DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a request for continued examination (“RCE”) filed 26 May 2026, on an application filed 23 December 2022, which claims foreign priority to applications filed on 28 December 2021 and 14 November 2022.
Claims 1-11, 13 and 17 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been canceled.
Claim 18 has been added by amendment.
Claims 1-11, 13, 17 and 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 May 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0152001, filed on November 14th, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 June 2026 has been considered by the Office to the extent indicated.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: exercise equipment with sesnsors that measure movement displacement that communicates with a smart gym server in order to accumulate user workout records and base an initial target weight of exercise equipment based on an estimated personal maximum weight of a user for the exercise equipment, and, based on accumulating records of the user using the initial target weight for the exercise equipment, determine an updated target weight of exercise equipment based on an calculated individual personal maximum weight of a user for the exercise equipment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations PMWestimation, PMWestimation, PMWindividual and PMWindividual. It is unclear whether these refer to the same elements as the use of normal script and subscript alternates. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Claim 1 recites the acronyms PMWestimation, PMWestimation, PMWindividual, PMWindividual, and PMW. Claim 9 recites the acronyms PMWestimation, PMWindividual, and PMW. THe first time an acronym is used in a claim branch it must be explicitly defined.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation so that. It is unclear whether the material following this limitation is required by the claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11, 13, 17 and 18 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-11, 13, 17 and 18 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-8 are drawn to a workout guide system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 9-11, 13-15 and 18 are drawn to a workout guide method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 17 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing commands, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A workout guide system comprising:
one or more pieces of fitness equipment;
one or more sensors provided in, attached to, or operatively coupled to the one or more pieces of fitness equipment, the one or more sensors being configured to measure a movement displacement of at least a portion of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment while a user uses the one or more pieces of fitness equipment and generate distance information corresponding to the measured movement displacement; and
a smart gym server comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions, the at least one processor being configured to:
communicate with the one or more pieces of fitness equipment disposed in one or more smart gyms;
receive workout records of the user from the one or more pieces of fitness equipment;
integrally manage workout records of the user collected from the one or more smart gyms;
estimate PMWestimation of at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment to be used by the user, based on an estimated muscular strength value calculated based on user data, wherein the estimated muscular strength value is calculated using information about the user's gender, BMI, body fat percentage, and age, wherein a percentile value to which the estimated muscular strength value belongs is detected from adult muscular strength percentile values, and wherein the PMWestimation is estimated by using a PMWestimation percentile value matched to the percentile value of the estimated muscular strength value;
automatically set an initial target weight of at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment to be used by the user, based on the PMWestimation; and
provide PMWindividual for the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment by complementing the PMWestimation with an individual objectification index of the user,
wherein PMW indicates muscular strength exerted by an individual against a resistance of a weight with an utmost effort, and
wherein the individual objectification index comprises regularity of repetitions (reps) in units of sets, and further comprises at least one of:
a weight of the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment, a number of repetitions (reps), a number of sets, a workout trajectory, and a moving velocity, which are determined when the user uses the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment for a pre-set period of time,
wherein the workout trajectory is determined based on the generated distance information and corresponds to movement displacement of the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment plotted against time,
wherein the regularity of reps in units of sets is determined based on workout trajectories of a plurality of repetitions configuring one set, wherein the regularity of reps in units of sets is determined based on whether the workout trajectories match each other, based on a distance between the workout trajectories, or based on a length of a time series, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine whether all repetitions configuring the set have been completed;
determine a performance time during which all repetitions configuring the set have been performed;
determine a degree of completion of the repetitions by dividing the regularity into an early regularity, a middle regularity, and a latter regularity within the set; and
convert the determined degree of completion into a numerical value as the individual objectification index, wherein the individual objectification index further reflects at least one of a standard deviation of an ascent starting point, a standard deviation of a descent starting point, a standard deviation of a height, a standard deviation of an ascending section velocity, and a standard deviation of a descending section velocity, calculated from the workout trajectories of the repetitions,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the PMWindividual based on the individual objectification index and the integrally managed workout records of the user, update the PMWindividual to a value greater than the PMWestimation when the individual objectification index is equal to or greater than a first reference value, update the PMWindividual to a value less than the PMWestimation when the individual objectification index is equal to or less than a second reference value,
determine an updated target weight value of the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment based on the PMWindividual, and transmit, to the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment or a user terminal, workout guide information including the updated target weight value to be displayed by the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment or the user terminal so that the user uses the at least one of the one or more pieces of fitness equipment in an optimized manner.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of “mathematical concepts” because they recite mathematical concepts and/or the abstract idea of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the steps of accumulating user information in order to determine optimized workout strategies) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the fitness equipment, sensors and the structural computer components), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 9 and 17 are identical as the abstract idea for claims 1, because the only difference between claims 1, 9 and 17 is that claim 1 recites a system, whereas claim 9 recites a method and claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 18 include other limitations, for example claims
3-5, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 recite material directed to further refining the previously indicated calculations and determinations of the independent claims, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 18 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 18 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 9 and 17.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1-11, 13, 17 and 18 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph 31 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the data to workout data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see the fitness equipment and sensors, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 18 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the displays of claims 2, 6, 9 and 14, the recitation of smart gyms of claim 8 and 18), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-11, 10, 11, 13-15 and 18), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1-11, 13, 17 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the structural components of the computer), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraph 31 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computer) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data ) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 18 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the displays of claims 2, 6, 9 and 14, the recitation of smart gyms of claim 8 and 18), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-11, 10, 11, 13-15 and 18), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-11, 13, 17 and 18 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 May 2026 concerning the interpretation claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims that remove the limitation a workout target setter. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation has been removed.
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 May 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 May 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 17-22 that the claims comprise statutory material because:
A. the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite fitness equipment, sensors that measure such equipment and calculations regarding the collected measurements, and such steps cannot be performed in the human mind.
B. The claims solve the technological problem of assisting a user in determining whether the user is properly using exercise equipment, and therefore the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
C. The ordered combination of the claims amounts to significantly more then the abstract idea, specifically the limitations directed to parts of the identified abstract idea and limitations that are identified as additional elements.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated statutory rejection of the claims, issued above, wherein the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding A., MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(Ill)(A) states that a claimed invention is directed to a mental process if the identified claim elements contain limitations that the human mind is equipped to perform. Abstract ideas that have been held to be practically performable in the human mind include collection/analysis of data, collection/comparison of data, and identifying/applying hair designs. The Office submits that Applicant's claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas as well as mathematical concepts. The Applicant has not identified anything in the claim invention that cannot be practically performed in the human mind; the cited elements regarding the gym equipment and sensors are not part of the identified Abstract idea, they are additional elements that merely encompass data gathering. For instance, the human mind can determine regularity of reps and calculate standard deviations. Because the identified features of the claim can be practically performed in the human mind, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding B., MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Regarding C., the Office notes that the updated statutory rejection of the claims, issued above, indicates that the claims, including the identified abstract and additional elements, are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Accordingly, the statutory rejection is upheld.
Conclusion
Unused but cited relevant prior art includes:
Asikainen et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2021/0008413 A1) discloses an interactive personal training system that provides feedback and recommendations relating to performing exercise movements.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
24 July 2026
Prosecution Insights