DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “… operable to determine a momentary position of one of the exercise device and a weight of the exercise device”, and the language of “one of the exercise device” is unclear. As best understood, the phrasing is examined as –operable to determine one of a momentary position of the exercise device and a weight of the exercise device--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tremblay-Munger et al. (US 2015/0057111).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. (Currently Amended) A monitoring arrangement for use with an exercise device, the monitoring arrangement comprising: an inertial sensor (20; para. 103) configured to move throughout an exercise activity of the exercise device (the functional limitation is met at least by, e.g., para. 112) and to detect the exercise activity when moved (e.g., paras. 105, 117, 125); an additional sensor (also 20 by para. 105, i.e., inertial sensor 20 is a sensor arrangement comprising a plurality of motion sensors 22, a gyroscope group 24, and magnetometers 28) separate from the inertial sensor (para. 105), the additional sensor (i.e., any other of 22, 24, 28, and/or sensors of paras. 136-137) having an active mode (wake state, paras. 134-135) and a disabled mode (sleep state, paras. 134-135), and the additional sensor (i.e., any other of 22, 24, 28, and/or paras. 136-137) using less power when in the disabled mode than in the active mode (inherent by para. 111, i.e., exemplary commercially-known sensors inherently use less electricity/electric-power when “off” than when “on”); and a controller (30) configured to: detect, via the inertial sensor, a start of the exercise activity (e.g., para. 135); cause the additional sensor to operate in the active mode upon detecting the start of the exercise activity (e.g., para. 135); and operate the additional sensor to generate measurement data that represents the exercise activity when in the active mode (e.g., para. 135 and/or para. 130); wherein the additional sensor is defaulted to the disabled mode to save power (by para. 133, i.e., “off” command is triggered by timeout, for example 30 seconds without motion).
2. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the controller (30) is further configured to transmit first exercise data that represents the measurement data from the additional sensor (e.g., para. 128).
3. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the first exercise data is transmitted wirelessly (e.g., paras. 128, 154, 156).
4. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the controller (30) is further configured to determine a presence or absence of a mobile device (e.g., paras. 128-130) and, when the mobile device is present, to transmit the first exercise data to the mobile device (paras. 128-130, 155-156).
5. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the controller (30) is further configured to determine a presence or absence of a mobile device (e.g., paras. 128-130) and, when the mobile device is absent (e.g., paras. 128-130), to calculate second exercise data (i.e., outputs of algorithm, such as algorithm of para. 127 or algorithm of para. 130) that represents the exercise activity using a measurement signal from the inertial sensor (by paras. 127-130, algorithm takes the sensor raw data as inputs and provides outputs relating to user performance and/or second object), the second exercise data (i.e., output of algorithm) being different than the first exercise data (i.e., raw sensor data).
6. (Original) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the first exercise data (i.e., raw sensor data) is real-time data (para. 130) and the second exercise data (i.e., output of algorithm) is non-real-time data (paras. 127 and/or 130).
7. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the controller (30) is further configured to transmit the second exercise data (i.e., output of algorithm, such as player performance data) to a receiver (104) different from the mobile device (105 by para. 157).
8. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the controller (30) is further configured to detect a termination of the exercise activity (e.g., para. 145) and to transmit the second exercise data (i.e., outputs of algorithm) when the termination of the exercise activity is detected (inherent, insomuch as the algorithm takes sensor data from a starting event to a completion event as input, processes the data over some time interval, and then gives an output, and therefore the algorithm’s final output must be at some time later than completion event).
9. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the termination is detected using the measurement signal from the inertial sensor (para. 145).
13. (Original) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the second exercise data is indicative of a count of exercise movements performed during the exercise activity (e.g., para. 125).
14. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the first exercise data that represents the measurement data from the additional sensor is transmitted in time synchronization with the exercise activity (by para. 130, i.e., real-time analysis).
15. (Previously Presented) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the additional sensor is operable to determine a momentary position of one of the exercise device and a weight of the exercise device (by para. 129, i.e., algorithm executed on 30 includes stick related information such as weight).
16. (Original) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the first exercise data represents a movement trajectory of the one of the exercise device (para. 130) and the weight of the exercise device (by para. 129, i.e., algorithm executed on 30 includes stick related information such as weight).
17. (Original) The monitoring arrangement according to claim 16, wherein the first exercise data comprises at least one of: an indication of a start of an exercise movement performed as part of the exercise activity (e.g., para. 134-135, 145), an indication of a completion of the exercise movement performed as part of the exercise activity (e.g., para. 145), a count of repetitive exercise movements performed during the exercise activity (by para. 125, i.e., motion counter), and an indication of a load being lifted during an exercise movement (by para. 130, i.e., outputs include angle of backswing).
18. (Currently Amended) A method for monitoring exercise activity for an exercise device, the method comprising: detecting the exercise activity via an inertial sensor that moves throughout the exercise activity; detecting, via a controller, a start of the exercise activity from the inertial sensor; causing an additional sensor to operate in an active mode when the start of exercise activity is detected, the additional sensor being defaulted to a disabled mode that uses less power than the active mode when the start of exercise activity is undetected; generating, via the additional sensor when in the active mode, measurement data that represents the exercise activity; and communicating a first exercise data that represents the measurement data from the additional sensor when the additional sensor is in the active mode (see explanations of the prior art above).
19. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 18, further comprising determining whether a mobile device separate from the exercise device is present or absent and, when the mobile device is absent, calculating and communicating a second exercise data that represents the exercise activity using a measurement signal from the inertial sensor, the second exercise data being different than the first exercise data (see explanations of the prior art above).
20. (Original) The method according to claim 19, wherein the first exercise data is real-time data and the second exercise data is non-real-time data, and wherein the second exercise data is communicated to a receiver device that is different from the mobile device (see explanations of the prior art above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay-Munger et al. (US 2015/0057111), in view of Root et al. (US 2023/0149789).
The prior art of Tremblay-Munger is silent regarding an intermediate mode, and therefore cannot be said to disclose all the limitations of claims 10-12.
Root teaches a microprocessor (116) which is operable to receive a plurality of sensor data from a plurality of sensors, and which is operable to determine, based on the plurality of sensor data, when to transition from one power state to another, including a lower, higher, consistent, and/or inactive power level (para. 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use an intermediate mode, such as taught by Root, in the sensors disclosed by Tremblay-Munger, for the expected advantage of optimizing battery life of the device, as was well-known in the art.
Thereafter, the limitations of claims 10-12 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above, especially considering the disclosure of the cited prior art is not complex in comparison to the instant disclosure, and the prior art’s disclosure is in sufficient proximity to the scope of the claimed limitations that the pertinence of Tremblay-Munger and/or Root is considered apparent. Further mapping of the art is therefore unnecessary by 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2) (i.e., the rejection of claims is mapped to the art when a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant), e.g. the limitations of the respective claims are considered to flow naturally from the art.1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) which states “There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. […] “Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence.” Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578 (internal citation omitted)