DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments/arguments filed on 5/9/25. Claims 1 – 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 16 – 20 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the current 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A method, comprising: receiving, via a user interface of a particular computing device, selection of: information identifying one or more members for participating in a fitness session; and a session type of the fitness session; determining, by the particular computing device, fitness related notification transmit parameters for a first member of the one or more members; and presenting, via the user interface, one or more notifications from a second computing device associated with a second member of the one or more members at a rate, wherein the rate is based at least in part on the session type.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards behavior of one or more users in a fitness session. This is viewed by the Examiner as a commercial interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as a processor, memory, sensor and display components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as an interface, however, this viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicants argue that the most recent claim amendments obviate the 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to this, while the Examiner acknowledges the recent claim amendments, the current claim language still does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards a computing device that receives information identifying one or more members that are participating in a fitness session. The claims are clearly directed towards managing personal relationships or interactions between people. The claimed additional components such as one or more processors and memory are components that are well-known, routine, and conventional that does not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea. For example, a mobile phone, a tablet, and a game console also comprise a credit input mechanism, player interface, memory, and electronic display. All the elements claimed, does not mean the claimed invention is rooted in a fitness computer environment. The Applicants are fully encouraged to contact the Examiner regarding claim language in order to help further prosecution. Viewed as a whole, the present claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the present invention is not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715