DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 101 analysis begins with establishing the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of claim. Independent claims 1, 10 and 15 are similar in scope and will therefore be analyzed together. The claims recite an exercise guidance device (claim 1) exercise guidance method (claim 10) and a computer readable medium (claim 15).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 15, the claim recites an exercise guidance device, a processor that receives a PMWinput of a user, “automatically set” a target weight of an exercise machine is described very broadly in the Specification, and therefore corresponds to outputting a target weight (rather than, say, interacting with mechanical components to fully automatically set a desired weight for the user). In fact, the Specification describes a standard weight machine with a selectable stack of weight plates and does not depict in the figures nor describe in the Specification any mechanism to “automatically set” the target weight for the user other than outputting a number. The BRI of the term “automatically select”, therefore corresponds to outputting a target weight to the user. The claim describes a user objectification index, which is a numerical value, and PMW, another value indicative of muscular strength. The claim further recites the user objectification index comprises an exercise trajectory and/or regularity of repetitions in units of sets, but as indicated above the claim requires the user objectification index to be a numerical value, so the exercise trajectory and/or regularity of repetitions in units of sets is therefore also construed to be a numerical value. The claim recites the exercise guidance device comprises a sensor, which the Specification establishes in para. 47 as a laser beam and reflected and measured from a pin of a weight stack to detect location, movement speed and movement direction of a selected number of weights in the stack. The claim recites the exercise trajectory is determined based on sensed distance and corresponds to movement displacement of the fitness equipment plotted against time. Again, however, the exercise trajectory is interpreted to be a numerical value representative of equipment displacement. The claim goes on to recite the regularity of reps is determined based on exercise trajectories, based on whether trajectories match each other based on distance or a length of a time series. This involves mathematical operations of comparing numerical values. The claim recites determine whether all repetitions configuring the set have been completed, which involves comparing the number of repetitions completed to a target value, which is also a mathematical operation. The claim recites determine a degree of completion based on division of the regularity, which is again a mathematical operation. The claim recites convert the degree of completion into a numerical value, which is again a mathematical operation. The claim recites wherein the user objectification 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 exercise trajectories of the repetitions, all of which are considered mathematical operations. Finally, the claim recites the processor is configured to determine the PMW, which is also considered a mathematical operation. The analysis then proceeds to Step 1.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes claims 1-2, 4-9 recite a machine, YES for claims 10-14, which recite a process, and YES for claim 15, which recites a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim recites mathematical operations, which are identified as abstract ideas in MPEP §2106.04.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Apart from the mathematical operations, the claim recites a processor, exercise device and sensor. However, these components, nor the disclosure in general, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, no particular machine is recited, there is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing and there is no evidence in the disclosure of applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The exercise machine is generically recited and is only used as a source of the input data for the mathematical process, the “automatic setting” described above with respect to claim interpretation reflects the output of the mathematical process, and nothing in the claim reflects anything other than applying this particular, specific mathematical process to the field of strength training. Therefore, Step 2A: No, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The additional elements are recited as generic components performing there well known functions. The additional elements reflect well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, mathematical operations. - see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 15 and all claims depending therefrom are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite “automatically set, based on the PMWAi, a target weight of an exercise machine to be used by the user”. The BRI of this limitation includes mechanically altering the exercise machine to set the exercise weight, but the Specification details no such structure for performing the claimed function. The Figures show a screen that presumably outputs the recommended weight, but does not show any mechanical means of automatically adjusting the weight for the user. Therefore, the subject matter of the claims is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 101 rejections, applicant argues that the claims now recite sensors tied to an exercise machine and therefore the claims are not directed to mathematical operations. As discussed above, the claims are still considered directed to mathematical operations, as the sensor measurements only serve as inputs to the claimed mathematical operations, and do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception.
Applicant further argues that automatically setting the exercise weight is not a mathematical operation. As discussed in the claim interpretation section of the 101 rejection above, the BRI of automatically setting the exercise weight includes outputting the result of the mathematical operations. Therefore this step is not enough to overcome the finding that the claim is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Applicant further argues that the claim reflects a specific improvement in exercise machines. Examiner notes that the BRI of the claimed process is directed to the mathematical operations of determining the PWM for the user, and the specification does not describe a technical solution to a technical problem in the manner the courts have recognized amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that setting the target weight of the exercise machine automatically may involve the physical change or movement of the exercise machine, however Examiner notes this feature is not described in the Specification in such a way as to establish possession of the claimed invention.
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 SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4966. 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.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights