Detailed Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 1, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Objections
Claim(s) 35-36, 38, 40 and 44 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 35, the claim recites in line 11 “and the physiological data associated with the user as inputs”. The limitation of “physiological data” must not be preceded by the word “the” because it is the first time the limitation is introduced. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim(s) 36, 38, 40 and 44, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 43.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regards to claim 84, the limitations of claim 84 are already claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16-17, 35, 53-54, 56, 60, 66-67, 69-71, 73 and 84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (US-9,652,992) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649).
In regards to claim 1, Kaleal 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. 7 element 710, col. 35 L. 13-16]. Also, Kaleal teaches that the method comprises receiving, from one or more sensors, data associated with a user, the data including (i) motion data associated with movement of the user and (ii) physiological data associated with the user [fig. 10 step 1002, col. 8 L. 52-66, col. 10 L. 4-15, col. 12 L. 56-65, col. 15 L. 26-31 and L. 49-65]. Furthermore, Kaleal teaches that the system monitors physiological data of the user in real time while the user performs the first activity and take decisions based on the monitored data [fig. 10 steps 1004 and 1006, col. 15 L. 56-61, col. 24 L. 44-49, col. 30 L. 40-50]. 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. Kaleal further teaches that the method comprises determining whether the first physiological parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold [fig. 10 steps 1004 and 1006, col. 24 L. 34-49, col. 30 L. 40-50].
Kaleal teaches that the system receives motion and physiological data to guide a user to perform the first activity [fig. 10 steps 1002, 1004 and 1006]. However, Kaleal does not teach 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.
On the other hand, Mallon teaches that motion data and physiological data of the user can be combined to determine is performing the first activity [par. 0143 L. 1-6 and 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 filling date of the claimed invention, to use Mallon’s teachings of combining motion data and physiological data to determine if the user is performing the first activity in the method taught by Kaleal because it will permit the system to better determine that the user is performing the requested first activity and take any needed action.
The combination of Kaleal and Mallon teaches that physiological data and motion data can be used by the system to determine if the user is performing the first action and to output a display motivating the user to continue doing the first action if the first action is correctly performed by the user [see Kaleal fig. 10 steps 1002, 1004 and 1006, col. 10 L. 22-25, col. 24 L. 19-31, col. 26 L. 63-67, col. 27 L. 1-4, col. 61 L. 40-42, see Mallon ar. 0143 L. 1-6 and 14-30]. Also, the combination teaches that the system can use machine learning algorithms to analyze the data, take any needed actions and provide an output based on the data [see Kaleal col. 17 L. 55-67, col. 18 L. 1-3 and L. 48-52, col. 32 L. 41-51 and L. 61-67, col. 33 L. 1-15 and L. 50-60]. These teachings mean that the machine learning algorithms can be used to receive and analyze physiological and motion data, and to determine if the user is performing the first 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 the motion data associated with movement of the user and the physiological data associated with the user as inputs input and to output a determination whether the user is performing the first activity.
The combination further teaches that the system is able to determine that the user is not performing the first activity by determining that the physiological data of the user is above a threshold and the motion data indicates that the motion does not correspond to the first activity [see Kaleal fig. 10 steps 1002, 1004 and 1006, col. 10 L. 22-25, col. 24 L. 19-31 and L. 44-49, col. 26 L. 63-67, col. 27 L. 1-4, col. 30 L. 40-50, see Mallon par. 0143 L. 6-18]. Also, the combination teaches that if it is determined that the user is not performing the first activity correctly, the system can display a prompt indicating the user to perform a different movement that has less difficulty [see Kaleal fig. 7, col. 6 L. 53-57, col. 31 L. 61-67, col. 32 L. 1-4 and L. 10-12, col. 39 L. 58-63]. These teachings mean that the method comprises responsive to determining that the first physiological parameter exceeds the predetermined threshold and the user is not performing the first activity, causing second media content to be displayed on the display device comprising a second prompt to perform a second activity having a second difficulty that is less than the first difficulty of the first activity.
The combination further teaches that if it is determined that the user is not performing the first activity and the physiological data is above a threshold, the system can provide visual and audio feedback that will indicate the user that the first activity is being performed incorrectly [see Kaleal fig. 7, fig. 10 step 1008, col. 18 L. 13-26, col. 44-60, col. 30 L. 4-9 and L. 40-50, col. 31 L. 61-67, col. 32 L. 1-4, see Mallon par. 0143 L. 6-18]. This teaching means that the method comprises generating an alert 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 3, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches 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 may be the same or different than the first prompt [see Kaleal fig. 7, col. 24 L. 44-60, col. 48 L. 49-62].
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that if it is determined that the user is not performing the first activity and the physiological data is above a threshold, the system can provide visual and audio feedback that will indicate the user that the first activity is being performed incorrectly [see Kaleal fig. 7, fig. 10 step 1008, col. 18 L. 13-26, col. 44-60, col. 30 L. 4-9 and L. 40-50, col. 31 L. 61-67, col. 32 L. 1-4, see Mallon par. 0143 L. 6-18]. This teaching means that the method comprises causing an operation of the display device 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 Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the system displays instructions to the user to perform the first activity [see Kaleal col. 35 L. 13-16]. Also, the combination teaches that if the data shows that the user is not performing the first activity correctly, the system display a prompt to the user to take a break [see Kaleal col. 45 L. 17-26]. These teachings mean that the modification in the operation of the display device includes pausing at least the first media content that is displayed on the display device so the user can take a break.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that if it is determined that the user is not performing the first activity and the physiological data is above a threshold, the system can prompt the user via the display to perform the second activity [see Kaleal fig. 7, col. 6 L. 53-57, col. 30 L. 40-50, col. 31 L. 61-67, col. 32 L. 1-4 and L. 10-12, col. 39 L. 58-63, see Mallon par. 0143 L. 6-18]. 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 9, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the method comprises 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 adjacent to the first media content being displayed [see Kaleal fig. 7 element 714 and 716].
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the first physiological parameter includes a heart rate or a respiration rate [see Kaleal col. 8 L. 60-66].
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the system can display a prompt to the user indicating to perform a new activity when the sensor data indicates that the user has performed the first activity above standard or consistently on point [see Kaleal col. 45 L. 17-22 and L. 30-38]. This teaching means that once the sensor data indicates that the user has performed the first activity successfully, the system can display a prompt indicating that the user should perform another activity. In other words, the combination teaches that the method comprises determining that the user completed the first activity based at least in part on the data received from the one or more sensors, and responsive to determining that the user completed the first activity, causing the second media content to be displayed on the display device.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, 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 Kaleal fig. 7, col. 18 L. 16-20].
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the first activity is a therapy session [see Kaleal col. 37 L. 40-44].
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a method performing the functions of the claimed system using one or more of the claimed sensors. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed system comprising the claimed sensors. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the system comprises a memory storing machine-readable instructions and media content; and a control unit including one or more processors configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to perform the method [see Kaleal fig. 2, col. 70 L. 49-53].
In regards to claim 53, Kaleal teaches a method comprising prompting a user to initiate an activity routine/session [fig. 7, col. 14 L. 9-12, col. 25 L. 4-12, col. 35 L. 13-16]. Also, Kaleal teaches that the system can monitor a user performing the routine and suggest a second activity based on the performance of the user and selected from a plurality of activities [col. 43 L. 49-55, col. 45 L. 30-38, col. 47 L. 6-14]. This teaching means that the activity session comprises a first activity module and a second activity module, the first activity module and the second activity module being selected from a plurality of activity modules, the second activity module being subsequent to the first activity module. Furthermore, Kaleal teaches that the method comprises receiving physiological data associated with the user during the first activity module [col. 8 L. 52-66, col. 15 L. 56-61].
Kaleal teaches that the system receives motion and physiological data to guide a user to perform the first activity module [fig. 10 steps 1002, 1004 and 1006]. However, Kaleal does not teach 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.
On the other hand, Mallon teaches that motion data and physiological data of the user can be combined to determine is performing the first activity [par. 0143 L. 1-6 and 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 filling date of the claimed invention, to use Mallon’s teachings of combining motion data and physiological data to determine if the user is performing the first activity in the method taught by Kaleal because it will permit the system to better determine that the user is performing the requested first activity and take any needed action.
The combination of Kalel and Mallon teaches that the method comprises receiving motion data associated with movement of the user during the first activity module [see Kaleal col. 15 L. 61-65].
The combination of Kaleal and Mallon teaches that physiological data and motion data can be used by the system to determine if the user is performing the first activity and to output a display motivating the user to continue doing the first activity if the first action is correctly performed by the user [see Kaleal fig. 10 steps 1002, 1004 and 1006, col. 10 L. 22-25, col. 24 L. 19-31, col. 26 L. 63-67, col. 27 L. 1-4, col. 61 L. 40-42, see Mallon ar. 0143 L. 1-6 and 14-30]. Also, the combination teaches that the system can use machine learning algorithms to analyze the data, take any needed actions and provide an output based on the data [see Kaleal col. 17 L. 55-67, col. 18 L. 1-3 and L. 48-52, col. 32 L. 41-51 and L. 61-67, col. 33 L. 1-15 and L. 50-60]. These teachings mean that the machine learning algorithms can be used to receive and analyze physiological and motion data, and to determine if the user is performing the first activity. In other words, the method comprises determining, via a machine learning algorithm, whether the user is performing the first activity module, the machine learning algorithm being trained to receive the motion data associated with movement of the user and the physiological data associated with the user as inputs and output a determination whether the user is performing the first activity module.
The combination further teaches that if the user is not performing the first activity correctly, the system can display prompts to the user to take a brake (pause activity for a first duration) or to perform another activity that has less difficulty [see Kaleal col. 31 L. 61-67, col. 32 L. 1-4 and L. 10-12, col. 39 L. 58-63, col. 40 L. 13-17, col. 45 L. 22-30]. This teaching means that 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 the activity session includes (i) pausing the first activity module for a first duration, (iii) substituting the second activity module with a third activity module selected from the plurality of activity modules, or (iv) any combination thereof.
In regards to claim 54, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, teaches that the second activity module can have more difficulty [see Kaleal col. 45 L. 30-38, col. 47 L. 6-14]. 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 Kaleal and Mallon, 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 Kaleal col. 17 L. 55-65, col. 44 L. 64-67, col. 45 L. 1-5, col. 46 L. 61-67, col. 47 L. 1-6, col. 57 L. 28-40, col. 59 L. 41-65].
In regards to claim 60, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, teaches that the system can prompt the user to stop exercising if the user data indicates that the user cannot longer exercise [see Kaleal col. 5 L. 22-30]. 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.
In regards to claim 66, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, teaches that 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 Kaleal col. 15 L. 56-61, col. 24 L. 44-49, col. 26 L. 38-48, col. 30 L. 40-50].
In regards to claim 67, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 66 above, teaches that if the data physiological data indicates that the user is not performing the activity correctly, the system can prompt the user to take a break or stop [see Kaleal col. 45 L. 22-30]. This teaching means 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.
In regards to claim 69, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 67 above, teaches that if the data physiological data indicates that the user is not performing the activity correctly, the system can prompt the user to take a break [see Kaleal col. 45 L. 22-30]. This teaching means that the method comprises 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.
In regards to claim 70, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 67 above, further teaches that the session can comprise a plurality of activity modules [see Kaleal col. 43 L. 49-55, col. 47 L. 6-14], 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 Kaleal col. 45 L. 22-26]. 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 Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 67 above, further teaches that the activity session can include the use of different equipment, and 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 Kaleal col. 10 L. 38-43, col. 45 L. 30-38]. These teachings mean 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.
In regards to claim 73, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, further teaches that the system can prompt the user to take a break and initiate another easier or more difficult activity based on the performance of the user during an activity [see Kaleal col. 45 L. 22-38]. This teaching means that the modifying activity session can include 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.
In regards to claim 84, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 6 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (US-9,652,992) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649) as applied to claims 4 and 53 above, and further in view Sasahara et al. (US-2018/0110415).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, 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 61, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 53 above, that the system can prompt the user to take a break (stop for a first duration) based on the data [see Kaleal col. 45 L. 22-26]. However, the combination 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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (US-9,652,992) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649) 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 Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, 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 Kaleal (US-9,652,992) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649) 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 Kaleal and Mallon, 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 Kaleal col. 10 L. 4-10]. 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 Kaleal, Mallon 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 Kaleal fig. 1 element 106, fig. 20, see Gu fig. 3 element 104].
In regards to claim 40, the combination of Kaleal, Mallon 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 Kaleal fig. 20 element 2034 and 2036, col. 12 L. 34-42, col. 77 L. 52-59].
In regards to claim 44, the combination of Kaleal, Mallon 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 Kaleal col. 8 L. 60-66].
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (US-9,652,992) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649) as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Neumann (US-10,857,426).
In regards to claim 58, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, 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 Kaleal col. 17 L. 55-65, col. 44 L. 64-67, col. 45 L. 1-5, col. 46 L. 61-67, col. 47 L. 1-6, col. 57 L. 28-40, col. 59 L. 41-65].
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.
Claim(s) 85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (US-9,652,992) in view of Mallon et al. (US-2012/0259649) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al (US-9,993,166).
In regards to claim 85, the combination of Kaleal and Mallon, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the system comprises sensors to capture physiological data and motion data of the user [see Kaleal col. 8 L. 60-66, col. 10 L. 4-10]. However, the combination does not teach that motion data and the physiological data are both generated by the same sensor.
On the other hand Johnson teaches that a radar sensor can be used to generate motion data and physiological data of a user [col. 82 L. 35-41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Johnson’s teachings of using a single sensor to detect motion and physiological data in the method taught by the combination because it will permit to reduce the complexity of the system by using a single sensor to detect the motion and physiological data of the user.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights