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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 12/22/25. Claims 1, 10 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module” in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for extending the functionality of an interactive exercise platform. The limitation of in response to a tracker module being coupled to a console and an electrical communication between the tracker module and the console having been established, performing an authentication of the tracker module, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “tracker module” and “the console,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “tracker module” and “the console,” language, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually checking a tracking device. Similarly, the limitations of: communicating are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a few additional elements - “tracker module” and “the console”. The “tracker module” and “the console” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “tracker module” and “the console,” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2022/0062706 A1 to Case, Jr. (hereinafter “Case, Jr.”).
Concerning claim 1, Case, Jr. discloses a method for extending functionality of an interactive exercise platform (paragraphs [0074]-[0080]), the method comprising:
in response to a tracker module being coupled to a console and an electrical communication between the tracker module and the console having been established, performing, by the console, an authentication of the tracker module (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0018], [0075]-[0080] – authenticating/ on/off switching between the electronic module (Fig. 7, 102) and the display device (Fig. 7, 110) is established and used to start the tracking of the equipment); and
in response to the authentication being successful, communicating a result of the authentication to a display device to unlock one or more features associated with at least one of the tracker module or the display device (paragraphs [0030], [0039]).
Concerning claim 2, Case, Jr. discloses further comprising: receiving, at the console, user-related data from the tracker module; using the user-related data to determine a metric associated with a motion; using the metric to generate a set of user instructions; and communicating the set of user instructions to the display device (paragraphs [0016], [0035], [0053], [0054], [0056], [0080], [0084]).
Concerning claims 3 and 11, Case, Jr. discloses wherein the tracker module comprises a heart rate sensor (paragraphs [0014], [0072]).
Concerning claims 4, 12, and 18, Case, Jr. discloses further comprising comparing the user-related data to existing data to determine whether the metric satisfies a condition (paragraph [0084]).
Concerning claims 5, 13, and 18, Case, Jr. discloses wherein the metric is associated with at least one of acceleration information or orientation information associated with at least one user (paragraphs [0038], [0072]).
Concerning claims 6, 14, and 19, Case, Jr. discloses, further comprising communicating the user-related data to a server to update one or more instructions in the set of user instructions and communicate the one or more instructions to the console (paragraphs [0051]).
Concerning claim 10, Case, Jr. discloses a console for interactive exercise and gaming (paragraphs [0074]-[0080]), the console comprising:
a set of tracker charging slots to receive a set of trackers; a first communication interface to communicate with the set of trackers; a receptacle to receive a tracker module (paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0039], [0048], [0049], [0051]); and
a second communication interface to communicate with a display device. a processor (Fig. 7, paragraph [0051]); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 3, cause steps to be performed, the steps comprising:
in response to the tracker module being coupled to the receptacle, establishing an electrical communication with the tracker module; performing an authentication of the tracker module (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0018], [0075]-[0080] – authenticating/ on/off switching between the electronic module (Fig. 7, 102) and the display device (Fig. 7, 110) is established and used to start the tracking of the equipment);
in response to the authentication being successful, communicating a result of the authentication to the display device to unlock one or more features associated with at least one of the tracker module or the display device (paragraphs [0030], [0039]);
in response to receiving user-related data from the tracker module, determining a metric associated with a motion to generate a set of user instructions; and communicating the set of user instructions to the display device (paragraphs [0016], [0035], [0053], [0054], [0056], [0080], [0084]).
Concerning claim 17, see the rejection of claim 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-9, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case, Jr. in view of US Publication No. 2023/0005591 A1 to Balakrishnan et al. (hereinafter “Balakrishnan”).
Concerning claims 7 and 15, Case, Jr. discloses wherein the console comprises a set of recesses that each, in response to a tracker being magnetically attached to the recess (paragraphs [0021], [0022], [0032], [0039], [0052],[ 0067]), however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Balakrishnan discloses inductively charges the tracker (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inductive charging as disclosed by Balakrishnan in the system of Case, Jr. in order to improve durability by reducing wear and tear on device charging ports.
Concerning claim 8, Case, Jr. discloses wherein the console comprises a ferromagnetic material (paragraph [0021]).
Concerning claims 9 and 16, Case, Jr. discloses wherein the ferromagnetic material is least one of a permanent magnet or a magnetically conductive surface layer to magnetically couple to the tracker (paragraphs [0021], [0067]).
Concerning claim 20, Case, Jr. discloses wherein the console comprises a set of recesses that each, in response to a tracker being magnetically attached to the recess, the console further comprising a ferromagnetic material that is least one of a permanent magnet or a magnetically conductive surface layer to magnetically couple to the tracker (paragraphs [0021], [0022], [0032], [0039], [0052],[ 0067]), however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Balakrishnan discloses inductively charges the tracker (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inductive charging as disclosed by Balakrishnan in the system of Case, Jr. in order to improve durability by reducing wear and tear on device charging ports.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims are not an abstract idea and are integrated into a practical application. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Other than reciting “tracker module” and “the console,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections, Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose “in response to a tracker module being coupled to a console and an electrical communication between the tracker module and the console having been established, performing, by the console, an authentication of the tracker module”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In at least Fig.7 are paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0018], [0075]-[0080], Case, Jr. discloses authenticating/ on/off switching between the electronic module (Fig. 7, 102) and the display device (Fig. 7, 110) is established and used to start the tracking of the equipment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715