DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo Test and 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG): Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising:
selecting a compound exercise with a total weight lifted;
using a reference athlete or athletes to record a one rep max or calculated one rep max of the compound exercise;
during which associated prime and assisting muscles of the compound exercise are determined through, either mean amplitude of electrical activity of the muscles determined through electromyography, or exercise science literature of kinesiology analysis, or both any weight lifted and the mean electrical amplitude of muscular contraction through electromyography then recording mean amplitude of peak contraction of the associated prime and assisting muscles before comparing the two amplitudes and weight in a ratio to determine the possible peak weight;
further wherein reference athletes record a one rep max or calculated one rep max of the isolated exercises, of the associated prime and assisting muscles;
so that a muscular balance profile of the compound exercise is created through a rank order of the exercises assessed through the formula [P1rm=(C/S)*(w)];
where (C) is the 1rm or calculated 1rm for a reference athlete or reference athletes for the complex exercise, (S) is the 1rm or calculated 1rm for a reference athlete or reference athletes for the associated prime or assisting muscle of the compound exercise, (C/S) is the biomechanical ideal defined by the ratio, and (w) is the 1rm or calculated 1rm of an isolated exercise of the associated prime or assisting muscle of the compound exercise completed by the reference athlete.
Independent claims 3, 6 and 8 recite similar methods.
The limitations of selecting a compound exercise, recording a one rep max of a reference athlete, and determining a possible peak weight, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims also fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas because they are drawn to a mathematical formula, as well as the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, because they are directed to managing personal behavior by recording reference athletes and managing exercises for a person. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, these judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application, as they do not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exceptions themselves. The claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 also recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims and only recite additional details of the judicial exception. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which goes to make up invention.
For example, it is not clear as to what is meant by “using a reference athlete or athletes to record a one rep max or calculated one rep max of the compound exercise” in lines 2-3 of claim 1. The structure of this limitation is generally vague and indefinite. The wording of the claim does not make clear, for example, it the reference athlete or athletes are associated with the “calculated” one rep max, or if the calculated one rep max would be used as an alternative to the use of a reference athlete or athletes. It is also not clear as to what the calculated one rep max is referring to, in general.
Similarly, the following limitation of “during which associated prime and assisting muscles of the compound exercise are determined through, either mean amplitude of electrical activity of the muscles determined through electromyography, or exercise science literature of kinesiology analysis, or both any weight lifted and the mean electrical amplitude of muscular contraction through electromyography then recording mean amplitude of peak contraction of the associated prime and assisting muscles before comparing the two amplitudes and weight in a ratio to determine the possible peak weight” is generally narrative and replete with idiomatic and grammatical errors.
The remainder of the claims are similarly replete with instances of generally narrative and indefinite language.
Claims Distinguish from the Prior Art
5. The claims as best understood appear to distinguish patentably from the prior art of record. The prior art of record, including Nolan (US Patent No. 11,621,067 B1), Merolle et al. (US 2007/0026999 A1) and Belson et al. (US 2021/0402259 A1) disclose generating personalized resistance training programs including through use of one-rep max calculations, but do not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the combination of limitations in independent claims 1, 3, 6 and 8, including selecting a compound exercise, recording a one rep max of a reference athlete, and determining a possible peak weight, so that a muscular balance profile of the compound exercise is created through a rank order of the exercises assessed through the formula [P1rm=(C/S)*(w)]; where (C) is the 1rm or calculated 1rm for a reference athlete or reference athletes for the complex exercise, (S) is the 1rm or calculated 1rm for a reference athlete or reference athletes for the associated prime or assisting muscle of the compound exercise, (C/S) is the biomechanical ideal defined by the ratio, and (w) is the 1rm or calculated 1rm of an isolated exercise of the associated prime or assisting muscle of the compound exercise completed by the reference athlete.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715