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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, and 5-10 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 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), claim 9 is directed to “a device” (i.e. a machine), and claim 10 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” (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).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of providing a first physical activity suggestion to improve the physical performance of the 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”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representatives of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent Claim 1:
A method for improving physical performance of a user, adapted to a device, the method comprising:
determining, by using at least one sensor, a first reference value of the physical performance of the user in a first reference time point of a first physical activity duration and determining a final target value of the physical performance corresponding to a final target time of the first physical activity duration, wherein the first reference value is determined based on a collected first physical activity data, the physical performance is maximal oxygen uptake, calorie expenditure, or metabolic equivalent of task, and the collected first physical activity data is heart rate or motion of the user as detected by the at least one sensor;
determining a plurality of middle target values of the physical performance arranged in increasing order in the first physical activity duration based on the first reference value, the final target value, and the final target time, wherein the plurality of middle target values of the physical performance respectively corresponds to a plurality middle target times of the first physical activity duration after the first reference time point; and
providing, by a processing unit, a first physical activity suggestion comprising physical activity plans respectively corresponding to the plurality of middle target values and the final target value on a displaying unit in the first physical activity duration to improve the physical performance of the user to gradually meet the plurality of middle target values and the final target value of the physical performance.
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.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: 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., “a device,” “at least one sensor,” “a processing unit” and “a displaying unit” 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 a first physical activity suggestion to improve the physical performance of the user is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: 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. “a device,” “at least one sensor,” “a processing unit” and “a displaying unit” 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 “a device,” “at least one sensor,” “a processing unit” and “a displaying unit” are described in the following paragraphs:
“[0015] …the devices such as a measurement system, a device worn on the user (e.g., the device attached to the wrist belt or chest belt), a wrist top device, a mobile smart device, a portable device, a personal computer, a server, or a combination thereof.”
“[0014] In the present disclosure, the term "physical activity data" refers to the data collected by at least one sensor/sensing unit when the user carries our physical activities. The sensor/sensing unit may include, but not limited to, a heart rate sensor to detect the user's heart rate, an accelerometer sensor to detect the motion of the user, and the like.”
“[0015] …the processing unit 12 (e.g., mobile smart device or mobile phone)”
“[0016] …The processing unit 12 may be a computing device or any suitable processing device for executing software instructions, such as a central processing unit (CPU).”
“[0018] The display unit 14 may be a display for providing a physical activity suggestion”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a device,” “at least one sensor,” “a processing unit” and “a displaying unit are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B, o of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-3, and 5-8 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-3, and 5-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogdan Von Rueckmann (US 20210177308 A1; hereinafter Reuckmann) in view of Yasuhiro Nishimoto (US 20220143464 A1; hereinafter Nishimoto) and Jouni Herranen (US 20110105279 A1; hereinafter Herranen).
Regarding claim 1, Rueckmann discloses a method for improving physical performance of a user, adapted to a device, the method comprising: determining, by using at least one sensor (“After receiving the indication, the system, using one or more sensors of a user device and/or one or more sensors connected to the user device, may detect and/or record the user's physical activity” (recited in at least: Rueckmann paragraph [0045])), a first reference value of the physical performance of the user in a first reference time point of a first physical activity duration and determining a final target value of the physical performance corresponding to a final target time of the first physical activity duration, wherein the first reference value is determined based on a collected first physical activity data (“the system may determine, periodically, whether the unlocked exercise (e.g., the physical exercise) has been completed. For example, the system may check multiple times per second, once per second, multiple times per minute, once a minute, or more rarely or frequently. The system may track the user's progress and update any user interfaces displaying information to the user until the requirements for the physical exercise is met” (recited in at least: Rueckmann paragraph [0047; 0070])), the physical performance is maximal calorie expenditure, and the collected first physical activity data is heart rate or motion of the user as detected by the at least one sensor (“burning an estimated number of calories through physical activity (e.g., 100 calories, 200 calories, or 300 calories). The physical exercise may be performed by walking, jogging, running, or other locomotion such as using a bicycle, roller skates/blades, or skateboard” (recited in at least: Rueckmann paragraph [0041]);
However, Reuckmann doesn’t explicitly teach determining a plurality of middle target values of the physical performance arranged in increasing order in the first physical activity duration based on the first reference value, the final target value, and the final target time, wherein the plurality of middle target values of the physical performance respectively corresponds to a plurality middle target times of the first physical activity duration after the first reference time point; and providing, by a processing unit, a first physical activity suggestion comprising physical activity plans respectively corresponding to the plurality of middle target values and the final target value on a displaying unit in the first physical activity duration to improve the physical performance of the user to gradually meet the plurality of middle target values and the final target value of the physical performance.
Nishimoto teaches determining a plurality of target values of the physical performance arranged in increasing order in the first physical activity duration based on the first reference value, the final target value, and the final target time, wherein the plurality of middle target values of the physical performance respectively corresponds to a plurality middle target times of the first physical activity duration after the first reference time point (“The exercise management system may also accumulate an average heart rate and the maximum heart rate during the aerobic exercise, or comparison results showing whether or not the average heart rate and the maximum heart rate exceed the heart rate threshold. Alternatively, it is possible to obtain an aerobic exercise score based on the time the aerobic exercise was continued or the results of comparison of the average heart rate and the maximum heart rate with the heart rate threshold, and store the aerobic exercise score” (recited in at least: Nishimoto paragraph [0211])); and providing, by a processing unit, a first physical activity suggestion comprising physical activity plans respectively corresponding to the plurality of middle target values and the final target value on a displaying unit (element 190 display section) in the first physical activity duration to improve the physical performance of the user to gradually meet the plurality of middle target values and the final target value of the physical performance (“the processor may acquire reference data indicating a standard of the performance result information for the exercise instruction given to the user, and performs a process of presenting information to encourage the user to exercise, or a process of presenting information that suggests that the user can reduce exercises, based on the difference between the performance result information of the user and the reference data” (recited in at least Nishimoto paragraph [0326])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the physical performance method of Rueckmann to include the physical activity suggestions and the comparisons of the resulted activities for the added benefit of streamlining athletic/personal trainers while providing a method of comparing and storing the gym activity into their device.
Herranen teaches determining a plurality of middle targets (“The exercise is started with initial exercise settings. During the exercise several measurements are carried out, such as the amount of repetitions, duration of the exercise, pace of the exercise, heart rate and the range of movement. Depending on the measured values the exerciser may either continue with the initial exercise settings if the values are in the pre-defined range, or the exercise program may be changed. For example if the repetition rate (pace) is below the predefined value 1 second, the resistance is increased by 7%. On the other hand, if the repetition rate is above 3 seconds (one repetition in 3 seconds), the resistance is decreased by 7%. The same may apply to the other parameters as well. Some measured values may affect the exercise immediately and the target for the ongoing exercise will be modified in real-time (for example pace, heart rate or range of movement). Some measured values may affect the next exercise, or they may affect both” (recited in at least: Herranen paragraph [0038])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tracked middle targets of a physical performance so that users know how much they working out within intervals so they can either push themselves more or less during a time in the physical performance.
Regarding claim 2, Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto and Herranen teach the disclosed matter as stated above and Nishimoto further teaches wherein the first reference value is an initial value, the first reference time point of the first physical activity duration is a starting point of the first physical activity duration, wherein the initial value is determined based on the collected first physical activity data collected before the starting point (“When the performance time is short and the posture is quickly changed, the state of stressing the muscles ends in a short time, whereas when the performance time is long, the duration of stressing the muscles increases. Therefore, the performance time is also usable as the intensity of the resistance exercise. The performance time is a period starting from a performance detection timing and ending at a timing at which the angle returns to the same angle after counting-up, for example, in the process of counting the number of times of motions (described later with reference to FIG. 12)” (recited in at least: Nishimoto paragraph [0153])).
Regarding claim 5, Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto and Herranen teach the disclosed matter as stated above and Nishimoto further teaches determining whether a first target value is met according to a second physical activity data collected between a first target time corresponding to the first target value and a previous target time, wherein the first target value is one of the middle target values and the final target value (“when the reception section 102 starts acquiring the motion information from the detection device 600, the game processing section 104 operates to move to the exercise instruction screen in E2. In E2, an image describing motions in lunges (E21) and the measured number of times of the motions (E22) are displayed. In addition, the number of successful motions (E23) and the number of unsuccessful motions (E24) are displayed based on the depth determination and the form determination. For example, the processing section 100 determines success when both depth and form satisfy the conditions, and determines failure when at least one of the conditions is not satisfied. When a preset number of times of motions of resistance exercises have been performed, the game processing section 104 performs a process of transition to the screen shown in D3 of FIG. 19” (recited in at least: Nishimoto paragraph [0252])).
Regarding claim 8, Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto and Herranen teach the disclosed matter as stated above and Nishimoto further teaches further comprising: receiving a modified final target value from an input of the user (“although the example in which the user inputs the number of times or the period of exercise is described above, the number of times or the period of exercise may be input by medical staff using another terminal device TMB” (recited in at least: Nishimoto paragraph [0191])).
Regarding claim 9, Rueckmann dscloses a device for improving physical performance of a user, comprising: a memory unit, storing a program code; and a processing unit, coupled to the memory unit (“A mobile computing device 200 may include one or more processors 201, which may execute instructions of a computer program to perform any of the features described herein. The instructions may be stored in any type of computer-readable medium or memory, to configure the operation of the processor 201. For example, instructions may be stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 202, random access memory (RAM) 203, removable media 204, such as a secure digital (SD) card or any other desired storage medium” (recited in at least: Rueckmann paragraph [0063])), and accessing the program code to execute: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the non- transitory computer readable storage medium recording an executable computer program (“A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a fitness testing and training device to” (recited in at least: Rueckmann [claim 28])), and the executable computer program being loaded to a device for improving the physical performance of a user to execute: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto and Herranen in further view of Mikko Martikka et al. (US 20110263993 A1; hereinafter Martikka).
Regarding claim 3, Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto and Herranen teach the claimed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly teach wherein the first reference value, the final target value, and the plurality of the middle target values of the physical performance is represented by the MET (Metabolic Equivalent of Task).
Martikka teaches that the present energy consumption calculation can be made instead of VO2 quantity with the 1 MET quantity (Metabolic Equivalent of Task) describing the resting state energy consumption and its multiples, as one skilled in the art will understand (recited in in at least: Martikka paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used MET to measure the energy spend during a physical activity as Martikka recited that it would be something that a person being skilled in the art would understand.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto and Herranen in further view of Eric A. Greenbaum (US 20140274564 A1; hereinafter Greenbaum).
Regarding claim 6, Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto and Herranen teach the claimed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly teach response to the determination that the first target value is not met at the first target time, determining a modified second physical activity duration with a second reference value and at least one modified target value and corresponding target time based on a third physical activity data collected in a performed portion of the first physical activity duration.
Greenbaum teaches a system where it provides a notification to a user that the exercise output quantity sufficient to meet the defined energy requirement of the virtual machine has not been met if the exercise output quantity sufficient to meet the defined energy requirement of the virtual machine has been not been met. The method may further comprise the additional steps of providing secondary power options if the exercise output quantity sufficient to meet the defined energy requirement of the virtual machine has been exceeded. Secondary power option may include providing power to ancillary functions of the virtual machine such as weapons, shields, booster power, backup power and the like. The defined exercise output quantity may be defined with reference to physiological benchmarks of a user, such as, for example a user's heart rate (recited in at least: Greenbaum paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create bench markers for users who are exercising when a time or goal isn’t met so that they can work on the appropriate workouts to meet that goal.
Regarding claim 7, Rueckmann in view of Nishimoto, and Herranen in further view of Greenbaum teach the disclosed matter as stated above and Nishimoto further teaches determined a modified second physical activity suggestion to meet the modified target values, and providing to the user (“if the processing section 100 determines that the degree of achievement for the exercise instructions is high based on the performance result information of the user, the processing section 100 may suggest the user to reduce exercises by displaying the difference between the user and the friend user who has a lower degree of achievement for the exercise instructions compared with the user” (recited at least: Nishimoto paragraph [0292])).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitated a further consideration into subject matter eligibility. The newly formulated rejection based on the amendments made to the claims can be found above.
Applicant states on page 2 of the remarks that “claimed invention is not directed to a mental process that can be simply performed in the mind.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitations of “the at least one sensor” is a tool used to gather the data and its functions in the application are to collect data. Applicant further states that in the SMED Memo that In re Desjardins claims found to be “directed to training machine learning models were eligible because they improved the functioning of the technology itself” on page 3 of the remarks. The Examiner makes of record that the steps taken when considering subject matter eligibility are the same practices and procedures that the MPEP recites as well as what the Kim memo reiterates from the MEPEP and instructs. The Kim memo serves as a reminder of the USPTO’s existing guidance on subject matter eligibility. These memos do not change the subject matter eligibility framework that is set forth in the MPEP § 2106 and is consistent with the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Including on Artificial Intelligence. When considering the claims as a whole, the examiner looked at each element and how they work in the application together, separately, and as a whole. Each claim is considered as a whole and together for the instant application. In this instant application, the claim language is looked at as a whole and there is no machine learning model claimed.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, and 5-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights