘general purpose computer’ that would fail to confer patent eligibility on the claim because a ‘general purpose computer’ would not include portable fitness monitoring devices and sets of sensors including sensors configured to be worn at specific locations.”
With regard to independent claim 21 and its dependent claims, the Examiner agrees. The Examiner notes that at the time the invention was made, sometime prior to the application filing date of April 5, 2011, conventional computers would not have had sets of at least two sensors configured to be worn at specific locations, as recited in claim 21 as amended. Therefore, claim 21 as amended is not a generic computing device, and therefore is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. For these reasons, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 21-33, 35, and 42 is withdrawn.
As for claims 36-41, these claims only require one sensor, which may be a part of the portable fitness monitoring device itself (see instant specification paragraph [0068], “the portable fitness monitoring device 102 itself may include a sensor 104… the sensor 104 may be integrally coupled to and/or included within the same housing as the portable fitness monitoring device 102.”). These types of devices were conventional prior to 2011, in the form of smartphones, pedometers, heart rate monitors, and others. Therefore, because claims 36-41 as amended still recite generic computing devices performing conventional operations, they remain rejected under 35 USC 101. For these reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 36-31 will be maintained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715