DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on June 5, 2025. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to an electronic device and independent claim 11 is directed to a method.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental Processes
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations, “determine whether the user is in a rehabilitation condition based on the received medical data; when the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, provide first exercise program corresponding to a recovery target part of the user using the received medical data; after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program and biometric information of the user during a condition in which recovery is not needed; determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user; and provide the second program.” are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations are directed to determining a second exercise program based on the recovery level of a user when a comparison of a biometric information during a first exercise program to a biometric information when recovery is not needed (e.g., user is healthy) is made. These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, and judgment of the medical data of the user. Additionally, an opinion such as exercise program is generated by a user through observation, evaluation and judgment of the medical data.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations, “determine whether the user is in a rehabilitation condition based on the received medical data; when the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, provide first exercise program corresponding to a recovery target part of the user using the received medical data; after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program and biometric information of the user during a condition in which recovery is not needed; determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user; and provide the second program.” are directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior (including teaching and following rules or instructions) under certain methods of organizing human activity. The limitations are directed to determining a second exercise program based on the recovery level of a user when a comparison of a biometric information during a first exercise program to a biometric information when recovery is not needed (e.g., user is healthy) is made. These limitations are directed to managing a user’s recovery or rehabilitation process through an exercise regimen in response to a surgery or treatment. A person (a physician, nurse, or therapist) provides an exercise regimen or program (rules, guide, or instructions) for an individual to follow to improve their health and recovery from surgery or a particular medical treatment. Additionally, the person (a physician, nurse, or therapist) can modify or update the exercise regime or program (rules, guide, or instructions) to assist the individual in recovering from surgery or a medical treatment.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of at least one processor, server, communication interface, communication module, and memory amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts 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 a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. Dependent claims 2-10 recite “at least one processor”, dependent claim 9 recites a “communication interface” and “exercise machine”, dependent claim 10 recites a “communication interface” and “exercise machine”, dependent claim 19 recites an “exercise machine”, and dependent claim 20 recites an “exercise machine”. Dependent claims 2-10 and 19-20 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberlander et al. US Publication 20150302766 A1 in view of Volosin et al. US Publication 20210035674 A1.
Claims 1 and 11:
As per claims 1 and 11, Oberlander teaches an electronic device and method comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive medical data of a user from a server (paragraphs 0094-0095 “In various embodiments, as further described below, as part of the enrollment process, the recovery system obtains information about the patient from the healthcare provider. Such patient information includes but is not limited to: (1) patient identification and biographical information; (2) information regarding the patient's specific injury (and any related diseases); (3) the medical treatment that the patient has undergone (such as any surgery); and (4) the generally prescription for the recovery of the patient and more specifically the recovery pathway for the patient.” and “In various embodiments, the recovery system also or alternatively obtains information about the patient from one or more EHR systems. In such embodiments, the recovery system communicates with or is integrated with one or more EHR systems. In certain such embodiments, after a suitable triggering event, the recovery system securely receives patient information (in a HIPAA compliant manner) from one or more EHR systems, automatically enrolls a new patient in the recovery system, and automatically invites the patient to join the recovery system. In various embodiments, the recovery system may link an ICD-10 code to an exercise module appropriate for the specific injury. ICD and CPT codes specify diagnosis and procedures. In various embodiments, ICD-9, ICD-10, CPT and/or other coding systems are used in EHR integration messages so that the EHR system's orders can be directly translated into a specific patient recovery pathway of the recovery system. Each recovery pathway (and indirectly each exercise thereof) is thus associated with a specific diagnosis or condition, ICD-10 codes, CPT codes, or other codes in various embodiments. The recovery system thus links recovery pathways to specific codes from different coding systems in certain embodiments.”);
at least one processor electrically connected to the communication interface (paragraphs 0044 and 0053 “In this illustrated embodiment, the recovery system 100 includes one or more computers such as one or more servers (not shown in FIG. 1A) configured to communicate through a data network 110 (such as the internet) with: (a) a plurality patient exercise monitors 120a, 120b, 120c . . . 120z (such as personal wearable devices; (b) a plurality of patient access devices 140a, 140b, 140c . . . 140z;…”);
and a memory electrically connected to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (paragraph 0046 “The computer(s) (such as the server(s)) includes one or more central processing units (not shown) and one or more memory devices (not shown in FIG. 1A) which store instructions (not shown in FIG. 1A), exercise modules (not shown in FIG. 1A), and one or more databases (not shown in FIG. 1A).”):
determine whether the user is in a rehabilitation condition based on the received medical data (paragraphs 0095 and 0105-0106 “In various embodiments, the recovery system also or alternatively obtains information about the patient from one or more EHR systems. In such embodiments, the recovery system communicates with or is integrated with one or more EHR systems. In certain such embodiments, after a suitable triggering event, the recovery system securely receives patient information (in a HIPAA compliant manner) from one or more EHR systems, automatically enrolls a new patient in the recovery system, and automatically invites the patient to join the recovery system. In various embodiments, the recovery system may link an ICD-10 code to an exercise module appropriate for the specific injury. ICD and CPT codes specify diagnosis and procedures. In various embodiments, ICD-9, ICD-10, CPT and/or other coding systems are used in EHR integration messages so that the EHR system's orders can be directly translated into a specific patient recovery pathway of the recovery system. Each recovery pathway (and indirectly each exercise thereof) is thus associated with a specific diagnosis or condition, ICD-10 codes, CPT codes, or other codes in various embodiments. The recovery system thus links recovery pathways to specific codes from different coding systems in certain embodiments.” and “In the illustrated example embodiment, the recovery system 100 causes the patient display device to display interface 416 of FIG. 4H which: (1) greets the patient (e.g., “Hi Chris”); (2) identifies the patient's injury and informs the patient of the patient's recovery pathway (e.g., “You have been assigned a pathway for your Hamstring Strain”); (3) informs the patient of the patient's needed time commitment for the recovery pathway (e.g., “If you can set aside time each day, you'll be on the road to recovery”); and (4) explains the flexibility of the recovery system to the patient (e.g., “Depending on how much time you have, we'll tailor your pathway to match your availability”).”);
when the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, provide first exercise program corresponding to a recovery target part of the user using the received medical data (paragraphs 0105-0106, 0108-0110 “In such embodiments, the recovery system 100 accesses certain information regarding the patient (including information about the patient provided by the healthcare provider or EHR system regarding the patient and any past history of access to the recovery system), and directs the patient to view educational and on-boarding material on the patient's first visit. The on-boarding process includes the recovery system 100 exposing the patient to the various features and functions of the recovery system including the features and functions that present the patient with educational material about the patient's injury and recovery. The on-boarding process also includes the recovery system 100 asking and obtaining from the patient various information including personal system use preferences for the patient's future use of the recovery system 100 as described below. The recovery system 100 collects and stores this patient personal preference information and uses this information to customize the system's delivery of exercise sessions to the patient as well as materials and information provided to the patient during performance and management of the healthcare provider's recovery pathway for the patient. In other words, in various embodiments, the recovery system provides customized exercise sessions based on specific patient preferences (such as length and time of sessions, notifications, etc). In various embodiments, the recovery system also provides the patient personal motivational messages and awards at various points in time throughout recovery process as further discussed below.”);
Oberlander does not teach after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program and biometric information of the user during a condition in which recovery is not needed. However, Volosin teaches Systems and Methods for Providing and Managing a Personalized Cardiac Rehabilitation Plan and further teaches, “…The at least one processor can be configured to perform the comparison at least based on comparing a maximum heart rate of a first rehabilitation exercise session to a predetermined maximum heart rate. The at least one processor can be configured to perform the comparison at least based on comparing a minimum heart rate of a first rehabilitation exercise session to a predetermined minimum heart rate. The at least one processor can be configured to perform the comparison at least based on comparing a step rate of a first rehabilitation exercise session to a predetermined maximum step rate. The at least one processor can be configured to perform the comparison at least based on comparing a step rate of a first rehabilitation exercise session to a predetermined step rate…” (paragraph 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberland to include after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program and biometric information of the user during a condition in which recovery is not needed as taught by Volosin in order to determine where the user is in the process of healing after an injury or medical procedure.
Oberlander does not teach determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user. However, Volosin teaches Systems and Methods for Providing and Managing a Personalized Cardiac Rehabilitation Plan and further teaches, “Referring back to FIG. 9B, the processor can compare the performance data structures to predetermined criteria to determine 926 if any adjustments are required for the cardiac rehabilitation plan. The predetermined criteria for determining whether and when the plan is to be adjusted for the next activity session can be based on ECG and non-ECG physiological information. For example, if the patient has completed an exercise session for a particular day and their average heart rate and maximum heart rate are below acceptable thresholds, the processor can continue 928 the current rehabilitation plan without adjustment. Conversely, if the patient has not completed an exercise session for a particular day or one or more measured parameters have exceeded their associated threshold, the processor can determine 926 that the cardiac rehabilitation plan should be adjusted.” (paragraph 0185) and “Based upon the performance data structures, the processor can determine 930 one or more plan adjustments for the next exercise session in the cardiac rehabilitation plan. For example, the processor can determine 930 that a previous exercise session should be repeated. In some examples, the processor can determine 930 that the patient should complete an exercise session with a reduced number of exertion minutes for the next exercise session. Depending on the type of adjustments made to the cardiac rehabilitation plan, the processor can determine 932 if physician approval is required to implement the adjustment. If the processor does determine 932 that physician approval is required, the processor can transmit the adjusted cardiac rehabilitation plan to the patient's physician or other HCP for approval. Upon receiving 934 physician feedback and approval, the processor can update the rehabilitation plan. Similarly, if the processor determines 932 that physician approval is not necessary, the processor can simply update 936 the rehabilitation plan. It should be noted, however, that the physician approval is shown by way of example only and in some implementations the processor can implement one or more adjustments without determining 932 whether approval is necessary.” (paragraph 0186). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user as taught by Volosin in order to identify a particular exercise or treatment to assist the patient in the healing process after surgery or an injury.
Oberlander does not teach and provide a second exercise program. However, Volosin teaches Systems and Methods for Providing and Managing a Personalized Cardiac Rehabilitation Plan and further teaches, “Based upon the performance data structures, the processor can determine 930 one or more plan adjustments for the next exercise session in the cardiac rehabilitation plan. For example, the processor can determine 930 that a previous exercise session should be repeated. In some examples, the processor can determine 930 that the patient should complete an exercise session with a reduced number of exertion minutes for the next exercise session. Depending on the type of adjustments made to the cardiac rehabilitation plan, the processor can determine 932 if physician approval is required to implement the adjustment. If the processor does determine 932 that physician approval is required, the processor can transmit the adjusted cardiac rehabilitation plan to the patient's physician or other HCP for approval. Upon receiving 934 physician feedback and approval, the processor can update the rehabilitation plan. Similarly, if the processor determines 932 that physician approval is not necessary, the processor can simply update 936 the rehabilitation plan. It should be noted, however, that the physician approval is shown by way of example only and in some implementations the processor can implement one or more adjustments without determining 932 whether approval is necessary.” (paragraph 0186) and “Referring back to FIG. 8, following adjustment of the cardiac rehabilitation plan, the processor can transmit the adjusted cardiac rehabilitation plan to the patient's wearable medical device and cause 814 execution of the adjusted cardiac rehabilitation plan on the device. In certain implementations, the processor can further confirm that the wearable medical device is operating according to the adjusted cardiac rehabilitation plan.” (paragraph 0228). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include provide a second exercise program as taught by Volosin in order to present or display instructions associated with an exercise routine or treatment.
Claims 2 and 12:
As per claims 2 and 12, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device and method of claims 1 and 11 as described above and Oberlander further teaches wherein the at least one processor being configured to determine whether the user is in the rehabilitation condition includes being configured to:
extract treatment information from the received medical data (paragraph 0094);
and in response to determining that a current time point is before an expected recovery time of the user from a treatment start time point has elapsed, determine that the user is in the rehabilitation condition, the expected recovery time of the user being based on the treatment information (paragraphs 0064 and 0105-0106).
Claims 3 and 13:
As per claim 3 and 13, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device and method of claims 1 and 11 as described above and Oberlander further teaches wherein the at least one processor being configured to provide the exercise program corresponding to the recovery target part of the user includes being configured to:
in response to exercise prescription data being searched from the received medical data, determine at least one or a combination of two or more of an exercise identification, a target exercise frequency, a target exercise time, or a target exercise intensity of the exercise program based on the searched exercise prescription data (paragraphs 0064, 0109, 0121 and Figures 1D-1U);
and in response to the exercise prescription data not being searched from the received medical data, determine at least one or a combination of two or more of the exercise identification, the target exercise frequency, the target exercise time, or the target exercise intensity of the exercise program according to the treatment information and the recovery level of the user (paragraphs 0064, 0105, 0109, 0121 and Figures 1D-1U).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device of claim 1 as described above and Oberlander further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
while the user is determined to be in a normal condition, obtain biometric information of the user in a first cycle (paragraph 0160);
and while the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, obtain the biometric information of the user in a second cycle which is shorter than the first cycle (paragraph 0160).
Claims 5 and 17:
As per claims 5 and 17, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device and method of claims 1 and 11 as described above and Oberlander further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
while the user is determined to be in a normal condition, determine whether the user is exercising based on a first exercise condition (paragraph 0119);
and while the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, determine whether the user is exercising based on a second exercise condition that is different than the first exercise condition (paragraph 0119).
Claims 6 and 15:
As per claims 6 and 15, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device and method of claims 1 and 11 as described above and Oberlander further teaches wherein the at least one processor being configured to provide the feedback on the exercise program includes being configured to:
when the user is determined to be exercising, provide one of change or termination of the exercise program by adjusting an exercise level of the exercise program based on at least one of the exercise performance data or the biometric information of the user during the exercising (paragraphs 0119, 0122, and 0133).
Claims 7 and 18:
As per claims 7 and 18, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device and method of claims 1 and 11 as described above and Oberlander further teaches and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine the recovery level using at least one or a combination of two or more of an increasing speed of a heart rate (HR) of the user during the exercising, an exercise duration, center of gravity balance information, saturation of percutaneous oxygen (SpO2) information, blood pressure (BP) information, and HR recovery time after the exercising (paragraphs 0047 and 0116).
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, Oberlander and Volosin teach the method of claim 11 as described above and Oberlander further teaches further comprising:
while the user is determined to be in a normal condition, obtaining biometric information of the user in a first cycle, and determining whether the user is exercising based on a first exercise condition (paragraph 0160);
and while the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, obtaining the biometric information of the user in a second cycle which is shorter than the first cycle, and determining whether the user is exercising based on a second exercise condition different from the first exercise condition (paragraph 0160).
Claim(s) 8-9, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberlander and Volosin as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jung et al. US Publication 20110065549 A1.
Claims 8 and 16:
As per claims 8 and 16, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device and method of claims 1 and 11 as described above but do not teach wherein the at least one processor being configured to provide the feedback on the exercise program includes being configured to:
when the user is exercising, in response to at least one of determining that the exercising performed by the user does not match with an exercise identification of the exercise program, determining that an exercise intensity of the exercising performed by the user exceeds an intensity limit, determining that an exercise duration of the exercising performed by the user exceeds a duration limit, or determining that biometric information sensed for the user exceeds a biometric level limit, output a warning message to a display module. However, Jung teaches Real Time Automatic Control System of Sporting Goods and Control Method using the Same and further teaches, “For example, when the current exercise intensity of the user who is playing sports is excessively high, a warning sound or a warning message for notifying it may be provided.” (paragraph 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include when the user is exercising, in response to at least one of determining that the exercising performed by the user does not match with an exercise identification of the exercise program, determining that an exercise intensity of the exercising performed by the user exceeds an intensity limit, determining that an exercise duration of the exercising performed by the user exceeds a duration limit, or determining that biometric information sensed for the user exceeds a biometric level limit, output a warning message to a display module as taught by Jung in order to limit or avoid the user from getting injured from exercising.
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device of claim 1 as described but do not teach wherein the communication interface is further configured to establish communication with an exercise machine, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to instruct the exercise machine to perform at least one or a combination of two or more of exercise start, exercise intensity control, exercise termination, and warning instruction of the exercise machine based on the exercise program. However, Jung teaches Real Time Automatic Control System of Sporting Goods and Control Method using the Same and further teaches, “For example, when the current exercise intensity of the user who is playing sports is excessively high, a warning sound or a warning message for notifying it may be provided.” (paragraph 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include wherein the communication interface is further configured to establish communication with an exercise machine, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to instruct the exercise machine to perform at least one or a combination of two or more of exercise start, exercise intensity control, exercise termination, and warning instruction of the exercise machine based on the exercise program as taught by Jung in order to limit or avoid the user from getting injured from exercising.
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, Oberlander and Volosin teach the method of claim 11 as described above but do not teach further comprising:
instructing an exercise machine to perform at least one or a combination of two or more of exercise start, exercise intensity control, exercise termination, and warning instruction of the exercise machine based on the exercise program. However, Jung teaches Real Time Automatic Control System of Sporting Goods and Control Method using the Same and further teaches, “For example, when the current exercise intensity of the user who is playing sports is excessively high, a warning sound or a warning message for notifying it may be provided.” (paragraph 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include instructing an exercise machine to perform at least one or a combination of two or more of exercise start, exercise intensity control, exercise termination, and warning instruction of the exercise machine based on the exercise program as taught by Jung in order to limit or avoid the user from getting injured from exercising.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberlander and Volosin as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Khare et al. US Publication 20210225505 A1.
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, Oberlander and Volosin teach the electronic device of claim 1 as described above but do not teach wherein the communication interface is further configured to establish communication with an exercise machine operable according to the exercise program, However, Khare teaches a Biological Data Tracking System and Method and further teaches, “In addition, the web browser-based system may be utilized for a wide variety of fitness and personal health/wellness-related opportunities. For example, an application and a transmission subsystem attached to or integrated with hardware of a fitness machine (e.g., treadmill) may communicate with one or more sensors on a subject via a web browser-based system to aggregate all sensor data into a single connection application for real-time or near real-time display of one or more biological metrics.” (paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include wherein the communication interface is further configured to establish communication with an exercise machine operable according to the exercise program as taught by Khare in order to facilitate an exercise or workout program.
and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to when the user is determined to be exercising: adjust an exercise level of the exercise program based on at least one of the exercise performance data or the biometric information of the user during the exercising, However, Khare teaches a Biological Data Tracking System and Method and further teaches, “For example, an application and a transmission subsystem attached to or integrated with hardware of a fitness machine (e.g., treadmill) may communicate with one or more sensors on a subject via a web browser-based system to aggregate all sensor data into a single connection application for real-time or near real-time display of one or more biological metrics. In another example, a gym or fitness studio may provide one or more sensors for its customers in order to monitor and display their real-time or near real-time biological data via a web-browser based system. In another example, a fitness machine with an integrated display may utilize a web browser-based system to collect biological sensor data and create and/or provide one or more biological insights based upon collected biological sensor data to its one or more users during or after a workout (e.g., providing “performance zones” which are based upon a user's minimum and maximum heart rate zones). In a refinement, the fitness machine with computing capabilities may take an action that will adjust the workout based upon the collected biological data (e.g., if the machine determines via the web-browser based system that a user is not working out hard enough or exerting too much energy based on biological data such as heart rate or a derivative such as performance zone, the fitness machine may adjust the difficulty or speed in order to increase or decrease the difficulty of the workout for the user). In a variation, a fitness instructor or “smart” equipment (e.g., equipment with one or more computing capabilities) may take an action that will adjust the workout based upon the collected biological data (e.g., if the instructor or “smart” equipment determines via the web-browser based system that a user is not working out hard enough or exerting too much energy based on biological data such as heart rate or a derivative such as performance zone, the instructor or “smart” equipment may adjust the difficulty or speed in order to increase or decrease the difficulty of the workout for the user).” (paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include adjusting an exercise level of the exercise program based on at least one of the exercise performance data or the biometric information of the user during the exercising as taught by Khare in order to allow the user to perform optimally.
and transmit, to the exercise machine, an instruction indicating at least one of a decrease in an exercise intensity or exercise termination of the exercise machine. However, Khare teaches a Biological Data Tracking System and Method and further teaches, “For example, an application and a transmission subsystem attached to or integrated with hardware of a fitness machine (e.g., treadmill) may communicate with one or more sensors on a subject via a web browser-based system to aggregate all sensor data into a single connection application for real-time or near real-time display of one or more biological metrics. In another example, a gym or fitness studio may provide one or more sensors for its customers in order to monitor and display their real-time or near real-time biological data via a web-browser based system. In another example, a fitness machine with an integrated display may utilize a web browser-based system to collect biological sensor data and create and/or provide one or more biological insights based upon collected biological sensor data to its one or more users during or after a workout (e.g., providing “performance zones” which are based upon a user's minimum and maximum heart rate zones). In a refinement, the fitness machine with computing capabilities may take an action that will adjust the workout based upon the collected biological data (e.g., if the machine determines via the web-browser based system that a user is not working out hard enough or exerting too much energy based on biological data such as heart rate or a derivative such as performance zone, the fitness machine may adjust the difficulty or speed in order to increase or decrease the difficulty of the workout for the user). In a variation, a fitness instructor or “smart” equipment (e.g., equipment with one or more computing capabilities) may take an action that will adjust the workout based upon the collected biological data (e.g., if the instructor or “smart” equipment determines via the web-browser based system that a user is not working out hard enough or exerting too much energy based on biological data such as heart rate or a derivative such as performance zone, the instructor or “smart” equipment may adjust the difficulty or speed in order to increase or decrease the difficulty of the workout for the user).” (paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include transmitting, to an exercise machine, an instruction indicating at least one of a decrease in an exercise intensity or exercise termination of the exercise machine as taught by Khare in order to allow the user to cool down after vigorously exercising.
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, Oberlander and Volosin teach the method of claim 11 as described above but do not teach further comprising:
adjusting an exercise level of the exercise program based on at least one of the exercise performance data or the biometric information of the user during the exercising,. However, Khare teaches a Biological Data Tracking System and Method and further teaches, “For example, an application and a transmission subsystem attached to or integrated with hardware of a fitness machine (e.g., treadmill) may communicate with one or more sensors on a subject via a web browser-based system to aggregate all sensor data into a single connection application for real-time or near real-time display of one or more biological metrics. In another example, a gym or fitness studio may provide one or more sensors for its customers in order to monitor and display their real-time or near real-time biological data via a web-browser based system. In another example, a fitness machine with an integrated display may utilize a web browser-based system to collect biological sensor data and create and/or provide one or more biological insights based upon collected biological sensor data to its one or more users during or after a workout (e.g., providing “performance zones” which are based upon a user's minimum and maximum heart rate zones). In a refinement, the fitness machine with computing capabilities may take an action that will adjust the workout based upon the collected biological data (e.g., if the machine determines via the web-browser based system that a user is not working out hard enough or exerting too much energy based on biological data such as heart rate or a derivative such as performance zone, the fitness machine may adjust the difficulty or speed in order to increase or decrease the difficulty of the workout for the user). In a variation, a fitness instructor or “smart” equipment (e.g., equipment with one or more computing capabilities) may take an action that will adjust the workout based upon the collected biological data (e.g., if the instructor or “smart” equipment determines via the web-browser based system that a user is not working out hard enough or exerting too much energy based on biological data such as heart rate or a derivative such as performance zone, the instructor or “smart” equipment may adjust the difficulty or speed in order to increase or decrease the difficulty of the workout for the user).” (paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Oberlander to include adjusting an exercise level of the exercise program based on at least one of the exercise performance data or the biometric information of the user during the exercising as taught by Khare in order to allow the user to perform optimally.
and transmitting, to an exercise machine, an instruction indicating at least one of a decrease in an exercise intensity or exercise termination of the exercise machine. However, Khare teaches a Biological Data Tracking System and Method and further teaches, “For example, an application and a transmission subsystem attached to or integrated with hardware of a fitness machine (e.g., treadmill) may communicate with one or more sensors on a subject via a web browser-based system to aggregate all sensor data into a single connection application for real-time or near real-time display of one or more biological metrics. In another example, a gym or fitness studio may provide one or more sensors for its customers in order to monitor and display their real-time or near real-time biological data via a web-browser based system. In another example, a fitness machine with an integrated display may utilize a web browser-based system to collect biological sensor data and create and/or provide one or more biological insights based upon collected biological sensor data to its one or more users during or after a workout (e.g., providing “performance zones” which are based upon a user's