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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 03/05/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 were amended by Applicant.
Claim 5 was previously presented by Applicant.
Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 17, and 19 – 20 remain as original.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 12/05/2025 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 12/05/2025 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 – 20, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. Remarks 10 - 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject claims noted were analyzed pursuant to MPEP 2106, et seq., and are still considered ineligible. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories; Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)); Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the subject claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, and, lastly, Part 2B checks whether the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the amended claim set will follow below.
As respects 35 USC 101, the claims as a whole amount to a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field nor improvements to the function of the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the specifics of the claims follows below.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 - 20 as amended do not recite a mental process. Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in the claim elements that precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person collecting data in their mind (i.e., thinking) about a known exercise course that they are considering running, at a known situs, then further deciding which exercise metric / procedure to perform there, all done whilst considering specific course segments / distances involved.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 – 20 amount to a practical application. Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While arguing that:
This recited processing is not directed to improving an abstract metric such as exercise performance, but instead to improving the accuracy of spatial measurements generated by a satellite-based location sensor through a constrained geometric correction relative to a stored segment-specific path model. In particular, the claims recite a specific technological technique that operates on sensor-derived location data to reduce positional deviation relative to known route geometry, thereby producing corrected segment-matched location data that more accurately reflects the user's true traversal of the selected segment. Accordingly, the claims recite a particular improvement in the functioning of a location-based tracking system itself, and integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical technological application.
It is unclear how generic location data, exposing corrections / deviations to the runner’s maps from satellite signals is a practical application. Generic GPS data is simply associated with the runner’s map info on his/her device, without more, to give location information.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 – 20 amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. Namely:
This is not merely the application of generic computer components to perform routine data processing, but rather a particular algorithmic transformation of satellite-derived coordinates that reduces sensor measurement error and produces corrected location data for subsequent metric determination. Such a technological improvement to the accuracy of sensor-generated spatial measurements constitutes significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Remarks 12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It remains unclear how that which is actually claimed (amended claims of 3/5/2026) reduces location errors. Namely, how satellite / smart phone derived location information errors are reduced by simply comparing the same on location to a map is neither intimated nor claimed, algorithmic transformations notwithstanding. Moreover, the word(s) “error”, nor even any allusion thereto, are absent from the claims.
Applicant essentially argues per 35 USC 103 that the citations provided by examiner, Guillermo, Thurston, and Carroll, did/do not serve to reasonably reject all claims (amended claims of 3/5/ 2026). Remarks 13 – 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Guillermo:
Guillermo is directed to integrating exercise segments into commute routes with transportation requests. While Guillermo teaches map data that "can indicate measurements, dimensions, distances, and/or other information for one or more objects included in the map data," (Guillermo, paragraph [0030]), this disclosure relates to general map data for roads and geographic features, not path information specific to a selected segment of an exercise route. Guillermo does not teach or suggest retrieving a path corresponding to a selected pre-defined segment.
Remarks 13.
Examiner disagrees with the above characterizations. The terms “route” and “path”, or portions, pieces, or segments thereof, are used throughout both Guillermo and the present application’s amended claims of 3/5/2026, wherein they both detail exercise courses traversed by users possessing both GPS and a smart phone. See Guillermo for example at [023] where the terms are actually equated. Applicant offers no support for the above argument that there’s any meaningful distinction between the two terms as used herein..
Applicant then argues Thurston :
Thurston is directed to ranking athletic performances across different courses using bounding boxes to match GPS data to predetermined courses. See Thurston, column 15, lines 12- 18. However, Thurston's bounding boxes are used for course identification and scoring purposes, not for retrieving segment-specific path information. Thurston does not teach or suggest that pre-determined distance information comprises a path corresponding to a selected pre-defined segment.
Remarks 13.
Examiner disagrees with the above characterizations. Thurston was used as a secondary reference herein regarding the independent claims 1, 10, and 18. It was used for bounding box mapping only, yet it still involves exercise routes and the user’s choosing portions thereof using GPS and a smart phone. Bounding Boxes as it were are fairly generic, and the location improvements / focusing related thereto are well known. Anyone in the art would have combined Guillermo and Thurston were bounding boxes seen as useful in this type of exercise paradigm. See 35 USC 103 analysis following.
Applicant lastly per 35 USC 103 argues the dependent claims. Remarks 15 – 17. Once again and as above, the dependent claims’ terms as amended are argued literally verses terms cited from the above described art. Examiner has latitude in this regard and applies any combination under 35 USC 103 reasonably. This also applies to the terms from the claims herein that are actually mapped. If several common terms as above are used interchangeably without any Disclosed distinctive support thereof, then they are used according to the their common usage. See 35 USC 103 analysis following.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 12/05/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 03/05/2026, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
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.
Independent claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Independent claims 1, 10 and 18
A method (claim 1), a device comprising a memory and a processor (claim 10) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor (claim 18): configured to: (note that device claim 10 is used immediately below since it’s representative of all three mirrored, independent claims):
Claim 10 (As amended, and representative of all independent claims 1, 10, and 18 sets forth:
A device comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to:
responsive to a determination that a location of a user is within a bounding box corresponding to a pre-defined exercise route:
provide, to the user, a segment selection message indicating one or more pre- defined segments corresponding to the pre-defined exercise route, and
receive a selection, from the user, of a pre-defined segment of the indicated one or more pre-defined segments corresponding to the pre-defined exercise route;
responsive to receipt of the selection, retrieve exercise route data for the pre- defined exercise route,
wherein the exercise route data comprises pre-determined distance information specific to the selected pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route
and the pre-determined distance information comprises a path corresponding to the selected pre-defined segment;
receive user location data derived from one or more received satellite signals, the user location data corresponding to a traversal of the pre-defined segment by the user;
generate segment-matched location data for the traversal of the pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route by the user by correlating the user location data derived from the one or more received satellite signals to the pre-determined distance information to the pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route,
wherein the correlating comprises adjusting one or more location points of the user location data toward the path to reduce deviation of the one or more location points from the path;
and display an exercise metric
determined based at least in part on the segment- matched location data that correlates the user location data derived from the one or more received satellite signals to the pre-determined distance information specific to the pre- defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method (claim 1), a machine (claim 10) and a non-transitory computer readable medium (composition, claim 18). These claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of:
generate segment-matched location data for the traversal of the pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route by the user by correlating the user location data derived from the one or more received satellite signals to the pre-determined distance information to the pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route;
wherein the correlating comprises adjusting one or more location points of the user location data toward the path to reduce deviation of the one or more location points from the path;
determined based at least in part on the segment- matched location data; that correlates the user location data derived from the one or more received satellite signals to the pre-determined distance information specific to the pre- defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route.
These (above, bolded) limitations, as drafted, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being performed using a device, processor, display, memory, and computer-readable medium. That is, other than reciting a device, processor, display, memory, and computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person collecting data in their mind (i.e., thinking) about a known exercise course that they are considering running, at a known situs, then further deciding which exercise metric / procedure to perform there, including tightening up the check points, location points, etc., so that the run, for example, is smaller / more manageable to them, all done whilst considering specific segment distances involved. The mere nominal recitations of a device, processor, display, memory, or computer-readable medium do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Moreover, examiner notes that the recent amendment to the independent claims of 11/03/2025 to add generic GPS data to them, does not transform the claims into a practical application. Only simple location data, without more, has been added to said amended claims via GPS. Thus, the claims continue to recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claims 1, 10, and 18 recite additional elements or steps of using a device, processor, display module, memory, GPS data, and/or computer-readable medium to determine, receive, retrieve, receive, generate and display data in order to provide an exercise metric. These additional elements (including the recently added GPS data, and including the pre-existing displaying element) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means for the gathering / displaying of exercise / route / location data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, these limitations merely describe generally “applying” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer, as noted above. The device, display, processor, memory, GPS data, and computer-readable medium are all recited at a high level of generality and they merely automate the evaluating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic devices, processors, displays, memories, and/or generic computer-readable media, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining, receiving, retrieving, receiving, generating, and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is nothing in the disclosure that recites that the devices, displays, memories, processors, GPS received data, nor computer-readable media are anything other than conventional, generic, computer components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the above underlined elements / steps of determining, receiving, retrieving, receiving, generating, and displaying (in order to provide an exercise metric) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2- 9, 11 – 17 and 19 – 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Examiner also notes that dependent claim 13 also generically claims the additional elements of satellite / network signals. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, including generically claimed GPS data. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer, notwithstanding the recent addition of claimed generic GPS data, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2 – 9, 11 – 17 and 19 – 20, are not patent eligible under the same rationale provided in the above rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
All claims 1 – 20 are ineligible pursuant to 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 6, 9 – 10, 12 – 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Guillermo (US20210048300A1) in view of Thurston (US11093513B2), and in further view of Crankson (US20150306457A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 18:
Guillermo discloses:
A device comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to: In one embodiment, a navigation device, includes a communication system, a storage system that stores map data, a positioning system that determines a position of the navigation device, one or more processors, and a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors and storing: a routing module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to …”, [004]) and (“Furthermore, arrangements described herein may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer-readable media having computer-readable program code embodied, e.g., stored, thereon”, [070]) (this refers to the added hardware of independent claim 18);
receiving a selection, from the user, of a pre-defined segment of the indicated one or more pre-defined segments corresponding to the pre-defined exercise route; (“a positioning system that determines a position of the navigation device … determine, according to the map data, a route plan between a starting point and a destination such that the route plan includes an exercise segment that a user will manually traverse with the navigation device”, [004]) and (“In one or more embodiments the user interface 115 can be configured to communicate with one or more external devices to receive input/display output”, [016]), a pre-defined exercise route is determined before embarking; and note that hardware found in independent claims 10 and 18 additionally include device, memory, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (“In one embodiment, a navigation device, includes a communication system, a storage system that stores map data, a positioning system that determines a position of the navigation device, one or more processors, and a memory communicably coupled to”, [004]) and (“In still another embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable medium for creating and managing a route having an integrated exercise segment includes instructions that, when executed by one or more processors,”, [006]) and
responsive to receipt of the selection, retrieving exercise route data for the pre-defined exercise route, wherein the exercise route data comprises pre-determined distance information corresponding to the pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route; (“In determining a route plan for execution, in one or more embodiments the navigation device 100 can generate multiple route plans and allow the user to select which route plan will be executed.”, [023]) and (“The map data 180 can include data that defines maps of one or more geographic areas or regions. In some instances, the map data 180 can include information or data on roads, traffic control devices, road markings, bike lanes, structures, features, and/or landmarks in the one or more geographic areas. The map data 180 can be in any suitable form. In some instances, the map data 180 can include image data showing aerial views of an area. In some instances, the map data 180 can include image data showing ground views of an area, including 360-degree ground views. The map data 180 can indicate measurements, dimensions, distances, and/or other information for one or more objects included in the map data 180 and/or relative to other objects included in the map data 180.”, [030]);
receive user location data derived from one or more received satellite signals, the user location data corresponding to a traversal of the pre-defined segment by the user; (“The positioning system 150 can include location determining components configured to acquire, for example, latitude, longitude, altitude, geocode, course, direction, heading, speed, universal time (UTC), date, and/or various other information/data. In one or more embodiments, the positioning system 150 can acquire information/data, sometimes known as ephemeris information/data, by identifying a number of satellites in view and relative positions of those satellites (e.g., using global positioning systems (GPS)).”, [020]), exercise info is correlated to location / distance data using GPS;
generate segment-matched location data for the traversal of the pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route by the user by correlating the user location data derived from the one or more received satellite signals to the pre-determined distance information to the pre-defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route; and (“In addition, in one or more embodiments the routing module 160 can further optimize the route plan by pairing the user with one or more other second users who are at a similar exercise difficulty level who have opted in to be open for exercise pairing. For example, the routing module 160 can transmit the exercise segment to an external system, such as a cloud server that provides an exercise matching service or to other navigation devices in the area. The routing module 160 can receive a communication from the external system indicating one or more nearby existing second exercise segments associated with second users and the times that the one or more second users are scheduled to begin their respective exercise segments. The routing module 160 can further transmit a difficulty rating for the exercise segment and in response, receive one or more second exercise segments with a similar difficulty rating.”, [040]) and (“The routing module 160 can adjust the route plan such that the exercise segment coincides with one of the one or more second exercise segments. That is, for example, the routing module 160 can select a second exercise segment that most matches in terms of location and difficulty level and create the route plan to include an exercise segment that matches the second exercise segment. In one or more embodiments, the routing module 160 can transmit a notification to the second user indicating that the user will be joining the second user for a matching exercise segment. Thus, the disclosed navigation device 100 can improve the exercise experience for users that exercise better with partners and are interested in meeting new people.”, [041]); location data can be correlated to user location data containing distance information corresponding to the segment, and see [020] as detailed above;
display an exercise metric determined based at least in part on the segment- matched location data that correlates the user location data derived from the one or more received satellite signals to the pre-determined distance information specific to the pre- defined segment of the pre-defined exercise route and the pre-determined distance information comprises a path corresponding to the selected pre-defined segment; (“In one or more embodiments, the route plan 200 and/or a relevant portion of it can be displayed on the user interface 115 for the user to follow.”, [026]) and (“Therefore, a navigation device, system and associated methods are disclosed herein that provides an approach to creating and optimizing a route plan having at least one integrated exercise segment that allows the user to partake in physical activity while traversing the route.”, [014]) and see [020] as above where exercise info is correlated/ matched to location / distance data using GPS, and (“That is, the routing module 160 can create the route plan based on one or more paths available between a starting point and a destination as indicated by the map data 180.”, [029]);
providing, to the user, a segment selection message indicating one or more pre- defined segments corresponding to the pre-defined exercise route, (“In one or more embodiments, prior to transmitting the request for transportation, the tracking module 170 can provide a notification on the user interface 115 indicating details of the transportation request and providing an option to extend the exercise segment. The notification display can be accompanied by a sound, vibration, or other means to alert the user. The tracking module 170 can wait for a predetermined amount of time for a response from the user before transmitting the transportation request.”, [045]);
Guillermo does not expressly disclose, but Thurston teaches:
responsive to determining that a location of a user is within a bounding box corresponding to a pre-defined exercise route; (“FIG . 10A illustrates one embodiment of “ bounding box” of GPS points”, [col. 3: 31 – 32]) and (“The first step is to efficiently obtain a smaller list of potential candidate courses. To find this list, a bounding box must encompass the latitude and longitude for beginning and end points of Cj (cji & cjN) for all courses ( e.g. , bounding box 1005 formed by the minimum and maximum of the latitude and longitude coordinates of original route 1000 shown in FIG . 10A.”, [col. 15: 12 - 18) and (“Embodiments disclosed herein are directed to a method for associating collected data relating to a user workout along a route with one or more of a set of predetermined courses.”, [col. 1: 66 – col. 2: 2]), GPS coordinates within a bounding box may be efficiently identified regarding an exercise route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Guillermo to incorporate the teachings of Thurston because Guillermo would be more efficient and versatile if it could maximize efficiency by using a bounding box within which the operative GPS coordinates relating to the exercise route would apply, as done in Thurston. (“The first step is to efficiently obtain a smaller list of potential candidate courses. To find this list, a bounding box must encompass the latitude and longitude for beginning and end points of Cj (cji & cjN) for all courses”, see Thurston, at col. 15: 12 – 15).
The combination Guillermo and Thurston does not expressly disclose, but Crankson teaches:
wherein the correlating comprises adjusting one or more location points of the user location data toward the path to reduce deviation of the one or more location points from the path; Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include that user locations may be adjusted, including towards the path chosen, … (“The user may further specify a distance he or she wishes to run and whether the run should follow roads. Based on these parameters, the system and interface may generate suggested routes and display such routes on map 7003. A user may modify the routes by interacting with the route lines displayed on map 7003, including additional intermediate points, adjusting the distance, modifying the start and end points and the like. The user may further use option 7005 to remove a previous step or steps taken. For example, if the user is creating the route by initially running or walking the route while the creation interface is active and the user makes a mistake in his or her path, the user may pause to remove the last portion of the path.”, [0344]), given the above, a user may adjust his/her location, and/or adjust things to remove portions of the path, and/or the user may otherwise “reduce deviation” from the path by adjusting the distance of prior portions / distances including those towards the path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Guillermo to incorporate the teachings of Crankson because Guillermo would be more efficient and versatile if it could reduce deviations from the path when desired by removal and/or by adjustment as done in Crankson . (“The user may further use option 7005 to remove a previous step or steps taken. For example, if the user is creating the route by initially running or walking the route while the creation interface is active and the user makes a mistake in his or her path, the user may pause to remove the last portion of the path.”, [0344]),
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 20:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, and Crankson disclose the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 18, respectively:
Guillermo further teaches:
providing a confirmation message that the location of the user is at the pre-defined exercise route in response to determining that the location of the user is within the bounding box; and receiving, from the user and responsive to the confirmation message, a confirmation indicating that the location of the user is at the pre-defined exercise route associated with the bounding box based on the confirmation message. (“In one or more embodiments, the user can further transmit a location to the external system (e.g., a scheduled travel location), and the external system can actively manage social encounters by analyzing the route plans and schedules of participating users and assess situations that include similar targets of training (e.g., easy jog or intense interval running) and/or similar whereabouts (based on schedule/route plans) so the system can forecast feasible encounters (e.g., based on similar training levels, scheduling) and propose such encounters in advance. If the user confirms a proposed encounter, the routing module 160 can create and schedule a route plan for the user accordingly. This feature can improve situations, for example, in which a user is traveling for business, by being able to identify in advance possible partner training encounters in the area the user is visiting temporarily and informing the user of places/routes that better match the user's preferences for training during the visit.”, [042]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, and Crankson disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Guillermo further teaches:
wherein determining that the location of the user is within the bounding box is based at least in part on at least one of a satellite signal or a network signal. (“The positioning system 150 can include location determining components configured to acquire, for example, latitude, longitude, altitude, geocode, course, direction, heading, speed, universal time (UTC), date, and/or various other information/data. In one or more embodiments, the positioning system 150 can acquire information/data, sometimes known as ephemeris information/data, by identifying a number of satellites in view and relative positions of those satellites (e.g., using global positioning systems (GPS)). The satellites may be a variety of different satellites, including Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite systems, Department of Defense (DOD) satellite systems, the European Union Galileo positioning systems, the Chinese Compass navigation systems, Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), Indian Regional Navigational satellite systems, and/or the like.”, [020]).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, and Crankson disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Guillermo further teaches:
generating a segment selection message indicating one or more pre-defined segments of the pre-defined exercise route; and receiving a selection of the pre-defined segment from the one or more pre-defined segments in response to the segment selection message. (“if upon reaching threshold point 265 the user indicates a preference to extend the exercise segment 240, the routing module 160 can determine an adjustment to the route plan 200, e.g., by shifting the checkpoint 270 farther away. The adjusted route plan, and/or a relevant portion thereof, can be displayed on the user interface 115 for the user to follow.”, [047]) and (‘In one or more embodiments, the user can further transmit a location to the external system (e.g., a scheduled travel location), and the external system can actively manage social encounters by analyzing the route plans and schedules of participating users and assess situations that include similar targets of training (e.g., easy jog or intense interval running) and/or similar whereabouts (based on schedule/route plans) so the system can forecast feasible encounters (e.g., based on similar training levels, scheduling) and propose such encounters in advance. If the user confirms a proposed encounter, the routing module 160 can create and schedule a route plan for the user accordingly. This feature can improve situations, for example, in which a user is traveling for business, by being able to identify in advance possible partner training encounters in the area the user is visiting temporarily and informing the user of places/routes that better match the user's preferences for training during the visit.”, [042]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, and Crankson disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Guillermo further teaches:
adjusting the pre-determined distance information corresponding to the pre-defined segment to match a pre-configured distance. Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include the meaning that routes may be adjusted, … (“The routing module 160 can adjust the route plan such that the exercise segment coincides with one of the one or more second exercise segments. That is, for example, the routing module 160 can select a second exercise segment that most matches in terms of location and difficulty level and create the route plan to include an exercise segment that matches the second exercise segment. In one or more embodiments, the routing module 160 can transmit a notification to the second user indicating that the user will be joining the second user for a matching exercise segment. Thus, the disclosed navigation device 100 can improve the exercise experience for users that exercise better with partners and are interested in meeting new people.”, [041]).
Regarding claims 9 and 17:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, and Crankson disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Guillermo further teaches:
wherein the exercise route data is derived from a map data associated with the pre-defined exercise route. … (“The subject matter described herein relates, in general, to a system and method for creating a route plan for a trip, and, more particularly, to creating a route plan that includes an integrated training segment that a user manually traverses.”, [001]) and (“The positioning system 150 can include location determining components configured to acquire, for example, latitude, longitude, altitude, geocode, course, direction, heading, speed, universal time (UTC), date, and/or various other information/data. In one or more embodiments, the positioning system 150 can acquire information/data, sometimes known as ephemeris information/data, by identifying a number of satellites in view and relative positions of those satellites (e.g., using global positioning systems (GPS)). The satellites may be a variety of different satellites, including Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite systems, Department of Defense (DOD) satellite systems, the European Union Galileo positioning systems, the Chinese Compass navigation systems, Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), Indian Regional Navigational satellite systems, and/or the like.”, [020]).
Claims 2, 11, and 19 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Guillermo (US20210048300A1) in view of Thurston (US11093513B2), in further view of Crankson (US20150306457A1), and in further view of Naylor (WO2015044666A2, note an English copy is attached hereto).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, and Crankson disclose the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 18, respectively:
That combination does not expressly disclose, but Naylor teaches:
accessing a location of interest of the user; and (“The location information can indicate the position of the respective one of the devices 10, 20 or a location that is chosen by one of the users (e.g. a desired start point remote from one or more of the devices). A user or his device may also specify a zone around an indicated location in which the user is willing to participate in the race.”, [see paragraph “1.”];
accessing bounding boxes corresponding to pre-defined exercise routes within a radius of the location of interest. (“The location information can indicate the position of the respective one of the devices 10, 20 or a location that is chosen by one of the users (e.g. a desired start point remote from one or more of the devices). A user or his device may also specify a zone around an indicated location in which the user is willing to participate in the race. For example, the location information could be "Washington Park, Richmond, Virginia" or "Latitude 54.000°, longitude -0.500°, radius 2km, “, [see paragraph “1.”];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Guillermo to incorporate the teachings of Naylor because Guillermo would be more efficient and versatile if it could maximize efficiency by determining which potential exercise routes are within a prescribed radius from user, as done in Naylor. (“That area around each location may be an area that is defined by a predefined or selected radius about the location or by a pair of maximum orthogonal offsets from the location. The size of the area may be dependent on the various factors such as the chosen physical activity. For example, the geographic area analysed for the activity of cycling may be larger than the area analysed for the activity of running”, [third paragraph following “3.”]).
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Guillermo (US20210048300A1) in view of Thurston (US11093513B2), in further view of Crankson (US20150306457A1), and in further view of Carroll (US7591731B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 15:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, and Crankson disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
That combination does not expressly disclose, but Carroll teaches:
wherein the pre-defined exercise route is a running track and the pre-defined segment is a lane. (“Several sporting events involve competitors racing around an oval track consisting of two straightaway portions and two curved portions connecting the straightaway portions. FIG. 1A illustrates a traditional track 10 with straightaway portions extending from point 101 to 106 and point 103 to 104 and curved portions extending from point 101 to 102 to 103 and point 104 to 105 to 106. A traditional track 10 often includes several parallel lanes where lane 1 is the innermost lane. FIG. 1B shows a portion of track 10 extending from point 106 to 101 to 102. As can be seen in FIG. 1B, track 10 includes of 8 parallel lanes 131-138. In several events utilizing track 10, each competitor must stay within his or her assigned lane.”, [col. 1: 18 – 31]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Guillermo to incorporate the teachings of Carroll because Guillermo would be more efficient and versatile if it could replicate / utilize a traditional track with lanes in its exercise program, as done in Carroll. (“A traditional track 10 often includes several parallel lanes where lane 1 is the innermost lane. FIG. 25 1B shows a portion of track 10 extending from point 106 to 101 to 102. As can be seen in FIG. 1B, track 10 includes of 8 parallel lanes 131-138. In several events utilizing track 10, each competitor must stay within his or her assigned lane. At least twelve Olympic events require competitors to stay 30 within an assigned lane:”, [col. 1: 24 – 31]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16:
The combination of Guillermo, Thurston, Crankson and Carroll disclose the limitations of claims 7 and 15, respectively:
Carroll further teaches:
wherein the exercise metric comprises one or more of a lap count, a lap duration, and a lap distance. (“Despite this “staggered start” positioning that equalizes the distance run by each competitor, a serious lack of parity between competitors in track events remains.”, [col. 1: 40 – 43]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Guillermo to incorporate the teachings of Carroll because Guillermo would be more efficient and versatile if it could replicate / utilize a traditional track with lanes in its exercise program, as done in Carroll. (“A traditional track 10 often includes several parallel lanes where lane 1 is the innermost lane. FIG. 25 1B shows a portion of track 10 extending from point 106 to 101 to 102. As can be seen in FIG. 1B, track 10 includes of 8 parallel lanes 131-138. In several events utilizing track 10, each competitor must stay within his or her assigned lane. At least twelve Olympic events require competitors to stay 30 within an assigned lane:”, [col. 1: 24 – 31]).
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 extension fee 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Monteleone (US20210029491A1) – A computer-implemented method and system for tracking a user's course using geolocation data is provided. The method comprises obtaining a set of predetermined GPS locations representing a course; tracking movements of a user using a GPS controller; authenticating the movements of the user against the set of predetermined GPS locations while the client terminal is within a predetermined distance of at least one of the set of predetermined GPS locations; and presenting consolidated timing information about the user's movements along the set of predetermined GPS locations. The system comprises a central processing server in communication with a computer network and configured to obtain information from a central database; and one or more client terminals in communication with the central processing server via the computer network, and configured to provide a graphical user interface for user interaction with the central processing server.
Case (US20140228987A1) - Athletic performance monitoring systems and methods, many of which utilize, in some manner, global positioning satellite (“GPS”) data, provide data and information to athletes and/or to equipment used by athletes during an athletic event. Such systems and methods may provide route information to athletes and/or their trainers, e.g., for pre-event planning, goal setting, and calibration purposes. Such systems and methods optionally may provide real time information to the athlete while the event takes place, e.g., to assist in reaching the pre-set goals. Additionally, data and information collected by such systems and methods may assist in post-event analysis for athletes and their trainers, e.g., to evaluate past performances and to assist in improving future performances.
Stelfox (US20150375083A1) - Embodiments of the present invention provide methods, apparatuses, and computer program products directed to generating event visualizations based on location data. In one example, a method for providing enhanced event visualizations based on location data is provided which includes receiving, by a visualizations processor, play diagram data from a play model database and receiving location data during a play period for a plurality of participants. The method further includes determining a selected play based on comparing the location data to the play diagram data and determining an actual route for one or more participants of the plurality of participants based on the location data. The method further includes generating, by the visualization processor, an accuracy visualization interface by comparing the actual route for each of the one or more participants to the selected play.
Halevy (US20220241642A1) – A method, comprising providing playback of one or more sets of three dimensional positional data of a subject performing an activity; detecting input from an editor respective to the playback of the one or more sets of three dimensional positional data; and storing parameters of the activity based on the detected input in an activity profile for use in movement based instruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, 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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661