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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/27/06 been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 4/27/26. Claims 1, 2, 8 – 11, 15 – 17, and 19 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: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 - 15 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 16 - 20 are directed towards a medium and device, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A method implemented by a first computing device comprising a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to perform operations comprising: receiving, via a user input device of the first 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 first computing device, fitness related notification transmit parameters for a first member of the one or more members based at least in part on the session type of the fitness session, wherein the fitness related notification transmit parameters are configured to limit a frequency of presentation of notifications from a second computing device associated with the first member; determining, at a first time, to refrain from presenting, via an output device of the first computing device, first notifications from the second computing device based at least in part on the fitness related notification transmit parameters; and determining, at a second time, to present via the output device of the first computing device, second notifications from the second computing device based at least in part on the fitness related notification transmit parameters, wherein the second notifications are presented at a rate based at least in part on the fitness related notification transmit parameters for the first member.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 15 and 19. Dependent claims 2 – 15, 17, 18, and 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a system that generates and presents a fitness session for a user, wherein the user selects a type of fitness session, wherein the system further determines the frequency of notifications to be presented based on the type of fitness session selected by the user from a second device. Controlling a system that allows a user to select and participant in a fitness session represents managing personal behavior. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a system that presents a fitness session to a user, wherein after a user selects a fitness session type, the system determines the frequency of notifications to be presented to the user based on the type of fitness selected by the user. The claims recite instructions for controlling a fitness system with these features. Here, a human can observe that a notifications have been presented after a fitness session has been selected, wherein a human can then make a determination of a next step to make based on the received notifications. For example, in the event that a human selects running as the fitness session and wants to receives notifications every 10 minutes during the fitness session, a human can observe the notifications being sent every 10 minutes and then make the determination to either stop or continue the fitness session. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and memory along with instructions that generate and present a fitness session to a user, wherein the system determines a frequency of notifications after a user is instructed to select a fitness session type to participate in, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
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: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, memory, and input device, wherein the claims further disclose determining the frequency of notifications to be presented to a user, based on the fitness type selected by the user. The courts have determined that claims that are directed to data collection and recognition are abstract ideas and is a well-known practice, (See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank (776 F.3d 1343). Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional elements 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicant’s argue that “the claims recite a technical improvement, which constitutes a practical application of the abstract idea”, and the “amendments capture the improvement”, which Applicants state are described in paragraph [0005] of the Specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim language merely reciting receiving input from a user do determine the frequency of notifications to be presented, does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. The improvements that the Applicants cite in paragraph [0005] of the Specification, are not part of the inventive concept, wherein the amended claims are only directed to planning and managing a user’s fitness session. The amended claims do not recite how the presentation of notifications improves functionality, efficiency, or power consumption of electronic devices, nor do the amended claims recite the reducing the cognitive burden of a user as described in paragraph [0005]. The courts have determined that claims that are directed to data collection, recognition, and transmission are abstract ideas and is a well-known practice, (See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank (776 F.3d 1343) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 \text{ F.3d 1350, Fed. Cir. 2016). While the Examiner does acknowledge that Applicant’s specification may disclose a practical application, however, the current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of processing data, because the additional elements, processor, memory, and input device, are recited generically. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights