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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed [1]. The status of
the claims are as follows:
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13-15, and 18-27 are pending;
Claims 4, 9-12, 16-17 have been cancelled;
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 13-15, 18-20 have been amended;
Claims 21-27 are newly introduced.
Response to Amendment
The Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed July 24, 2026 in response to
the Office action mailed April 7, 2026. Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims have been
considered with the results set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive of patentability for the reasons discussed below.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 15, and 19 are patent eligible because the claims recite a specific functional sequence involving sensor-collected ride data, a determination of resistance, a determination of power, and use of the resulting power together with cycling-event condition and difficulty information to determine a cycling-event recommendation or rider selection. Applicant further argues that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and recite a particular way of achieving the claimed result rather than merely claiming the result itself.
The arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
As set forth in the rejection above, the Office has not characterized the claims merely as reciting the ultimate result of recommending a cycling event or selecting riders. Rather, the Office has considered the claims as a whole, including the sequence relied upon by Applicant. The recited determinations themselves nevertheless constitute evaluations and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. For example, claim 1 recites determining an amount of resistance from ride information, determining an amount of power from information describing the rider and bicycle and the determined resistance, and determining a cycling event to recommend based upon the resulting power together with event-condition and event-difficulty information. Claim 15 similarly recites evaluating event conditions, event difficulty, and candidate-rider performance histories to select riders for an event. Claim 19 recites substantially the same resistance, power, and recommendation determinations as claim 1 in system form. Accordingly, the identified limitations recite a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Applicant's reliance on the physical subject matter described by the information being evaluated does not alter this conclusion. A mental process is not rendered non-abstract merely because the information evaluated concerns physical quantities or physical objects. The claims do not require that the resistance or power determinations be made by a particular technological technique that is beyond practical human performance. Instead, the claims recite the determinations functionally, e.g., determining resistance "based on" ride data and determining power "based on" information describing the rider and bicycle. The claims do not recite a particular sensor-processing technique, physical model, numerical algorithm, control architecture, or other technological mechanism by which those determinations must be performed.
Applicant further argues that the sensor-collected ride data and the claimed sequence integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This argument is also not persuasive. The plurality of sensors recited in the claims collects the information upon which the abstract evaluation operates. Such collection constitutes data-gathering activity associated with the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Similarly, providing the resulting cycling-event recommendation or selected riders to a user device communicates the result of the evaluation and does not itself impose a meaningful limit on the identified judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(h). Nor do the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of the sensors, bicycle, user device, processor, or another technology or technical field within the meaning of MPEP § 2106.05(a). The claims do not require the sensors to operate differently or more accurately, do not improve bicycle operation, and do not recite an improved computer architecture, data-processing technique, or sensor-processing technique. Rather, the claimed sensors and computing components are used as tools to obtain information, perform the identified evaluations, and communicate the resulting recommendation or selection. See MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The Office has also considered Applicant's reliance on the August 4, 2025 memorandum and the assertion that the claims recite a "particular way" of achieving the desired result. The claimed ordering of the determinations does not, by itself, establish an improvement to technology or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claims specify which categories of information are considered and the order in which certain determinations occur, the claims continue to recite the operative determinations at a functional level. The claims do not recite a particular technological implementation for deriving the resistance, deriving the power, or converting those determinations into an event recommendation or rider selection. Thus, the claims do not merely become eligible because the abstract evaluation is divided into multiple sequential "determining" steps.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements therefore do not integrate the identified mental process into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Further, for the reasons set forth in the rejection above, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. The recited sensor-data collection, generic processing, and communication of the resulting recommendation or selection perform their ordinary functions, and the claims do not recite an unconventional technological arrangement or operation that transforms the nature of the identified abstract process. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a).
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that Schlesinger and Ellis fail to teach or suggest the amended limitations of independent claim 1, particularly determining an amount of resistance from sensor-collected ride data, determining an amount of power for moving the rider and bicycle through that resistance, and determining the cycling event to recommend based upon the resulting power together with cycling-event condition and difficulty information.
Applicant's arguments concerning the rejection as previously formulated have been considered. The present rejection has been modified in view of the amendments.
In particular, the present action does not rely upon Schlesinger and Ellis alone to teach the amended resistance and power limitations of claim 1. As set forth in detail above, Schlesinger teaches sensor-informed route recommendation based upon route conditions and provides the resulting route to a user device. Ellis teaches the cycling-specific context, including bicycle-mounted sensors, collected cycling-session information, athletic competition routes, and route selection according to difficulty. Blau is further relied upon for determining the physical resistance encountered by a rider/bicycle combination and determining corresponding rider power using rider/bicycle information and the applicable physical resistance.
Thus, Applicant's argument that Schlesinger and Ellis do not themselves teach the claimed determination of rider power through sensor-derived resistance does not overcome the rejection presently made. The rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Schlesinger, Ellis, and Blau for the reasons specifically set forth above, including the articulated reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings.
Applicant further argues that the cited art fails to teach using the determined power together with event-side condition and difficulty information in determining the cycling event to recommend. This argument is not persuasive against the present combination. Schlesinger teaches route recommendation based upon route conditions, including weather and elevation-related conditions; Ellis teaches cycling-event and competition-route information and selection of a route according to desired difficulty; and Blau supplies the rider-power metric associated with overcoming the physical cycling resistance. As explained in the rejection, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to use Blau's known objective rider-effort information in the Schlesinger/Ellis cycling-route recommendation process to account for the rider's capability relative to the physical demands and conditions of the cycling route/event.
Applicant states that independent claim 19 is patentable for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. The argument is not persuasive for substantially the same reasons discussed above. The system limitations of claim 19 are addressed by the present rejection over Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, including the bicycle-mounted sensors taught by Ellis and the resistance and rider-power determinations taught by Blau.
Applicant separately argues that independent claim 15 is patentable because Schlesinger and Ellis do not teach selecting multiple riders for a cycling event based upon event condition, event difficulty, and rider performance histories indicating power for moving respective riders and bicycles through sensor-derived resistance.
The argument has been considered. The rejection of claim 15 has been reformulated in the present action and no longer relies upon Schlesinger and Ellis as the basis for the rider-selection limitations. Hancock is relied upon for rider-specific historical performance information, including prior route performance and rider power; determining rider performance capabilities and route difficulty; grouping multiple riders having similar skill levels; route and terrain conditions; sensor-derived cycling information; and communication of group information to computing devices. Blau is further relied upon for the remaining relationship between the rider's power and the physical resistance encountered by the rider/bicycle combination. The present combination therefore addresses the limitations identified in Applicant's remarks.
Applicant also generally argues that the dependent claims are patentable because they depend from allegedly allowable independent claims and recite additional separately patentable subject matter. This argument is not persuasive because independent claims 1, 15, and 19 remain rejected for the reasons discussed above. Moreover, the additional limitations of the dependent claims have been separately considered and addressed in the rejections set forth in this Office action. Where an additional reference is required for a dependent limitation, the rejection identifies that reference and provides the corresponding factual findings and reason for the combination.
Claims 21–27 were newly presented in the July 24, 2026 amendment. Those claims have likewise been separately considered and are rejected for the reasons specifically set forth above.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but do not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth in this Office action.
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 1-3, 5-8, 13-15, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for recitation of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Claim 1 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 1 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determining, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride;”, “determining, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride;” and, “determining a cycling event to recommend for the rider based on the at least one amount of power, at least one condition associated with the cycling event, and a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event;” – these limitations recite evaluations and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. Considered together, these limitations recite evaluating ride, rider, bicycle, and cycling-event information to determine resistance experienced during a ride, determine power associated with overcoming that resistance, and determine a cycling event to recommend based on the resulting power and event information. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (mental-processes).
Claim 1 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“receiving ride data associated with a rider of a bicycle and collected by a plurality of sensors during a ride on a trail;” and “providing the cycling event to a user device associated with the rider.” – these limitations of receiving ride data collected by a plurality of sensors and providing the resulting cycling event to a user device do not integrate the mental process into a practical application. The sensors obtain the information upon which the abstract evaluation operates, and thus perform data-gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), while providing the recommendation to the user device merely outputs the result of the evaluation (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim does not recite an improvement to sensor, bicycle, computing, or other technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); does not require a particular machine to implement the identified abstract determinations in a meaningful manner (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); and does not effect a transformation of a physical article. Considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
“receiving ride data associated with a rider of a bicycle and collected by a plurality of sensors during a ride on a trail;” and “providing the cycling event to a user device associated with the rider.” – the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Receiving data obtained using conventional sensors and providing the result of an analysis to a conventional user device amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data-input and output functions. The claim does not recite any nonconventional arrangement of operation of those components, nor does their combination alter the nature of the abstract mental process. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 2
Claim 2 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 2 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“wherein the ride data is segmented into a plurality of time segments, and determining the at least one amount of resistance includes determining a respective amount of resistance for each time segment of the plurality of time segments.” – this limitation further recites organizing and evaluating ride data by dividing the ride data according to time and determining a respective amount of resistance for each resulting time segment. These operations can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person may separate recorded ride information into successive time intervals and determine an amount of resistance corresponding to each interval. The claim does not require any particular computerized segmentation technique, processing rate, quantity of data, algorithm, or other operation that would make such performance impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further refines the mental process identified with respect to claim 1. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 2 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3
Claim 3 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 3 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determining a resistance model for the rider and the trail wherein the resistance model includes, for each time segment of the plurality of time segments: a respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment, and a respective amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment the respective amount of power determined based on the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment and information describing the rider and the bicycle.” – this limitation further recites organizing and evaluating information to determine a model representing resistance and corresponding power for respective time segments of a ride. These operations can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by recording for successive time intervals respective resistance values and corresponding power values determined from the resistance and rider/bicycle information. The claim does not require any particular computerized modeling technique, algorithm, processing rate, data value, or other operation that would make such performance impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4 (CANCELLED)
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 5 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determining a plurality of resistance models for the rider, wherein each of the plurality of resistance models is determined based on additional ride data collected during another ride on the trail or a ride on a different trail;” and “determining a performance history for the rider based on the plurality of resistance models, wherein determining the cycling event to recommend for the rider is further based on the performance history for the rider.” – these limitations further recite organizing and evaluating information from multiple rides to determine respective resistance models, using those models to determine a performance history for the rider, and using that performance history as additional information in determining a cycling event to recommend. These operations can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by recording resistance information from multiple rides, comparing or compiling that information into a rider performance history, and considering the resulting history when selecting an event for the rider. The claim does not require any particular computerized modeling technique, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such performance impractical for a human. Accordingly, these limitations further recite a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 5 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 6 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“wherein the plurality of sensors are mounted to the bicycle or the rider of the bicycle.” – mounting the sensors to the bicycle or rider merely specifies the physical location of the sensors used to collect the ride data upon which the abstract evaluation operates. The limitation does not recite an improvement to the sensors, bicycle, or another technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), does not meaningfully apply the judicial exception through a particular machine because the sensors continue to function as data-gathering devices rather than implementing the identified abstract determinations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)). The limitation therefore further specifies the pre-solution data-gathering activity discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and merely confines that data gathering to the particular technological environment of a bicycle or rider (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
“wherein the plurality of sensors are mounted to the bicycle or the rider of the bicycle.” – mounting sensors on a bicycle or rider to collect ride-related data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) arrangement that does not add significantly more to the identified judicial exception. The specification itself describes sensors mounted on or associated with the bicycle/rider, including suspension sensors, accelerometers, and other ride-data sensors, as ordinary implementations of the disclosed system. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 7
Claim 7 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 7 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“wherein the bicycle comprises a smart trainer device, and wherein the ride comprises a cycling simulation of the trail.” – these limitations merely place the data collection underlying the abstract evaluation in the environment of a smart trainer and simulated trail ride. The claim does not recite that the identified abstract determinations improve operation of the smart trainer or cycling-simulation technology (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor does it require the smart trainer to meaningfully implement the resistance, power, or recommendation determinations identified as the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)). Rather, the smart trainer and cycling simulation provide the technological environment in which the ride data used by the abstract evaluation is generated, thereby further specifying the data-gathering context (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and limiting the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 7 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
“wherein the bicycle comprises a smart trainer device, and wherein the ride comprises a cycling simulation of the trail.” – use of a smart trainer to simulate a cycling ride or trail constitutes a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) use of such a device. The specification itself describes a smart trainer as a device capable of simulating realistic ride conditions, including resistance associated with terrain and other ride variables. The claim does not recite an unconventional smart-trainer configuration, simulation technique, or interaction between the smart trainer and the identified abstract determinations. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination with the previously analyzed elements, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 8 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“wherein the cycling event is associated with the trail.” – this limitation merely confines the abstract evaluation and recommendation to the particular train already recited in the claim. It does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), and does not meaningfully apply the judicial exception beyond limiting its application to a particular field of use or environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
“wherein the cycling event is associated with the trail.” – tying the recommended cycling event to the previously recited trail does not add significantly more to the identified judicial exception. The limitation further restricts the context in which the abstract evaluation is applied but does not supply an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Regarding claims 9-12 (CANCELLED)
Regarding claim 13
Claim 13 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 13 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“wherein determining the cycling event to recommend for the rider is further based on two or more of information describing the rider and the bicycle, an altitude of the trail, a difficulty level associated with the trail, and a condition of the trail during the ride.” – this limitation further recites evaluating additional rider, bicycle, and trail information when determining a cycling event to recommend. Such evaluation can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by considering rider/bicycle characteristics together with trail altitude, difficulty, and trail conditions when deciding whether an event is suitable for the rider. The claim does not require any particular computerized analysis, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such evaluation impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 13 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 14 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“wherein the condition of the trail during the ride is a weather condition, and the difficulty level associated with the trail is based on an average altitude of the trail and event outing data associated with the trail.” – this limitation further recites evaluating trail-related information, including average altitude and event outing data, to determine a difficulty level associated with the trail, while further specifying the type of trail condition considered in the recommendation analysis. Such evaluations can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by reviewing trail altitude and event outing information and determining a corresponding difficulty level, while considering a weather condition associated with the trail. The claim does not require any particular computerized analysis, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such evaluation impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 14 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 15 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“selecting a plurality of riders for the cycling event based on the at least one condition associated with the cycling event, the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event, and a plurality of performance histories, wherein each performance history of the plurality of performance histories is associated with a respective candidate rider of a plurality of candidate riders and indicates, for the respective candidate rider, at least one amount of power for moving the respective candidate rider and a bicycle used by the respective candidate rider through at least one amount of resistance determined from ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one ride by the respective candidate rider on a trail;” – this limitation recites evaluating information concerning a cycling event and candidate riders and making a judgment as to which riders should be selected for participation in the cycling event. Such evaluation and judgment can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by reviewing the condition and difficulty of an event together with records of each candidate rider’s performance, including power and resistance information, and selecting riders considered suitable for the event. The sensor-derived nature of the power/resistance information merely specifies the information considered when making the selection and does not require the rider-selection evaluation itself to be performed in a manner beyond practical human capability. Additionally, selecting persons for participation in a cycling event based on event criteria and their individual performance histories manages relationships or interactions between people in the context of a social activity and therefore also falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) (Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People).
Claim 15 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“receiving at least one condition associated with a cycling event and a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event;”, “ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one ride by the respective candidate rider on a trail;”, and “and providing the plurality of riders to a user device.” – these limitations recite receiving the event condition and difficulty by obtaining information used in the subsequent abstract rider-selection evaluation and therefore constitutes pre-solution data-gathering activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g). Likewise, the recitation that the resistance information is derived from ride data collected by sensors further specifies the source of information used in the abstract evaluation. The sensors obtain data but do not meaningfully implement the rider-selection process, improve operation of the sensors or another technology, or otherwise apply the exception through a patricidal machine in a meaningful manner (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b), and 2106.05(g)). Providing the selected plurality of riders to a user device merely communicates the result of the abstract evaluation and constitutes post-solution output activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g). To the extent the recitations of a cycling event, rider, bicycle, trail, sensors, and user device confine the abstract evaluation to a particular environment, that merely limit the exception to a particular field of use or technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim also does not effect the transformation of a physical article (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)). Considered individually and in combination, the additional elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
“receiving at least one condition associated with a cycling event and a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event;”, “ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one ride by the respective candidate rider on a trail;”, and “and providing the plurality of riders to a user device.” – these additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data-input, sensor-data-collection, and output functions. The claim does not recite an unconventional sensor arrangement, manner of collecting the ride data, or operation of the user device, nor does the combination of these elements alter the nature of the abstract rider-selection process. The specification itself describes ordinary ride-data sensors and conventional computing/user devices without requiring specialized hardware for these functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 16 and 17 (CANCELLED)
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 18 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 15, wherein the at least one condition associated with the cycling event includes the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event is based on a location of the cycling event, a type or category of the cycling event, an average altitude of an event trail, a difficulty level associated with the event trail, and event output data associated with the event trail.” – this limitation further recites evaluating information concerning the cycling event and event trail, including location, event type or category, altitude, trail difficulty, and outing data, to determine a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event. Such evaluation can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by reviewing the identified event and trail characteristics and assigning or determining a corresponding measure of difficulty. The claim does not require any particular computerized analysis, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such evaluation impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 18 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 18 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19
Claim 19 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Claim 1 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determine, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride;” and “determine, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride;” – these limitations recite evaluations and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. Considered together, these limitations recite evaluating ride, rider, bicycle, and cycling-event information to determine resistance experienced during a ride, determine power associated with overcoming that resistance, and determine a cycling event to recommend based on the resulting power and event information. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 19 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“a bicycle comprising a plurality of sensors;”, “a first user device associated with a rider of the bicycle;”, “and an electronic processor configured to:”, “receive ride data associated with the rider and collected by the plurality of sensors during a ride on a trail by the rider;”, “and providing the plurality of riders to a second user device associated with a coordinator of the cycling event.” – the plurality of sensors obtains the information upon which the abstract evaluation operates and therefore performs data-gathering activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g). The first user device receives the result of the evaluation, which constitutes post-solution output activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g). The electronic processor merely serves as a tool for performing the identified mental-process determinations and does not, as claimed, improve operation of the processor, sensors, bicycle, user device, or another technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Nor do the bicycle, sensors, processor, and user device meaningfully apply the judicial exception through a particular machine; the sensors collect the input data, the processor performs the abstract evaluation, and the user device receives the resulting recommendation (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)). To the extent these components place the abstract evaluation in a computerized cycling environment, they merely limit the exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim also does not effect a transformation of a physical article under MPEP § 2106.05(c). Considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 19 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
“a bicycle comprising a plurality of sensors;”, “a first user device associated with a rider of the bicycle;”, “and an electronic processor configured to:”, “receive ride data associated with the rider and collected by the plurality of sensors during a ride on a trail by the rider;”, “and providing the plurality of riders to a second user device associated with a coordinator of the cycling event.” – the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) sensor-data collection, generic computer processing, and output functions. The claim does not recite an unconventional sensor arrangement, processor architecture, user-device configuration, or technological manner in which these components perform their respective functions, nor does their combination alter the nature of the abstract mental process. The specification describes ordinary ride-data sensors and a generic computing architecture including a processor, memory, storage, communication interface, and peripheral devices, supporting that these elements are employed according to their ordinary functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Claim 20 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“select a plurality of riders for the cycling event based on the at least one condition associated with the cycling event, the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event, and a plurality of performance histories, wherein each performance history of the plurality of performance histories is associated with a respective candidate rider of a plurality of candidate riders and indicates, for the respective candidate rider, at least one amount of power for moving the respective candidate rider and a bicycle used by the respective candidate rider through at least one amount of resistance determined from ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one ride by the respective candidate rider on a trail;” – this limitation recites evaluating event information and candidate-rider performance information and making a judgment as to which riders should be selected for the cycling event. Such evaluation and judgment can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by comparing the condition and difficulty of an event with performance histories of candidate riders and selecting riders considered suitable for the event. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, this limitation concerns selecting persons for participation in an organized activity based on specified criteria and therefore falls within certain methods of organizing human activity under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Claim 20 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“and providing the plurality of riders to a second user device associated with a coordinator cycling event.” – this limitation merely communicates the results of the abstract rider-selection evaluation to a second user device and therefore constitutes post-solution output activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g). The recitation of a user device associated with a cycling-event coordinator merely places the abstract evaluation within a particular technological and field-of-use environment and does not meaningfully apply the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 20 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
“and providing the plurality of riders to a second user device associated with a coordinator cycling event.” – providing the result of an analysis to a conventional user device is a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) output function. The claim does not recite any unconventional configuration or operations of the second user device, and the addition of a second recipient device does not alter the nature of the abstract rider-selection process. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 21
Claim 21 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 21 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event based on additional ride data collected during at least one ride on an event trail associated with the cycling event, wherein the additional ride data is used to determine at least one additional amount of resistance or at least one additional amount of power associated with the event trail.” – this limitation further recites evaluating ride information associated with an event rail, including resistance or power information, to determine a measure of difficulty for the cycling event. Such evaluation can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by reviewing ride data from the event trail, determining an associated resistance or power amount, and using that information to assess the difficulty of the event. The claim does not require any particular computerized analysis, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such evaluation impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 21 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 21 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 22
Claim 22 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 22 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one condition associated with the cycling event comprises at least one of a trail condition, an environmental condition, an altitude condition, a weather condition, or an event condition associated with an event trail of the cycling event.”
Claim 22 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 22 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 23
Claim 23 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 23 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 1, wherein the information describing the rider and the bicycle comprises information identifying physical characteristics of the rider and configuration characteristics of the bicycle that affect movement of the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride, and wherein determining the at least one amount of power comprises using the physical characteristics of the rider and the configuration characteristics of the bicycle to determine the at least one amount of power.” – this limitation further recites evaluating information concerning physical characteristics of the rider and configuration characteristics of the rider and configuration characteristics of the bicycle to determine an amount of power. Such evaluation can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by considering rider and bicycle characteristics together with resistance information to determine a corresponding amount of power. The claim does not require any particular computerized analysis, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such evaluation impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 23 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 23 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 24
Claim 24 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 24 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 1, wherein determining the at least one amount of resistance comprises identifying an obstacle encountered during the ride and determining a watts difficulty rating for the obstacle.” – this limitation further recites observing or identifying an obstacle and evaluating the obstacle to determine a difficulty rating expressed in watts. Such observation, evaluation, and judgment can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person may identify an obstacle encountered during a ride and assign or calculate a corresponding watts difficulty rating based on information concerning the obstacle. The claim does not require any particular computerized identification technique, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such a performance impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 24 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 24 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 25
Claim 25 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 25 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 24, wherein determining the at least one amount of power comprises determining an amount of watts for moving the rider and the bicycle through the obstacle based on the watts difficulty rating.” – this limitation further recites evaluating the watts difficulty rating of the obstacle to determine an amount of power, expressed in watts, for moving the rider and bicycle through the obstacle. Such evaluation or calculation can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not require any particular computerized calculation, algorithm, processing rate, quantity of data, or other operation that would make such performance impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 25 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 25 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 26
Claim 26 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 26 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 15, wherein the at least one condition associated with the cycling event comprises at least one environmental condition of an event trail associated with the cycling event.” – this limitation further specifies the type of information considered when performing the rider-selection evaluation identified with respect to claim 15. A person can practically consider an environmental condition of an event rail when determining which riders are suitable for a cycling event. The limitation does not require any particular computerized analysis or other operation that would make such evaluation impractical for a human. Accordingly, this limitation further defines the information used in the recited mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 26 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 26 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 27
Claim 27 – Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Claim 27 – Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“The method of claim 15, wherein the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event is based on ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one prior ride on an event trail associated with the cycling event.” –
Claim 27 – Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one prior ride on an event trail associated with the cycling event” - the plurality of sensors obtains the information subsequently used in the abstract evaluation of event difficulty. The sensors therefore perform data-gathering activity rather than meaningfully implementing the rider-selection or difficulty-evaluation process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The limitation does not recite an improvement to sensor technology or another technology, nor does the use of the sensors meaningfully apply the judicial exception through a particular machine because their claimed role is to obtain the data used in the subsequent evaluation (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b)). To the extent the limitation confines the data collection and evolution to an event trail and cycling event, it further limits the exception to a particular field of use or environment under MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 27 – Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements:
“ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one prior ride on an event trail associated with the cycling event” – collecting ride data using sensors constitutes a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data-gathering function. The claim does not recite an unconventional sensor arrangement, manner of sensing, or technological operation of the sensors. Accordingly, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 13, 19, and 21–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger et al. (US 10024675) in view of Ellis (US9415267), and further in view of Blau et al. (US7862476).
Regarding claim 1, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach a method for determining and providing a recommended route to a user, wherein:
“receiving — Schlesinger teaches this limitation in part. Schlesinger teaches receiving sensor-derived data associated with a user:
“aggregated user events extracted from sensor data provided by one or more sensors in association with the user” (Schlesinger, col. 33, ll. 35–40).
“determining a Schlesinger teaches this limitation in part. Schlesinger teaches recommending a route based on conditions relevant to the route. For example, Schlesinger teaches:
“preferences to avoid sunlight, or other weather conditions” and “to avoid significant elevation changes such as hills” (Schlesinger, col. 18, ll. 42–49).
Schlesinger further teaches that the routing engine determines suggested routes from the applicable routing factors. (Schlesinger, col. 18, ll. 50–55).
“providing the cycling event to a user device associated with the rider” — Schlesinger teaches this limitation:
“providing the suggested route via a user device associated with the user” (Schlesinger, col. 33, 56–57).
Schlesinger does not teach the remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“ride”;
“a rider of a bicycle”;
“a plurality of”;
“during a ride on a trail”;
“determining, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride”;
“determining, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride”;
“cycling event”;
“the at least one amount of power”; and
“a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event.”
Ellis, however, teaches these remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“ride”; “a rider of a bicycle”; “a plurality of”; and “during a ride on a trail” — Ellis teaches collecting route and athletic-performance information as an athlete moves:
“the system may collect and store position information as the user moves” including “location, speed, and elevation” (Ellis, col. 41, ll. 8–13).
Ellis expressly teaches bicycle-mounted data-collection sensors:
“INC 5530 may be an athletic data collection INC mounted on a bicycle, and may include a pedal cadence sensor” and “INC 5535 … may include a wheel speed sensor” (Ellis, col. 47, lines 37–45).
Ellis further teaches that the region traversed during the session may include trails and that the actual route followed by the user is recorded:
“Road indicator 4830 may show the roads, trails, and other fixed items” and route indicator 4840 indicates “the actual route followed by the user during the session” (Ellis, col. 44, ll. 20–24).
“cycling event” — Ellis expressly teaches this limitation:
“the route may be an athletic training route or an athletic competition route” (Ellis, col. 41, lines 45–49).
“a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event” — Ellis teaches that collected performance/route information may be used to choose a route according to difficulty:
“the system may use collected heart rate data or an elevation profile to choose a route with the desired difficulty” (Ellis, col. 42, lines 10–14).
Ellis does not teach the remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“determining, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride”;
“determining, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride”; and
“the at least one amount of power” as a basis for determining the cycling event to recommend.
Blau, however, teaches these remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“determining, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride” — Blau teaches a bicycle equation of motion including:
“forces due to aerodynamic drag, friction/rolling drag, hill angle” and acceleration attributable to bicycle mass and rotational inertia (Blau, col. 7, ll. 27–33).
Blau further expressly teaches:
“the actual forces encountered during a given physical activity can be measured” (Blau, col. 7, lines 45–47).
“determining, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride” — Blau teaches that hill force depends upon the slope and rider/bicycle weight:
“The hill forces 134 are determined by multiplying the slope or hill angle 138 by the weight 139 of the rider and bike” (Blau, col. 13, lines 12–14).
Blau further teaches:
“The product of the measured crank speed and the measured crank force is the true rider power 203” (Blau, col. 14, ll. 25–28).
“the at least one amount of power” — Blau teaches an objective rider-power value corresponding to the physical forces/resistance acting on the rider and bicycle:
“The product of the measured crank speed and the measured crank force is the true rider power 203” (Blau, col. 14, ll. 25–28).
Schlesinger and Ellis already teach using rider/route information, event conditions, and event difficulty to make the recommendation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schlesinger’s sensor-informed route recommendation according to Ellis’s cycling-specific sensors, recorded cycling routes, competition routes, and route-difficulty analysis because Ellis provides known cycling-specific information suitable for implementing Schlesinger’s personalized routing process for a cyclist. It further would have been obvious to use Blau’s known bicycle resistance and rider-power calculations because Blau provides an objective indication of the effort required for a particular rider/bicycle combination to overcome grade, rolling resistance, aerodynamic resistance, and related cycling forces. Using that known effort measure in the Schlesinger/Ellis recommendation process would predictably permit the recommendation to account for the rider’s demonstrated ability relative to the physical demands of the cycling event.
Accordingly, claim 1 would have been obvious over Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau.
Regarding claim 2, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“wherein the ride data is segmented into a plurality of time segments, and determining the at least one amount of resistance includes determining a respective amount of resistance for each time segment of the plurality of time segments.”
Ellis, however, teaches the limitation and/or portion of:
“wherein the ride data is segmented into a plurality of time segments, and determining the at least one amount of resistance includes Ellis teaches this limitation in part. Ellis teaches athletic workouts divided into multiple time-defined sections in which data is collected:
“Individual workout sessions may include multiple sections” having a parameter, “data to collect, and duration” (Ellis, col. 10, ll. 35–41).
Ellis additionally teaches that individual section duration may be measured in units of time. (Ellis, col. 49, l. 65–col. 50, l. 10).
Ellis does not teach the remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“determining a respective amount of resistance for each time segment of the plurality of time segments.”
Blau, however, teaches this remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“determining a respective amount of resistance for each time segment of the plurality of time segments” — Blau teaches determining the resistance forces applicable to bicycle operation from the riding conditions, including aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, hill angle, mass, and acceleration. (Blau, col. 7, ll. 27–35).
Thus, applying Blau’s known resistance calculation to each of Ellis’s successive time-defined portions of the cycling data would result in determining a respective resistance for each time segment.
Accordingly, claim 2 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 3, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 2, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“determining a resistance model for the rider and the trail, wherein the resistance model includes, for each time segment of the plurality of time segments, the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment and the respective amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment, the respective amount of power determined based on the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment and information describing the rider and the bicycle.”
Blau, however, teaches/suggests this remaining limitation of:
“determining a resistance model for the rider and the trail, wherein the resistance model includes, for each time segment of the plurality of time segments, the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment and the respective amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment, the respective amount of power determined based on the respective amount of resistance determined for the time segment and information describing the rider and the bicycle.” – Blau expressly teaches a bicycle-road model into which measured rider force may be supplied:
“the resulting measured force 191 is supplied to a bike road model 190” (Blau, col. 14, lines 53–55).
Blau’s model further incorporates friction, aerodynamic losses, hill forces, and rider/bicycle weight and determines rider power from measured crank speed and force. (Blau, col. 13, lines 1–20; col. 14, lines 25–28).
Thus, applying Blau’s bicycle-road resistance/power model to each of the time segments taught with respect to claim 2 would provide a resistance model containing the respective resistance and corresponding power for each time segment.
Accordingly, claim 3 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 5, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 3, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitations of:
“determining a plurality of resistance models for the rider, wherein each of the plurality of resistance models is determined based on additional ride data collected during another ride on the trail or a ride on a different trail”;
“determining a performance history for the rider based on the plurality of resistance models”; and
“wherein determining the cycling event to recommend for the rider is further based on the performance history for the rider.”
Ellis, however, teaches these limitations and/or portions of:
“determining a plurality of — Ellis teaches this limitation in part. Ellis teaches:
“performance data may be collected during multiple sessions” and that the data may be compared between sessions, including portions “following the same route” (Ellis, col. 41, lines 55–59).
“determining a performance history for the rider based on — Ellis teaches this limitation in part. Ellis teaches storing results for multiple workout sessions and permits the rider or coach to:
“view historical data, to view trends and improvements, or compare the results of two or more workout sessions” (Ellis, col. 48, lines 35–40).
“wherein determining the cycling event to recommend for the rider is further based on the performance history for the rider” — Ellis teaches this limitation. Ellis teaches that collected position and performance information from prior sessions is used to recommend a route for a later session. (Ellis, col. 41, lines 53–67; col. 42, lines 1–19).
Ellis does not teach the remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“resistance models”; and
“the plurality of resistance models.”
Blau, however, teaches these remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“resistance models”; and “the plurality of resistance models” — Blau teaches the bicycle-road model discussed above, incorporating the physical resistance forces applicable to the rider and bicycle. (Blau, col. 7, lines 27–35; col. 14, lines 39–45).
Applying Blau’s known resistance model to each of Ellis’s multiple recorded rides would provide a respective resistance model for each ride; the resulting multiple models form the basis of the rider’s historical performance information used by Ellis to plan later rides.
Accordingly, claim 5 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 6, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“wherein the plurality of sensors are mounted to the bicycle or the rider of the bicycle.”
Ellis, however, teaches this limitation of:
“wherein the plurality of sensors are mounted to the bicycle or the rider of the bicycle” — Ellis teaches a rider-worn heart-rate sensor and bicycle-mounted cadence and wheel-speed sensors:
“INC 5515 may be an athletic data collection INC worn by the athlete, and may include a heart rate sensor” and INCs 5530/5535 are “mounted on a bicycle” and include cadence and wheel-speed sensors (Ellis, col. 47, lines 34–48).
Accordingly, claim 6 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 7, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitations of:
“wherein the bicycle comprises a smart trainer device”; and
“wherein the ride comprises a cycling simulation of the trail.”
Ellis, however, teaches these limitations of:
“wherein the bicycle comprises a smart trainer device”; and “wherein the ride comprises a cycling simulation of the trail” — Ellis teaches bicycles mounted to stationary training stands with electronically controlled difficulty and speed sensing. Ellis expressly states:
“The two control units may control the difficulty for the two riders to simulate a specific race course” (Ellis, col. 38, lines 46–48).
Ellis therefore teaches a computer-controlled trainer that varies cycling difficulty to simulate a cycling course. Accordingly, claim 7 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 8, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“wherein the cycling event is associated with the trail.”
Ellis, however, teaches this limitation of:
“wherein the cycling event is associated with the trail” — Ellis teaches collecting position and performance information for a route and expressly teaches that:
“the route may be an athletic training route or an athletic competition route” (Ellis, col. 41, lines 45–46).
Ellis further records the actual route followed during the session, including roads and trails. (Ellis, col. 44, ll. 20–24).
Thus, Ellis teaches a cycling event associated with the same route/trail for which cycling-session information is collected. Accordingly, claim 8 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 13, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
“wherein determining the cycling event to recommend for the rider is further based on two or more of information describing the rider and the bicycle, an altitude of the trail, a difficulty level associated with the trail, and a condition of the trail during the ride” — because the claim requires only two or more of the listed categories, Schlesinger itself teaches/suggests the newly added limitation. Schlesinger teaches route recommendation using elevation-related information:
“a routing condition could be that any routes suggested … should not include a hill” based upon “an elevation change” (Schlesinger, col. 15, ll. 23–30).
Schlesinger additionally teaches route recommendation based on weather conditions:
“preferences to avoid sunlight, or other weather conditions” (Schlesinger, col. 18, ll. 42–45).
Thus, Schlesinger teaches at least two recited categories—altitude/elevation information and trail/weather condition information. Accordingly, claim 13 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 19, Schlesinger teaches a computer-implemented route-recommendation system including processors, sensor-derived information, and a user device, wherein:
“— Schlesinger teaches this limitation in part. Schlesinger teaches a computer-implemented system and navigation device having one or more processors and a user interface/device. Schlesinger’s system receives sensor-derived user data, selects a suggested route, and:
“transmitting the suggested route to a user device associated with the user” (Schlesinger, col. 35, ll. 20–25).
“receive — Schlesinger teaches this limitation in part. Schlesinger receives user events extracted from sensor data supplied by one or more sensors associated with the user. (Schlesinger, col. 35, ll. 4–8).
“determine a — Schlesinger teaches this limitation in part. Schlesinger teaches route recommendation based on route conditions including weather and elevation. (Schlesinger, col. 18, ll. 42–49).
“provide the cycling event to the first user device” — Schlesinger teaches this limitation. Schlesinger transmits/provides the selected suggested route to the user’s device. (Schlesinger, col. 35, ll. 20–25).
Schlesinger does not teach the remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“a bicycle comprising a plurality of sensors”;
“ride”;
“the plurality of sensors during a ride on a trail by the rider”;
“determine, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride”;
“determine, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride”;
“cycling event”;
“the at least one amount of power”; and
“a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event.”
Ellis, however, teaches these remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“a bicycle comprising a plurality of sensors”; “ride”; and “the plurality of sensors during a ride on a trail by the rider” — Ellis teaches bicycle-mounted cadence and wheel-speed sensors used during athletic workouts and route sessions. (Ellis, col. 47, lines 35–48).
“cycling event”; and “a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event” — Ellis teaches an “athletic competition route” and selecting a route according to “desired difficulty.” (Ellis, col. 41, lines 45–49; col. 42, lines 10–14).
Ellis does not teach the remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“determine, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride”;
“determine, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride”; and
“the at least one amount of power.”
Blau, however, teaches these remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“determine, based on the ride data, at least one amount of resistance encountered by the rider during the ride” — Blau teaches determining bicycle resistance forces including rolling drag, aerodynamic drag, grade, and acceleration. (Blau, col. 7, ll. 27–35).
“determine, based on information describing the rider and the bicycle, at least one amount of power for moving the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride”; and “the at least one amount of power” — Blau uses rider/bicycle weight and slope in determining cycling force and determines true rider power from measured force and crank speed. (Blau, col. 13, lines 10–17; col. 14, lines 25–28).
It would have been obvious to implement Schlesinger’s computerized recommendation system in the cycling environment of Ellis because Ellis teaches known bicycle-mounted sensors, cycling-event routes, and route-difficulty analysis appropriate for a cyclist. It further would have been obvious to use Blau’s known resistance/power model because it supplies an objective rider-effort metric based upon the physical cycling forces applicable to the rider and bicycle, thereby predictably improving the cycling-specific relevance of Schlesinger’s recommendation. Accordingly, claim 19 would have been obvious over Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau.
Regarding claim 21, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“determining the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event based on additional ride data collected during at least one ride on an event trail associated with the cycling event, wherein the additional ride data is used to determine at least one additional amount of resistance or at least one additional amount of power associated with the event trail.”
Ellis, however, teaches the limitation and/or portion of:
“determining the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event based on additional ride data collected during at least one ride on an event trail associated with the cycling event, wherein the additional ride data is — Ellis teaches this limitation in part. Ellis teaches collecting performance and position information from prior cycling sessions over an event/competition route and using the collected performance/elevation information to select a route according to difficulty. Ellis states:
“the route may be that of an upcoming athletic competition” (Ellis, col. 42, lines 6-7).
Ellis also teaches collection and comparison of performance information over multiple sessions on the same route. (Ellis, col. 41, lines 53–67).
Ellis does not teach the remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“to determine at least one additional amount of resistance or at least one additional amount of power associated with the event trail.”
Blau, however, teaches this remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“to determine at least one additional amount of resistance or at least one additional amount of power associated with the event trail” — Blau teaches calculating cycling resistance and rider power from the physical conditions applicable to the route, including grade, aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, velocity, and rider/bicycle mass. (Blau, col. 7, ll. 27–35; col. 13, lines 1–20; col. 14, lines 25–28).
Thus, using the resistance/power calculated for Ellis’s prior ride over the event route as part of the event-difficulty determination would have been a predictable application of Blau’s cycling-effort model. Accordingly, claim 21 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 22, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
“wherein the at least one condition associated with the cycling event comprises at least one of a trail condition, an environmental condition, an altitude condition, a weather condition, or an event condition associated with an event trail of the cycling event” — because the claim requires only at least one of the alternatives, Schlesinger itself teaches the newly recited limitation. Schlesinger expressly teaches:
“preferences to avoid sunlight, or other weather conditions” and preferences “to avoid significant elevation changes such as hills” (Schlesinger, col. 18, ll. 42–49).
Accordingly, claim 22 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 23, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“wherein the information describing the rider and the bicycle comprises information identifying physical characteristics of the rider and configuration characteristics of the bicycle that affect movement of the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride, and wherein determining the at least one amount of power comprises using the physical characteristics of the rider and the configuration characteristics of the bicycle to determine the at least one amount of power.”
Blau, however, teaches this remaining limitation of:
“wherein the information describing the rider and the bicycle comprises information identifying physical characteristics of the rider and configuration characteristics of the bicycle that affect movement of the rider and the bicycle through the at least one amount of resistance encountered during the ride, and wherein determining the at least one amount of power comprises using the physical characteristics of the rider and the configuration characteristics of the bicycle to determine the at least one amount of power.” – Blau teaches that cycling forces depend on rider/bicycle weight and configuration-related physical quantities. Blau calculates hill force using:
“the weight 139 of the rider and bike” together with the slope or hill angle (Blau, col. 13, lines 14–17).
Blau also teaches aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, mass, inertia, velocity, and acceleration as components of the bicycle-force model. (Blau, col. 7, ll. 27–35). The resulting rider power is calculated from force and crank speed. (Blau, col. 14, ll. 25–28).
Accordingly, claim 23 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hancock et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0039496 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Schlesinger in view of Ellis, further in view of Blau, and further in view of Hancock, teach the method of claim 13, wherein:
“wherein the condition of the trail during the ride is a weather condition, and — Schlesinger teaches this limitation in part. Schlesinger teaches the weather-condition portion:
“preferences to avoid sunlight, or other weather conditions” (Schlesinger, col. 18, ll. 42–45).
Schlesinger does not teach the remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“the difficulty level associated with the trail is based on an average altitude of the trail and event outing data associated with the trail.”
Hancock, however, teaches this remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“the difficulty level associated with the trail is based on an average altitude of the trail and event outing data associated with the trail” — Hancock expressly teaches that terrain information may include:
“maximum elevation, minimum elevation, average elevation, grade” and information about “roads, paths or trails” (Hancock, ¶ [0077]).
Hancock further teaches storing information for rides completed on particular routes, including route slope, speed, torque, biometric information, distance, and time, and states that information accumulates as more riders ride the route. (Hancock, ¶ [0070]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate Hancock’s average-elevation and prior-outing information into the Schlesinger/Ellis/Blau system because the base combination already uses elevation and route difficulty in recommending cycling routes/events. Hancock teaches average elevation and historical route-outing information as known measures for evaluating cycling routes. Using those known route characteristics would predictably refine the measure of trail difficulty. Accordingly, claim 14 would have been obvious over Schlesinger in view of Ellis, further in view of Blau, and further in view of Hancock.
Claims 15, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock in view of Blau et al. (US7862476).
Regarding claim 15, Hancock teaches a method for determining a plurality of riders for a cycling event, the method comprising:
“receiving at least one condition associated with a cycling event and a measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event” — Hancock teaches terrain conditions including:
“altitude, slope or grade, Surface (e.g., road, path, trail, etc.)” and weather such as snow, ice, or rain (Hancock, ¶ [0040]).
Hancock additionally teaches:
“Analysis of route information … may be used to determine … a difficulty of the route” (Hancock, ¶ [0065]).
Hancock expressly identifies a route “covered in an established cycling competition.” (Hancock, ¶ [0080]).
“selecting a plurality of riders for the cycling event based on the at least one condition associated with the cycling event, the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event, and a plurality of performance histories” — Hancock teaches determining rider performance capability and route difficulty and grouping riders of similar ability. Hancock states:
“Analysis of rider information … may be used to determine performance capabilities of the rider” (Hancock, ¶ [0065]).
Hancock further teaches that when multiple riders want to ride the same route, the system may:
“group riders having a similar skill level” (Hancock, ¶ [0046]).
Taken together with Hancock’s terrain/weather information and route-difficulty determination, Hancock suggests selecting/grouping riders for a cycling route/event according to the route conditions/difficulty and the riders’ historical capabilities.
“wherein each performance history of the plurality of performance histories is associated with a respective candidate rider” — Hancock teaches rider-specific historical information, including:
“past route performance information” such as fastest time, maximum bicycle speed, maximum torque, “maximum power, average power, split times, distance covered” (Hancock, ¶ [0039]).
“indicates, for the respective candidate rider, at least one amount of power — Hancock teaches this limitation in part. Hancock expressly records rider power and other ride information from sensors:
“Information about the rider may include maximum power generated, average power generated” and direct collection may occur through “sensors positioned either externally or internally to other components” (Hancock, ¶ [0095]).
Hancock also teaches that each time the rider rides the bicycle, the controller monitors performance along the route and compares that performance with other rides on the same or comparable routes. (Hancock, ¶ [0074]). Hancock further expressly identifies roads and trails as cycling-route environments. (Hancock, ¶¶ [0075]–[0077]).
“providing the plurality of riders to a user device” — Hancock teaches client computing devices capable of accessing selected information for:
“a user or selected group of users” and performing “data presentation, and coordination among two or more controllers” (Hancock, ¶ [0052]).
Hancock does not teach the remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“for moving the respective candidate rider and a bicycle used by the respective candidate rider through at least one amount of resistance determined from ride data.”
Blau, however, teaches this remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“for moving the respective candidate rider and a bicycle used by the respective candidate rider through at least one amount of resistance determined from ride data” — Blau teaches determining the physical resistance forces acting on a rider/bicycle combination, including aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, grade, mass, and acceleration. (Blau, col. 7, ll. 27–35).
Blau further expressly uses rider and bicycle weight in determining hill force and calculates true rider power from measured crank force and speed. (Blau, col. 13, lines 10–17; col. 14, lines 25–28).
It would have been obvious to use Blau’s known bicycle resistance/power model in Hancock’s rider-selection/grouping system because Hancock already records rider power, historical rider performance, route terrain, route difficulty, and sensor-derived ride information. Blau provides a known quantitative relationship between those riding conditions and the physical effort required from the rider. Applying Blau’s model would predictably permit Hancock’s rider-capability analysis to characterize a candidate rider according to the rider’s ability to produce power while overcoming the physical resistance of a route. Accordingly, claim 15 would have been obvious over Hancock in view of Blau.
Regarding claim 26, Hancock in view of Blau teach the method of claim 15, wherein:
“wherein the at least one condition associated with the cycling event comprises at least one environmental condition of an event trail associated with the cycling event” — Hancock itself teaches this newly recited limitation. Hancock teaches terrain information associated with roads, paths, and trails including:
“weather conditions such as Snow, ice or rain” (Hancock, ¶ [0040]).
Hancock further teaches location-associated environmental information including temperature, humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and dew point. (Hancock, ¶ [0076]).
Accordingly, claim 26 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Regarding claim 27, Hancock in view of Blau teach the method of claim 15, wherein:
“wherein the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event is based on ride data collected by a plurality of sensors during at least one prior ride on an event trail associated with the cycling event” — Hancock itself teaches/suggests the newly recited limitation. Hancock expressly teaches:
“Analysis of route information … may be used to determine … a difficulty of the route” (Hancock, ¶ [0065]).
Hancock also stores information concerning rides previously completed on a particular route, including multiple completed rides and route slope/performance information. (Hancock, ¶ [0070]). Hancock teaches that during each bicycle ride the controller monitors rider performance along the route and evaluates that performance relative to other rides on the same or comparable routes. (Hancock, ¶ [0074]).
Finally, Hancock expressly teaches sensor-derived ride information, including rider power, where:
“Direct collection may occur through the use of sensors” and indirect collection may derive parameters from “selected sensors” (Hancock, ¶ [0095]).
Hancock also identifies a route associated with “an established cycling competition.” (Hancock, ¶ [0080]).
Thus, Hancock teaches/suggests determining the difficulty of a cycling-event trail from sensor-derived ride information collected during prior rides over that event route. Accordingly, claim 27 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock in view of Blau, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ellis.
Regarding claim 18, Hancock in view of Blau and further in view of Ellis, teach the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one condition associated with the cycling event includes Hancock teaches the following additional portions:
“a location of the cycling event” — Hancock teaches location information obtained using GPS or other navigation systems and associated with elevation, temperature, humidity, wind speed, and other location information. (Hancock, ¶ [0076]).
“Hancock teaches this limitation in part. Hancock expressly teaches “average elevation” of roads, paths, or trails. (Hancock, ¶ [0077]).
Hancock additionally teaches determining:
“a difficulty of the route.” (Hancock, ¶ [0065]).
Hancock also teaches ride records for particular routes, including multiple completed rides and route performance data. (Hancock, ¶ [0070]).
Hancock does not teach the remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“a type or category of the cycling event.”
Ellis, however, teaches this remaining limitation and/or portion of:
“a type or category of the cycling event” — Ellis distinguishes between differing types of athletic cycling routes/events:
“the route may be an athletic training route or an athletic competition route” (Ellis, col. 41, lines 45–46).
Thus, Ellis teaches different types/categories of cycling activity, including a training route and an athletic competition route.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Ellis’s known distinction between athletic-training and athletic-competition routes into Hancock’s cycling-route analysis because Hancock already categorizes riders and routes and expressly contemplates established cycling competitions. Identifying whether the event is a training activity or competition is a predictable additional event characteristic for evaluating the event’s suitability and difficulty. Accordingly, claim 18 would have been obvious over Hancock in view of Blau and further in view of Ellis.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger in view of Ellis further in view of Blau, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hancock.
Regarding claim 20, Schlesinger in view of Ellis further in view of Blau and further in view of Hancock, teach the cycling event recommendation system of claim 19, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitations of:
“select a plurality of riders for the cycling event based on the at least one condition associated with the cycling event, the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event, and a plurality of performance histories”;
the recited candidate-rider performance histories; and
“providing the plurality of riders to a second user device associated with a coordinator of the cycling event.”
Hancock, however, teaches/suggests these remaining limitations and/or portions of:
“select a plurality of riders for the cycling event based on the at least one condition associated with the cycling event, the measure of difficulty associated with the cycling event, and a plurality of performance histories” — Hancock determines rider performance capabilities and route difficulty and groups multiple riders having similar skill levels. (Hancock, ¶¶ [0046], [0065]).
Hancock further stores historical rider power/performance information, including maximum power, average power, split times, and distance covered. (Hancock, ¶ [0039]).
the recited candidate-rider performance histories — Hancock’s rider information is rider-specific and includes prior route performance and power information. (Hancock, ¶ [0039]).
“providing the plurality of riders to a second user device associated with a coordinator of the cycling event” — Hancock teaches client computing devices capable of accessing information for a “selected group of users,” performing coordination among multiple controllers, and sending information to another client device so that a “trainer/coach” may access it. (Hancock, ¶ [0052]).
It would have been obvious to add Hancock’s known multi-rider grouping and coach/trainer coordination functionality to the Schlesinger/Ellis/Blau event-recommendation system because Hancock uses the same kinds of rider capability, historical performance, route condition, and route-difficulty information to coordinate multiple cyclists. The modification would predictably extend the individual recommendation system of claim 19 to selecting an appropriate rider group and communicating that group to an event coordinator. Accordingly, claim 20 would have been obvious over Schlesinger in view of Ellis, further in view of Blau, and further in view of Hancock.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher et al. (US20070042868A1).
Regarding claim 24, Schlesinger in view of Ellis further in view of Blau, and further in view of Fisher, teach the method of claim 1,
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“wherein determining the at least one amount of resistance comprises identifying an obstacle encountered during the ride and determining a watts difficulty rating for the obstacle.”
Fisher, however, teaches/suggests this remaining limitation of:
“wherein determining the at least one amount of resistance comprises identifying an obstacle encountered during the ride and determining a watts difficulty rating for the obstacle.” – Fisher expressly teaches virtual riding environments containing objects or obstacles that may appear in the virtual environment. (Fisher, ¶ [0132]). Fisher further teaches that individual virtual exercise routes have a displayed difficulty level. (Fisher, ¶ [0130]).
More importantly, Fisher teaches that the rider’s position determines the slope encountered, that the system calculates the corresponding resistance, and that with resistance and cadence known:
“the program also calculates the momentary power dissipation by the user. This power is measured in Watts” (Fisher, ¶ [0134]).
Fisher does not literally employ the phrase “watts difficulty rating.” However, Fisher expressly identifies encountered terrain/obstacles, assigns route difficulty, calculates the resistance created by terrain at the rider’s position, and quantifies the rider effort associated with that resistance in watts. Fisher therefore suggests expressing the difficulty associated with an encountered terrain feature/obstacle as a watts-based rating.
It would have been obvious to apply Fisher’s known terrain-specific resistance and watts calculation to the Schlesinger/Ellis/Blau system because the base combination already determines route/trail difficulty, cycling resistance, and rider power. Fisher provides a known way to quantify the effort associated with a particular encountered terrain condition by calculating the corresponding resistance and rider power in watts. Using the watts value as the difficulty rating for the encountered obstacle would provide a predictable quantitative metric directly comparable with the rider-power information already used by the combined system. Accordingly, claim 24 would have been obvious over Schlesinger in view of Ellis, further in view of Blau, and further in view of Fisher.
Regarding claim 25, Schlesinger in view of Ellis and further in view of Blau and Fisher teach the method of claim 24, wherein:
Schlesinger does not teach the additional limitation of:
“wherein determining the at least one amount of power comprises determining an amount of watts for moving the rider and the bicycle through the obstacle based on the watts difficulty rating.”
Fisher, however, teaches/suggests this remaining limitation of:
“wherein determining the at least one amount of power comprises determining an amount of watts for moving the rider and the bicycle through the obstacle based on the watts difficulty rating.” – Fisher teaches:
“The pedal rotation velocity and the resistance to the pedaling determine the instantaneous energy dissipation by the user” (Fisher, ¶ [0073]).
Fisher further teaches that the resulting power is expressed in watts and that grade and speed determine the resistance experienced by the rider, from which the system calculates corresponding rider power in watts. (Fisher, ¶¶ [0073], [0134]).
Thus, once the encountered obstacle/terrain difficulty is characterized using the watts-based metric discussed with respect to claim 24, Fisher teaches/suggests determining the amount of watts associated with moving through that obstacle. Accordingly, claim 25 would have been obvious over the same combination.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Paul Coleman whose telephone number is (571)272-4687. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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 Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/PAUL COLEMAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
