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 .
Response to Amendment Accompanying Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
The amendment accompanying request for continued examination (RCE) filed August 3, 2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 19. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-20.
Claims 1-9 are drawn to a fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network to a user (i.e., manufacture). Claims 10-18 are drawn to a fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network to a user (i.e., manufacture). Claims 19-20 are drawn to a fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network to a user (i.e., manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-20.
Claim 1 recites:
A fitness tracking computing system, the fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network to a visual display of a device viewable by a user, wherein the device is any of a smart phone, tablet computer, and a laptop, wherein the fitness tracking computing system is in communication with a database, wherein the fitness tracking computing system maintains a private account for the user and a professional account for a professional user, wherein the private account and the professional account are linked via a user-controlled linkage that permits the professional user to push a rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account, wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account, wherein the fitness tracking computing system configured to: transmit to the visual display an instruction, wherein the instruction identifies an exercise to be performed by the user, wherein the exercise is part of the rehabilitative therapy regimen pushed to the private account;
during performance of the exercise by the user, provide an exercise status summary to the visual display;
based on the user's movements during performance of the exercise, as tracked by a camera, provide feedback to the visual display;
track and log performance of the exercise by the user in the database;
automatically modify the rehabilitative therapy regimen in the database based on a detected over-performance or under performance of the exercise by the user, wherein the detected under performance comprises a determination, from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user as tracked by the camera, that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb;
and determine an effectiveness of the rehabilitative therapy regimen.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can provide instruction for an exercise, a status summary of the exercise, feedback to the user, a log of exercise performance, and an assessment of rehabilitative therapy effectiveness. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “systems, apparatuses, devices, and methods described herein can also provide the ability to manually track cardiovascular routines and body weight.” [0019].
Independent claims 10 and 19 describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are directed towards mini-tasks (visual instruction, audio instruction, animated instruction, etc.) for a fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network to a user. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, or analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a computing system, a smart phone, tablet computer, a laptop, and a database (independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Similarly, the limitations of processing and storage units (independent claims 1, 10, and 19 dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable under US 20120259652 A1 (“Mallon”) in view of US 20080004904 A1 (“Tran”) and in further view of US 9384329 B2 (“Wilson”).
In regard to claim 1, Mallon discloses
A fitness tracking computing system, the fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network ([0043], “system … comprises … network interfaces”) to a visual display of a device viewable by a user ([0077], “The microprocessor … may indicate the device's status on … visual … display” Examiner notes that the microprocessor is connected to the network.), wherein the device is any of a smart phone, tablet computer, and a laptop ([0032], “The gateway can be … a … device such as a Smartphone”), wherein the fitness tracking computing system is in communication with a database ([0091], “it can be seen that server … can be interfaced with database(s)”), wherein the fitness tracking computing system maintains a private account for the user ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.) and a professional account for a professional user ([0106], “the … physical therapist, occupational therapist, physician, personal trainer, coach, wellness expert, etc., can also input information, e.g., in the form of comments, observations, recommendations, etc., which can also be used … to generate the baseline assessment, individualized treatment plan”), wherein the private account and the professional account are linked via a user-controlled linkage that permits the professional user to push a rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account ([0054], “Processor … can be configured to control the operation of device … based on instructions stored in memory”, Examiner notes that the processor can be configured to link the private account to the professional account using user controls.), wherein the fitness tracking computing system configured to ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … a database configured to store treatment information”):
transmit to the visual display an instruction ([0109], “camera … can capture … video of the … individual for … instruction on a Smartphone” Examiner notes that a video provides visual display.), wherein the instruction identifies an exercise to be performed by the user, wherein the exercise is part of ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … exercises … performed by the subject according to a treatment plan”) the rehabilitative therapy regimen ([0092], “Database … can … be configured to store treatment plan information including, … prescriptions for physical therapy or rehabilitation”) pushed to the private account ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.);
during performance of the exercise by the user, provide an exercise status summary to the visual display ([0109], “the … individual can be … running a program that displays content on monitor … and reacts to the patient's movements” Examiner notes that the displayed content may be an exercise status summary.);
based on the user's movements during performance of the exercise, as tracked by a camera, provide feedback to the visual display ([0109], “Camera … can … be used to provide visual feedback”);
track and log performance of the exercise by the user in the database ([0016], “a database configured to store treatment information, … subject information, reporting, … for a plurality of subjects” Examiner notes that reporting often includes tracking and logging information.);
automatically modify the rehabilitative therapy regimen in the database based on a detected over-performance or under performance of the exercise by the user ([0040], “data sets can improve treatment plan optimization and customization, can allow for in depth trending, alarming, etc., and allow modification of treatment plans”) wherein the detected under performance comprises a determination ([0033], “Algorithms … can be configured to not only detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment, i.e., whether the patient is progressing, regressing, straining too hard, unable to perform certain exercises, or whether the exercises are too easy or are not producing the intended results”), as tracked by the camera ([0101], “the camera can be used in conjunction with other motion sensors that detect movement”),
and determine an effectiveness of the rehabilitative therapy regimen ([0033], “Algorithms … can be configured to not only detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment”).
Mallon does not disclose
wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account
from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user
that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb.
However, in an analogous art of monitoring, Tran discloses
wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account ([0257], “The user may give permission to others as needed to read or edit their personal data … The user or clinician could have a list of people that they want to monitor and have it show on their ‘My Account’ page, which serves as a local central monitoring station in one embodiment. Each person may be assigned different access rights which may be more or less than the access rights that the patient has … a doctor or clinician could be allowed to edit data … while the patient would have read-only privileges”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed limitations, the claim limitation, wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account, of Tran into the system of Mallon would not change the basic principle operation of Mallon, nor would it render Mallon unsuitable for its intended purpose of monitoring and management of physical activity and movement; rather it would enhance monitoring and management of physical activity and movement by granting access rights, permissions, and privileges to users.
Further, Wilson is also analogous art because it is in the field of caloric burn and body movement. Wilson discloses from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user (column 10, lines 19-24, “The user has raised his left arm from his side straight up from the shoulder … keeping his elbow straight so that the lower arm … extends … straight from the upper arm … The user has raised his right arm from his side, but has also raised his lower arm … with respect to his upper arm … by bending at the elbow”) and that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb (column 13, lines 52-57, “The capture device ... is able to determine when a user is squatting and ... whether the user is supporting his weight on just one leg (with for example the opposite weight being held off the ground)”). Substituting from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user and that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb of Wilson into Mallon would not alter the basic principle operation of Mallon and would remain entirely compatible or enhance the operation of monitoring and management of physical activity and movement by adding a capture device.
In regard to claim 2, Mallon discloses
wherein the instruction is a visual instruction ([0100], “baseline assessment can involve the creation of an avatar that can … be used … for visual instruction”).
In regard to claim 3, Mallon discloses
wherein the instruction further comprises an audio instruction conveyed by the device ([0148], “camera may … be configured to include an audio component, such that any sounds made … during performance of an exercise, can be … included with the … projection onto the display.”).
In regard to claim 4, Mallon discloses
wherein the instruction is an animated instruction ([0034], “an avatar can be a part of the treatment plan used as a guide or instructor/coach for the prescribed treatment” Examiner notes that an avatar can be an animation.).
In regard to claim 5, Mallon discloses
wherein the exercise status summary comprises set data and repetition data ([0121], “Server … can … use this information … to determine … whether the proper sets and repetitions, etc. were performed”).
In regard to claim 6, Mallon discloses
wherein the exercise status summary comprises timing data ([0121], “server … can receive the data and extract timing and movement information”).
In regard to claim 7, Mallon discloses
wherein the feedback is posture-based feedback ([0132], “the … data may indicate that the subject is not performing an exercise properly, e.g., does not have proper posture”).
In regard to claim 8, Mallon discloses
wherein the feedback is speed-based feedback ([0114], “server … can use the data to determine an individual's capacity to perform certain … exercises … with respect to … speed”).
In regard to claim 9, Mallon discloses
further comprising the database ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … a database”).
In regard to claim 10, Mallon discloses
A fitness tracking computing system, the fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network ([0043], “system … comprises … network interfaces”) to visual displays of each of a plurality of devices, wherein the visual displays of each of the plurality of devices is viewable by a respective user ([0077], “The microprocessor … may indicate the device's status on … visual … display” Examiner notes that the microprocessor is connected to the network.), wherein each of the plurality of devices is any of a smart phone, tablet computer, and a laptop ([0032], “The gateway can be … a … device such as a Smartphone” Examiner notes that the gateway includes a microprocessor and a network interface.), wherein the fitness tracking computing system is in communication with a database ([0091], “it can be seen that server … can be interfaced with database(s)”), wherein the fitness tracking computing system maintains a respective private account for each respective user ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.) and at least one professional account for a professional user ([0106], “the … physical therapist, occupational therapist, physician, personal trainer, coach, wellness expert, etc., can also input information, e.g., in the form of comments, observations, recommendations, etc., which can also be used … to generate the baseline assessment, individualized treatment plan”), wherein each respective private account is linked to the at least one professional account via user-controlled linkage that permits the professional user to push a rehabilitative therapy regimen associated with the respective user to the respective private account ([0054], “Processor … can be configured to control the operation of device … based on instructions stored in memory”, Examiner notes that the processor can be configured to link the private account to the professional account using user controls.), wherein the fitness tracking computing system configured to ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … a database configured to store treatment information”):
transmit an instruction to the visual display of each of a plurality of devices ([0109], “camera … can capture … video of the … individual for … instruction on a Smartphone” Examiner notes that a video provides visual display.), wherein the instruction identifies an exercise to be performed by the respective user, wherein the exercise is part of ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … exercises … performed by the subject according to a treatment plan”) the rehabilitative therapy regimen ([0092], “Database … can … be configured to store treatment plan information including, … prescriptions for physical therapy or rehabilitation”) pushed to the respective private account ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.);
during performance of the exercise by each of the respective users, provide an exercise status summary to the visual display of the device of the respective user ([0109], “the … individual can be … running a program that displays content on monitor … and reacts to the patient's movements” Examiner notes that the displayed content may be an exercise status summary.);
based on the respective user's movements during performance of the exercise, as tracked by a camera, provide feedback to the visual display of the device of the respective user ([0109], “Camera … can … be used to provide visual feedback”);
track and log performance of the exercise by each of the respective users in the database ([0016], “a database configured to store treatment information, … subject information, reporting, … for a plurality of subjects” Examiner notes that reporting often includes tracking and logging information.);
automatically modify the rehabilitative therapy regimen associated with the respective user in the database based on a detected over-performance or under-performance of the exercise by the respective user, ([0040], “data sets can improve treatment plan optimization and customization, can allow for in depth trending, alarming, etc., and allow modification of treatment plans”) wherein the detected under-performance comprises a determination ([0033], “Algorithms … can be configured to not only detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment, i.e., whether the patient is progressing, regressing, straining too hard, unable to perform certain exercises, or whether the exercises are too easy or are not producing the intended results”), as tracked by the camera ([0101], “the camera can be used in conjunction with other motion sensors that detect movement”);
and determine an effectiveness of the rehabilitative therapy regimen based on the performance of each of the respective users ([0033], “Algorithms … can be configured to not only detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment”).
Mallon does not disclose
wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account
from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user
that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb.
However, in an analogous art of monitoring, Tran discloses
wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account ([0257], “The user may give permission to others as needed to read or edit their personal data … The user or clinician could have a list of people that they want to monitor and have it show on their ‘My Account’ page, which serves as a local central monitoring station in one embodiment. Each person may be assigned different access rights which may be more or less than the access rights that the patient has … a doctor or clinician could be allowed to edit data … while the patient would have read-only privileges”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed limitations, the claim limitation, wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account, of Tran into the system of Mallon would not change the basic principle operation of Mallon, nor would it render Mallon unsuitable for its intended purpose of monitoring and management of physical activity and movement; rather it would enhance monitoring and management of physical activity and movement by granting access rights, permissions, and privileges to users.
Further, Wilson is also analogous art because it is in the field of caloric burn and body movement. Wilson discloses from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user (column 10, lines 19-24, “The user has raised his left arm from his side straight up from the shoulder … keeping his elbow straight so that the lower arm … extends … straight from the upper arm … The user has raised his right arm from his side, but has also raised his lower arm … with respect to his upper arm … by bending at the elbow”) and that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb (column 13, lines 52-57, “The capture device ... is able to determine when a user is squatting and ... whether the user is supporting his weight on just one leg (with for example the opposite weight being held off the ground)”). Substituting from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user and that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb of Wilson into Mallon would not alter the basic principle operation of Mallon and would remain entirely compatible or enhance the operation of monitoring and management of physical activity and movement by adding a capture device.
In regard to claim 11, Mallon discloses
wherein the instruction is a visual instruction ([0100], “baseline assessment can involve the creation of an avatar that can … be used … for visual instruction”).
In regard to claim 12, Mallon discloses
wherein the instruction further comprises an audio instruction conveyed by the device ([0148], “camera may … be configured to include an audio component, such that any sounds made … during performance of an exercise, can be … included with the … projection onto the display.”).
In regard to claim 13, Mallon discloses
wherein the instruction is an animated instruction ([0034], “an avatar can be a part of the treatment plan used as a guide or instructor/coach for the prescribed treatment” Examiner notes that an avatar can be an animation.).
In regard to claim 14, Mallon discloses
wherein the exercise status summary comprises set data and repetition data ([0121], “Server … can … use this information … to determine … whether the proper sets and repetitions, etc. were performed”).
In regard to claim 15, Mallon discloses
wherein the exercise status summary comprises timing data ([0121], “server … can receive the data and extract timing and movement information”).
In regard to claim 16, Mallon discloses
wherein the feedback is posture-based feedback ([0132], “the … data may indicate that the subject is not performing an exercise properly, e.g., does not have proper posture”).
In regard to claim 17, Mallon discloses
wherein the feedback is speed-based feedback ([0114], “server … can use the data to determine an individual's capacity to perform certain … exercises … with respect to … speed”).
In regard to claim 18, Mallon discloses
further comprising the database ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … a database”).
In regard to claim 19, Mallon discloses
A fitness tracking computing system, the fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network ([0043], “system … comprises … network interfaces”) to a visual display of a device viewable by a user ([0077], “The microprocessor … may indicate the device's status on … visual … display” Examiner notes that the microprocessor is connected to the network.), wherein the device is any of a smart phone, tablet computer, and a laptop ([0032], “The gateway can be … a … device such as a Smartphone” Examiner notes that the gateway includes a microprocessor and a network interface.), wherein the fitness tracking computing system is in communication with a database ([0091], “it can be seen that server … can be interfaced with database(s)”), wherein the fitness tracking computing system maintains a private account for the user ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.) and a professional account for a professional user ([0106], “the … physical therapist, occupational therapist, physician, personal trainer, coach, wellness expert, etc., can also input information, e.g., in the form of comments, observations, recommendations, etc., which can also be used … to generate the baseline assessment, individualized treatment plan”), wherein the private account and the professional account are linked via a user-controlled linkage that permits the professional user to push a rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account ([0054], “Processor … can be configured to control the operation of device … based on instructions stored in memory”, Examiner notes that the processor can be configured to link the private account to the professional account using user controls.), wherein the fitness tracking computing system configured to ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … a database configured to store treatment information”):
transmit to the visual display an instruction ([0109], “camera … can capture … video of the … individual for … instruction on a Smartphone” Examiner notes that a video provides visual display.), wherein the instruction identifies an exercise to be performed by the user, wherein the exercise is part of ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … exercises … performed by the subject according to a treatment plan”) the rehabilitative therapy regimen ([0092], “Database … can … be configured to store treatment plan information including, … prescriptions for physical therapy or rehabilitation”) pushed to the private account ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.);
during performance of the exercise by the user, provide an exercise status summary to the visual display ([0109], “the … individual can be … running a program that displays content on monitor … and reacts to the patient's movements” Examiner notes that the displayed content may be an exercise status summary.);
based on the user's movements during performance of the exercise, as tracked by a camera, provide feedback to the visual display ([0109], “Camera … can … be used to provide visual feedback”);
track and log performance of the exercise by the user in the database ([0016], “a database configured to store treatment information, … subject information, reporting, … for a plurality of subjects” Examiner notes that reporting often includes tracking and logging information.);
and automatically modify the rehabilitative therapy regimen in the database based on a detected over-performance or under-performance of the exercise by the user ([0040], “data sets can improve treatment plan optimization and customization, can allow for in depth trending, alarming, etc., and allow modification of treatment plans”), wherein the detected under-performance comprises a determination ([0033], “Algorithms … can be configured to not only detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment, i.e., whether the patient is progressing, regressing, straining too hard, unable to perform certain exercises, or whether the exercises are too easy or are not producing the intended results”), as tracked by the camera ([0101], “the camera can be used in conjunction with other motion sensors that detect movement”).
Mallon does not disclose
wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account
from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user
that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb.
However, in an analogous art of monitoring, Tran discloses
wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account ([0257], “The user may give permission to others as needed to read or edit their personal data … The user or clinician could have a list of people that they want to monitor and have it show on their ‘My Account’ page, which serves as a local central monitoring station in one embodiment. Each person may be assigned different access rights which may be more or less than the access rights that the patient has … a doctor or clinician could be allowed to edit data … while the patient would have read-only privileges”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed limitations, the claim limitation, wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account, of Tran into the system of Mallon would not change the basic principle operation of Mallon, nor would it render Mallon unsuitable for its intended purpose of monitoring and management of physical activity and movement; rather it would enhance monitoring and management of physical activity and movement by granting access rights, permissions, and privileges to users.
Further, Wilson is also analogous art because it is in the field of caloric burn and body movement. Wilson discloses from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user (column 10, lines 19-24, “The user has raised his left arm from his side straight up from the shoulder … keeping his elbow straight so that the lower arm … extends … straight from the upper arm … The user has raised his right arm from his side, but has also raised his lower arm … with respect to his upper arm … by bending at the elbow”) and that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb (column 13, lines 52-57, “The capture device ... is able to determine when a user is squatting and ... whether the user is supporting his weight on just one leg (with for example the opposite weight being held off the ground)”). Substituting from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user and that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb of Wilson into Mallon would not alter the basic principle operation of Mallon and would remain entirely compatible or enhance the operation of monitoring and management of physical activity and movement by adding a capture device.
In regard to claim 20, Mallon discloses
wherein the instruction is any of a visual instruction ([0100], “baseline assessment can involve the creation of an avatar that can … be used … for visual instruction”), an audio instruction ([0148], “camera may … be configured to include an audio component, such that any sounds made … during performance of an exercise, can be … included with the … projection onto the display.”), and an animated instruction ([0034], “an avatar can be a part of the treatment plan used as a guide or instructor/coach for the prescribed treatment”);
the exercise status summary comprises set data and repetition data ([0121], “Server … can … use this information … to determine … whether the proper sets and repetitions, etc. were performed”);
and the feedback is any of posture-based feedback ([0132], “the … data may indicate that the subject is not performing an exercise properly, e.g., does not have proper posture”) and speed-based feedback ([0114], “server … can use the data to determine an individual's capacity to perform certain … exercises … with respect to … speed”).
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant submits that “A person cannot mentally enforce a write restriction on a data repository; the limitation is not practically performed in the human mind and is not a method of organizing human activity” (See AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE), REMARKS, page 7, paragraph 4), “The amended claims do not merely recite the goal of sharing therapy information on a generic computer; they specify how access is governed and what is computed.” (See AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE), REMARKS, page 9, paragraph 1), and “the ordered combination of the user-controlled read/write permission, the subsequent demotion to read-only, and the camera-based contralateral-asymmetry detection triggering automatic regimen modification is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry” (See AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE), REMARKS, page 9, paragraph 2). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Claim 1 recites a fitness tracking computing system, the fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network to a visual display of a device viewable by a user, wherein the device is any of a smart phone, tablet computer, and a laptop, wherein the fitness tracking computing system is in communication with a database, wherein the fitness tracking computing system maintains a private account for the user and a professional account for a professional user, wherein the private account and the professional account are linked via a user-controlled linkage that permits the professional user to push a rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account, wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account, wherein the fitness tracking computing system configured to: transmit to the visual display an instruction, wherein the instruction identifies an exercise to be performed by the user, wherein the exercise is part of the rehabilitative therapy regimen pushed to the private account; during performance of the exercise by the user, provide an exercise status summary to the visual display; based on the user's movements during performance of the exercise, as tracked by a camera, provide feedback to the visual display; track and log performance of the exercise by the user in the database; automatically modify the rehabilitative therapy regimen in the database based on a detected over-performance or under performance of the exercise by the user, wherein the detected under performance comprises a determination, from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user as tracked by the camera, that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb; and determine an effectiveness of the rehabilitative therapy regimen. These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can provide instruction for an exercise, a status summary of the exercise, feedback to the user, a log of exercise performance, and an assessment of rehabilitative therapy effectiveness. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “systems, apparatuses, devices, and methods described herein can also provide the ability to manually track cardiovascular routines and body weight.” [0019]. Independent claims 10 and 19 describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are directed towards mini-tasks (visual instruction, audio instruction, animated instruction, etc.) for a fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network to a user. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, or analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a computing system, a smart phone, a tablet computer, and a laptop (independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Similarly, the limitations of a computing system, a smart phone, a tablet computer, and a laptop (independent claims 1, 10, and 19 dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined “an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues that “Mallon Does Not Disclose an Account of Any Kind” (See AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE), REMARKS, page 10, paragraph 3) and “Mallon Does Not Disclose Contralateral Limb Asymmetry Detection” (See AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE), REMARKS, page 11, paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Pertaining to claim 1, Mallon discloses a fitness tracking computing system, the fitness tracking computing system configured to convey information over a network ([0043], “system … comprises … network interfaces”) to a visual display of a device viewable by a user ([0077], “The microprocessor … may indicate the device's status on … visual … display” Examiner notes that the microprocessor is connected to the network.), wherein the device is any of a smart phone, tablet computer, and a laptop ([0032], “The gateway can be … a … device such as a Smartphone”), wherein the fitness tracking computing system is in communication with a database ([0091], “it can be seen that server … can be interfaced with database(s)”), wherein the fitness tracking computing system maintains a private account for the user ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.) and a professional account for a professional user ([0106], “the … physical therapist, occupational therapist, physician, personal trainer, coach, wellness expert, etc., can also input information, e.g., in the form of comments, observations, recommendations, etc., which can also be used … to generate the baseline assessment, individualized treatment plan”), wherein the private account and the professional account are linked via a user-controlled linkage that permits the professional user to push a rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account ([0054], “Processor … can be configured to control the operation of device … based on instructions stored in memory”, Examiner notes that the processor can be configured to link the private account to the professional account using user controls.), wherein the fitness tracking computing system configured to ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … a database configured to store treatment information”): transmit to the visual display an instruction ([0109], “camera … can capture … video of the … individual for … instruction on a Smartphone” Examiner notes that a video provides visual display.), wherein the instruction identifies an exercise to be performed by the user, wherein the exercise is part of ([0016], “A movement monitoring and management system, comprises … exercises … performed by the subject according to a treatment plan”) the rehabilitative therapy regimen ([0092], “Database … can … be configured to store treatment plan information including, … prescriptions for physical therapy or rehabilitation”) pushed to the private account ([0034], “an initial visit … is … required in order to … develop a custom, individualized treatment plan” Examiner notes that an individualized treatment plan can include an account for the user's private information and specific goals.); during performance of the exercise by the user, provide an exercise status summary to the visual display ([0109], “the … individual can be … running a program that displays content on monitor … and reacts to the patient's movements” Examiner notes that the displayed content may be an exercise status summary.); based on the user's movements during performance of the exercise, as tracked by a camera, provide feedback to the visual display ([0109], “Camera … can … be used to provide visual feedback”); track and log performance of the exercise by the user in the database ([0016], “a database configured to store treatment information, … subject information, reporting, … for a plurality of subjects” Examiner notes that reporting often includes tracking and logging information.); automatically modify the rehabilitative therapy regimen in the database based on a detected over-performance or under performance of the exercise by the user ([0040], “data sets can improve treatment plan optimization and customization, can allow for in depth trending, alarming, etc., and allow modification of treatment plans”) wherein the detected under performance comprises a determination ([0033], “Algorithms … can be configured to not only detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment, i.e., whether the patient is progressing, regressing, straining too hard, unable to perform certain exercises, or whether the exercises are too easy or are not producing the intended results”), as tracked by the camera ([0101], “the camera can be used in conjunction with other motion sensors that detect movement”);
and determine an effectiveness of the rehabilitative therapy regimen ([0033], “Algorithms … can be configured to not only detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment”), Tran discloses wherein the user-controlled linkage is established responsive to an input from the user granting the professional account a read/write permission to the private account, and wherein the fitness tracking computing system is further configured to, responsive to a subsequent input from the user, demote the professional account from the read/write permission to a read-only permission under which the professional account retains read access to the private account but is prevented from pushing a further rehabilitative therapy regimen to the private account ([0257], “The user may give permission to others as needed to read or edit their personal data … The user or clinician could have a list of people that they want to monitor and have it show on their ‘My Account’ page, which serves as a local central monitoring station in one embodiment. Each person may be assigned different access rights which may be more or less than the access rights that the patient has … a doctor or clinician could be allowed to edit data … while the patient would have read-only privileges”), and Wilson discloses from a comparison of movement of a first limb of the user against movement of a contralateral limb of the user (column 10, lines 19-24, “The user has raised his left arm from his side straight up from the shoulder … keeping his elbow straight so that the lower arm … extends … straight from the upper arm … The user has raised his right arm from his side, but has also raised his lower arm … with respect to his upper arm … by bending at the elbow”) that the user is favoring one of the first limb and the contralateral limb (column 13, lines 52-57, “The capture device ... is able to determine when a user is squatting and ... whether the user is supporting his weight on just one leg (with for example the opposite weight being held off the ground)”).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Consequently, independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9, as obvious by Mallon in view of Tran and in further view of Wilson, are rejected. Independent claims 10 and 19 recite parallel limitations as independent claim 1. Therefore, independent claims 10 and 19 and dependent claims 11-18 and 20, as obvious by Mallon in view of Tran and in further view of Wilson, are rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be
reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CT. 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 on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Publication Information
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent
Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the
Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the
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.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights