Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 35 and 53 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 16-17, 35 and 84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Nicholson et al. (US-11,129,550), Song et al. (US-11,521,733) and Forsten et al. (US-2011/0311955).
In regards to claim 1, Gettelman teaches a method comprising causing first media content to be displayed on a display device, the first media content including a first prompt to perform a first activity that has a first difficulty [fig. 6, fig. 9, col. 4 L. 11-21, col. 6 L. 4-12, col. 7 L. 44-52]. Furthermore, Gettelman teaches that the method comprises receiving, from one or more sensors, data associated with the user, the data including motion data associated with movement of the user [fig. 10 steps 305 and 306, col. 2 L. 24-26 and L. 29-31].
Gettelman teaches that the method comprises determining whether the user is performing the first activity based at least in part on the motion data associated with the user [col. 2 L. 40-49, col. 7 L. 57-65]. However, the combination does not teach that the determination is done at least in part on physiological data associated with the user.
On the other hand, Mallon teaches that a system used to monitor activities performed by a user can receive data from physiological sensors in addition to movement sensors [par. 0049 L. 1-5 and L. 10-12, par. 0060 L. 3-10, par. 0065]. This teaching means that the method comprises receiving, from one or more sensors, data associated with the user, the data including motion data associated with movement of the user and physiological data associated with the user. Also, Mallon teaches that physiological data can be combined with movement data in order to determine if a user is performing an activity [par. 0143 L. 1-6 and L. 14-30]. This teaching means that the method comprises determining whether the user is performing the first activity based at least in part on the physiological data associated with the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Mallon’s teachings of monitoring the physiological data in addition to movement data in the method taught by Gettelman because it will permit the system to better determine that the activities are been performed.
The combination of Gettelman and Mallon teaches that physiological data associated with the user can be monitored during the first activity [see Mallon par. 0060 L. 3-10, par. 0089]. This teaching means that the method comprises determining a first physiological parameter associated with the user subsequent to the first prompt based at least in part on the physiological data associated with the user. However, the combination does not teach determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold.
On the other hand, Nicholson teaches that the method comprises determining a first physiological parameter associated with the user when performing the first activity (subsequent to the first prompt) based at least in part on the physiological data associated with the user [col. 5 L. 3-13]. Also, Nicholson teaches that the method comprises determining whether the first physiological parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold [col. 5 L. 3-6]. Nicholson further teaches that the method comprises generating an notification/alert responsive to determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold [col. 5 L. 3-6, col. 6 L. 38-48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Nicholson’s teachings of monitoring the physiological state and compare the data with thresholds in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to make sure that the user is a good physiological state when performing the first activity.
The combination of Gettelman. Mallon and Nicholson teaches that the system can use learning algorithms can be used to analyze the movement data [see Mallon par. 0128]. However, the combination does not teach using a machine learning algorithm to determine if the user is performing the first activity.
On the other hand, Song teaches that a machine learning algorithm can be used to analyze movement data of a user and to suggest a new activity when it is determined that user’s movement data indicates that the user’s movement is below a similarity threshold [col. 4 L. 37-42, col. 11 L. 4-15 and L. 22-24, col. 14 L. 4-24, col. 16 L. 2-8]. This teaching means that if the user does not perform the first activity, the machine learning algorithm will the determine that the user’s movement is below the similarity threshold and suggest a new activity. In other words, the method comprises determining whether the user is performing the first activity by utilizing a machine learning algorithm that is trained to receive motion data as input and to output a determination whether the user is performing the first activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Song’s teachings of using a machine learning algorithm to determine if the user is performing the first activity in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to recognize that the user is unable to perform the first activity and suggest to perform another activity that is easier for the user.
The combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson and Song teaches that responsive to determining that the user is not performing the first activity, the system causes second media to be displayed on the display device comprising a second prompt to perform a second activity having a difficulty that is less than the difficulty of the first activity [see Song col. 4 L. 37-42]. However, the combination does not teach that the user is prompted to perform the second activity also responsive to the first physiological parameter exceeding the predetermined threshold.
On the other hand, Forsten teaches that during an activity if is it is determined that a first physiological parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold, the system prompts the user to perform a second activity that is lighter (second difficulty that is lees that the first difficulty) [par. 0049 L. 1-5 and 9-11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Forsten’s teachings of prompting the user to perform a second activity when the physiological parameter exceeds a threshold in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to prevent the user from injury when using the system.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the display displays a notification when it is determined that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold [see Nicholson col. 6 L. 38-48]. This teaching means that the method comprises causing an operation of the display device to be modified responsive to determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold. Also, the combination teaches that responsive to determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds a threshold and the user is not performing the first activity, the second prompt is displayed [see Song col. 4 L. 37-42, see Forsten par. 0049 L. 1-5 and 9-11]. This teaching means that the method comprises causing an operation of the display to be modified responsive to (i) determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold, (ii) determining that the user is not performing the first activity, or (iii) both (i) and (ii).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the display displays first media content when the first activity is performed [see Gettelman fig. 9] and that the display displays a notification when it is determined that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold [see Nicholson col. 6 L. 38-48]. These teaching means when the it is determined that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold the display displays the notification instead of the first media content. In other words, a modification in the operation of the display device includes pausing at least the first media content that is displayed on the display device.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that responsive to determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds a threshold and the user is not performing the first activity, the system selects a second activity and displays the second prompt to perform the second activity [see Song col. 4 L. 37-42, see Forsten par. 0049 L. 1-5 and 9-11]. This teaching means that a modification in the operation of the display device includes causing the second prompt to perform the second activity to be displayed on the display device, wherein the second activity is selected based at least in part on the determination whether the user was performing the first activity, the determined first physiological parameter, or both.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the first physiological parameter includes a heart rate [see Nicholson col. 5 L. 10-13, see Forsten par. 0014 L. 1-2].
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the first media content includes one or more video images, one or more still images, audio, or any combination thereof [see Gettelman fig. 6 and 9].
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the first activity is a therapy session [see Gettelman fig. 9, col. 1 L. 12-23, col. 4 L. 14-17].
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a method performing the claimed functions of the claimed system. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed system. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the system comprises a memory storing instructions and media content and a control system comprising a processor that executes the instructions to perform the method [see Gettelman col. 9 L. 58-67, col. 10 L. 1-4, see Nicholson col. 8 L. 23-26]. Also, the combination teaches that causing an operation of the display device displaying the media content to be modified responsive to determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold [see Nicholson col. 6 L. 38-48, see Forsten par. 0049 L. 1-5 and 9-11], and the user is not performing the first activity [see Song col. 4 L. 37-42].
In regards to claim 84, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the learning algorithm receives physiological data as an input to learn and make better decisions [see Mallon par. 0128]. Also, the combination teaches that the learning algorithm can be a machine learning algorithm [see Song col. 4 L. 37-42, col. 11 L. 4-15 and L. 22-24, col. 14 L. 4-24, col. 16 L. 2-8]. These teachings mean that the machine learning algorithm is trained to receive the physiological data associated with the user input.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Nicholson et al. (US-11,129,550), Song et al. (US-11,521,733) and Forsten et al. (US-2011/0311955) and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Lockhart et al. (US-2021/0322853).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that responsive to determining that the user is not performing the first activity, causing a another prompt to perform the first activity to be displayed on the display device.
On the other hand, Lockhart teaches that if it is determined that the user is not performing the first activity, the display displays additional media that helps the user to understand what movement needs to be performed [see Lockhart par. 0158 L. 2-11]. This teaching means that responsive to determining that the user is not performing the first activity, causing another prompt to perform the first activity to be displayed on the display device, wherein the another prompt is different than the first prompt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lockhart’s teachings of displaying additional media to help the user perform the first activity in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the user to better understand how to perform the first activity.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Nicholson et al. (US-11,129,550), Song et al. (US-11,521,733) and Forsten et al. (US-2011/0311955) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view Sasahara et al. (US-2018/0110415).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, does not teach determining a second physiological parameter associated with the user based at least in part on the physiological data subsequent to the modification.
On the other hand, Sasahara teaches when a first physiological parameter exceeds a threshold, the display displays a message indicating a user to stop exercising [fig. 14 steps s203 and s209]. Also, Sasahara teaches that if it is determined that the first physiological parameter has return to normal levels, the display displays a message to the user indicating that the user can resume exercising [fig. 15 steps s202 and s204]. These teachings means that the method comprises determining a second physiological parameter associated with the user based at least in part on the physiological data subsequent to the modification, determining whether the second physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold; and causing at least the first media content to resume on the display device responsive to determining that the second physiological parameter is below the predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sasahara’s teachings to resume displaying of media content indicating that the user can continue exercising when the physiological parameter has returned to normal levels in the method taught by the combination because it will permit a user to continue exercising only when it is safe to do so.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach causing an indication of the determined first physiological parameter to be displayed on the display device, wherein the indication of the determined first physiological parameter is overlaid on or adjacent to the first media content being displayed.
On the other hand Sasahara teaches causing an indication of the determined first physiological parameter to be displayed on the display device, wherein the indication of the determined first physiological parameter is overlaid on or adjacent to the first media content being displayed [fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sasahara’s teachings of displaying the physiological parameter with the first media content in the method taught by the combination because it will permit a user to know its physiological state before and while performing the first activity.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Nicholson et al. (US-11,129,550), Song et al. (US-11,521,733) and Forsten et al. (US-2011/0311955) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swanson (US-2017/0289651).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that data from the one or more sensors can be used to determine whether a first movement/activity has been completed by the user [see Song col. 4 L. 31-36, col. 15 L. 63-67, col. 16 L. 1-2].
The combination does not teach that responsive to determining that the user completed the first activity, causing second media content to be displayed on the display device, the second media content including a second prompt to perform a second activity, the second activity being different than the first activity.
On the other hand, Swanson teaches that that the system can display in the display device a second media content prompting a user to perform a second activity, that is different than the first activity, responsive to a determination that a user has completed the first activity [par. 0074 L. 13-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Swanson’s teachings of displaying a prompt to perform a second activity when the user completed the first activity because it will permit the system to indicate the user when to start performing the second activity.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Nicholson et al. (US-11,129,550), Song et al. (US-11,521,733) and Forsten et al. (US-2011/0311955) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tzvieli et al. (US-10,524,696).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the system can be used by a plurality of users [see Gettelman fig. 2-4]. However, the combination does not teach determining an identity of the user based at least in part on the data from at least one of the one or more sensors.
On the other hand, Tzvieli teaches determining an identity of the user based at least in part on the data from at least one of the one or more sensors [col. 103 L. 38-43 and L. 45-49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Tzvieli’s teachings of identifying the user based on the data of the one or more sensors because it will permit the system to retrieve data associated with a user without manually inputting user’s identification information.
Claim(s) 36, 38, 40 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Nicholson et al. (US-11,129,550), Song et al. (US-11,521,733) and Forsten et al. (US-2011/0311955) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Gu et al. (US-11,592,547).
In regards to claim 36, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song and Forsten, as applied in the rejection of claim 35 above, teaches that the one or more sensors include sensors to sense movement of a user [see Gettelman col. 2 L. 24-26 and L. 29-31]. However, the combination does not teach that the movement sensors include a radar sensor.
On the other hand, Gu teaches that a radar sensor can be used to detect movement of a user [abstract, fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gu’s teachings of using a radar sensor as the movement sensor because a radar sensor will permit to monitor movement of a user in a reliable manner.
In regards to claim 38, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song, Forsten and Gu, as applied in the rejection of claim 36 above, teaches that the system comprises a housing, wherein the radar sensor, the control system, and the memory are coupled to or integrated in the housing [see Gettelman fig. 1 element 100, fig. 12, see Gu fig. 3 element 104].
In regards to claim 40, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song, Forsten and Gu, as applied in the rejection of claim 38 above, teaches that the system comprises an interface configured to be received within a port of the display device to communicatively couple the display device and the memory [see Gettelman fig. 12 element 510, col. 10 L. 18-21].
In regards to claim 44, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Nicholson, Song, Forsten and Gu, as applied in the rejection of claim 36 above, teaches that the system comprises a secondary device including a second one of the one or more sensors that is different than the radar sensor [see Nicholson col. 5 L. 6-13].
Claim(s) 53-54, 56 and 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Swanson (US-2017/0289651), Lockhart et al. (US-2021/0322853) and Song et al. (US-11,521,733).
In regards to claim 53, Gettelman teaches a method comprising prompting a user to initiate an activity session comprising a first activity module [fig. 6, fig. 9]. Also, Gettelman teaches that the method comprises receiving motion data associated with movement of the user during the first activity module [col. 2 L. 24-26 and L. 29-36].
Gettelman does not teach receiving physiological data associated with the user during the first activity module.
On the other hand, Mallon teaches that a system used to monitor activities performed by a user can receive data from physiological sensors in addition to movement sensors during an activity [par. 0049 L. 1-5 and L. 10-12, par. 0060 L. 3-10, par. 0065, par. 0089]. This teaching means that the method comprises receiving physiological data associated with the user during the first activity module. Also, Mallon teaches that physiological data can be combined with movement data in order to determine if a user is performing an activity [par. 0143 L. 1-6 and L. 14-30]. This teaching means that the method comprises determining whether the user is performing the first activity module based at least in part on the physiological data associated with the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Mallon’s teachings of monitoring the physiological data in addition to movement data in the method taught by Gettelman because it will permit the system to better determine that the activities are been performed.
The combination of Gettelman and Mallon does not teach that the activity session comprises a second activity module.
On the other hand, Swanson teaches that the activity session can comprise a second activity module, the first activity module and the second activity module being selected from a plurality of activity modules and the second activity module being subsequent to the first activity module [fig. 8-10, par. 0074 L. 13-21, par. 0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Swanson’s teachings of having a session comprising a plurality of modules because it will permit the system to provide a user different exercise routines that will benefit the user.
The combination of Gettelman, Mallon and Swanson does not teach that the method comprises modifying the activity session based at least in part on at least a portion of the physiological data associated with the user, at least a portion of the motion data associated with movement of the user, or both.
On the other hand, Lockhart teaches that the method comprises using motion data and determining whether the user is performing the first activity module [par. 0158 L. 2-11]. Also, Lockhart teaches modifying the activity session based at least in part on the movement of the user performing the first activity module, and that a different module is selected for the activity session [par. 0017 L. 1-6]. This teaching mean that if the user is not able to perform the first activity module (not moving), the system will select a different activity as the second activity module of the session. In other words, the method comprises modifying the activity session based at least in part on determining that the user is not performing the first activity module, wherein the modifying includes substituting the second activity module with a third activity module selected from the plurality of modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lockhart’s teachings of modifying the session based on the movement of the user in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to adjust the difficulty of the activities during the session based on the ability of a user performing the exercises.
The combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson and Lockhart does not teach that the determination of whether the first activity is performed is made using a machine leaning algorithm.
On the other hand, Song teaches that a machine learning algorithm can be used to analyze movement data of a user and to suggest a new activity when it is determined that user’s movement data indicates that the user’s movement is below a similarity threshold [col. 4 L. 37-42, col. 11 L. 4-15 and L. 22-24, col. 14 L. 4-24, col. 16 L. 2-8]. This teaching means that if the user does not perform the first activity, the machine learning algorithm will the determine that the user’s movement is below the similarity threshold and suggest a new activity. In other words, the method comprises using a machine learning algorithm to determine whether the user is performing the first activity, the machine learning algorithm being trained to receive motion data as input and to output a determination whether the user is performing the first activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Song’s teachings of using a machine learning algorithm to determine if the user is performing the first activity in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to recognize that the user is unable to perform the first activity and suggest to perform another activity that is easier for the user.
In regards to claim 54, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart and Song, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, teaches that the first activity module can be a warm up activity while the second activity module can be a complete exercise [see Swanson fig. 9]. This teaching means that the first activity module has a first difficulty and the second activity module has a second difficulty that is different than the first difficulty.
In regards to claim 56, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart and Song, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, teaches that the first activity module and the second activity module are selected from the plurality of modules based at least in part on a user profile associated with the user, previously-recorded physiological data associated with the user, previously-recorded motion data associated with the user, or any combination thereof [see Swanson par. 0074 L. 1-6].
In regards to claim 73, the combination of Gettelman, Swanson, Mallon, Lockhart and Song, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, further teaches that during any activity session the system can modify the current activity that is performed based on the current state of the user including the type of activities that are performed [see Swanson fig. 9 and 10, par. 0074 L. 13-21, par. 0079 L. 1-4, par. 0081 L. 14-15]. This teaching means if it is determined, based on the state of the user, that an additional activity must be performed before continuing to finish the first or second activity, the system will indicate the user that the additional activity/equipment needs to be performed/used. In other words, the modifying activity session includes pausing the first activity module, selecting another activity module from the plurality of activity modules, prompting the user to initiate the another activity module, and resuming the first activity module subsequent to the another activity module.
Claim(s) 60-61, 66-67 and 69-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Swanson (US-2017/0289651), Lockhart et al. (US-2021/0322853) and Song et al. (US-11,521,733) as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Sasahara et al. (US-2018/0110415).
In regards to claim 60, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart and Song, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, does not teach that the modifying includes removing the second activity and terminating the session.
On the other hand, Sasahara teaches that if the physiological parameter indicates that the user cannot longer exercise, the system displays an alarm indicating the user to stop exercising immediately [see Sasahara fig. 8]. This teaching means that the modifying the activity session includes removing the second activity module from the activity session and terminating the activity session subsequent to the first activity module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sasahara’s teachings of stopping the session if it is determined that the user cannot longer do the activity modules in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to protect the user from hurting.
In regards to claim 61, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart and Song, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, does not teach that the first or second duration are determined based at least in part on the physiological data or the motion data.
On the other hand, Sasahara teaches that if the physiological parameter indicates that a physiological state of the user has returned to normal, the system can indicate the user to resume exercising [see Sasahara fig. 15]. This teaching means that the first duration is determined based at least in part on at least a portion of the physiological data associated with the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sasahara’s teachings of letting a user to continue exercising if it is determined that is safe to do so in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to let the user perform the activity session only when it is safe to do so.
In regards to claim 66, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart and Song, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, does not teach determining a first physiological parameter associated with the user during the first activity module based at least in part on the physiological data, and determining whether the first physiological parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold.
On the other hand, Sasahara teaches determining a first physiological parameter associated with the user during the first activity module based at least in part on the physiological data, and determining whether the first physiological parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold [see Sasahara fig. 14 steps s201 and s203].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sasahara’s teachings of determining if physiological data of the user is within certain parameters in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to let the user perform the activity session only when it is safe to do so.
In regards to claim 67, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart, Song and Sasahara, as applied in the rejection of claim 66 above, teaches that the modifying the activity session includes (i) pausing the first activity module or (ii) terminating the first activity module responsive to determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold [see Sasahara fig. 14-15].
In regards to claim 69, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart, Song and Sasahara, as applied in the rejection of claim 67 above, further teaches causing a recommendation to be communicated to the user, wherein the modifying the activity session includes pausing the first activity module and the recommendation is communicated to the user while the first activity module is paused [see Sasahara fig. 8c, fig. 14, fig. 15].
In regards to claim 70, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart, Song and Sasahara, as applied in the rejection of claim 67 above, further teaches that the session can comprise a plurality of activity modules [see Swanson fig. 9], and if it is determined that a physiological parameter exceeds a threshold at any time during the session, a recommendation will be displayed to stop/pause exercising [see Sasahara fig. 8c, fig. 14, fig. 15]. These teachings mean that if it is determined that the physiological parameter exceeds a threshold after the first activity module has been performed, the recommendation to pause the exercise will be displayed between the first activity module and the second activity module. In other words, the method comprises causing a recommendation to be communicated to the user, wherein the modifying the activity session includes pausing the activity session between the first activity module and the second activity module and the recommendation is communicated to the user between the first activity module and the second activity module.
In regards to claim 71, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart, Song and Sasahara, as applied in the rejection of claim 67 above, further teaches that during any activity session the system can modify the current activity that is performed based on the current state of the user including the type of activities that are performed [see Swanson fig. 9 and 10, par. 0074 L. 13-21, par. 0079 L. 1-4, par. 0081 L. 14-15]. This teaching means if it is determined, based on the state of the user, that an additional activity/equipment must be performed/used when the user is performing the first or second activity, the system will indicate the user that the additional activity/equipment needs to be performed/used. In other words, the method further comprises causing a recommendation to be communicated to the user, wherein the recommendation includes a recommendation for the user to use additional equipment during the first activity module, the second activity module, or both.
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettelman et al. (US-8,888,721) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649), Swanson (US-2017/0289651), Lockhart et al. (US-2021/0322853) and Song et al. (US-11,521,733) as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Neumann (US-10,857,426).
In regards to claim 58, the combination of Gettelman, Mallon, Swanson, Lockhart and Song, as applied in the rejection of claim 56 above, teaches that the first activity module and the second activity module are selected from the plurality of modules based at least in part on a user profile associated with the user, previously-recorded physiological data associated with the user, previously-recorded motion data associated with the user, or any combination thereof [see Swanson par. 0074 L. 1-6].
The combination does not teach that the first activity module and the second activity module are selected from the plurality of modules using a trained machine learning algorithm.
On the other hand, Neumann teaches that activity modules can be selected using a trained machine learning algorithm [fig. 5 steps 525 and 530, col. 23 L. 24-46, col. 23 L. 55-67, col. 24 L. 1-3]. Also, Neumann teaches that the trained machine learning algorithm being configured to (i) receive as inputs the user profile associated with the user, previously-recorded physiological data associated with the user, previously-recorded motion data associated with the user, or any combination thereof and (ii) output the first activity module and the second activity module [fig. 5, col. 4 L. 5-7 and L. 33-43, col. 15 L. 33-38 and L. 49-64, col. 16 L. 56-65, col. 31 L. 17-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Neumann’s teachings of using machine learning to select the activity modules in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to better select modules that the user should perform and that will have greater benefit to the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688