DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/530,704 originally filed on December 6, 2023. Claims 1-14 were originally presented for examination.
In the Preliminary Amendment filed December 6, 2023, claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 14 were amended. Claims 1-14 remain pending examination. Claim 1 is independent.
Priority
This application claims foreign priority of BR 10 2023 019509 (Federative Republic of Brazil), filed September 22, 2023.
None of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Specification
The amendments to the Specification and Abstract filed in the Preliminary Amendment of December 6, 2023 are acknowledged and accepted by the Examiner.
Drawings
Regarding FIG. 2, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), stated in part, indicates that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of a black and white photographs lacking sufficient reproducible quality prevents FIG. 2 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “on this screen.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “on [[this]] the screen.” Claims 2-14 are objected to based on their dependency to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “staring the training at the initial station.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “ starting the training at the initial station.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: consistency.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 2, 13, and 14, recites the limitations “10s to 90s” and “10s to 60s.” These limitations should be spelled out as “[[10s]] 10 seconds to [[90s]] 90 seconds” and “[[10s]] 10 seconds to [[60s]] 60 seconds,” for clarity and in order to maintain consistency with the other claim limitations. Claims 2-14 are objected to based on their dependency to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “5 to 20 min.” This limitation should be spelled out as “5 to 20 minutes,” for clarity and in order to maintain consistency with the other claim limitations. Claims 2-14 are objected to based on their dependency to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: hyphens or bullets in claims.
Claims 3, 13, and 14 are objected to because the limitations contain hyphens which makes the claims difficult to examine. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret the claim limitations without the hyphens. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claims containing more than one period.
Claim 8 is objected to because it is improperly contains two periods: one after the word “HIIT,” and another at the end of the claim. Per MPEP 608.01(m), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the 3 to 16 stations.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the time of user transitions.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 9, 13, and 14, recites the limitation “an exercise program.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[an]] the exercise program”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, recites the limitation “a new exercise program.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the new exercise program”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 3, 13, and 14, recites the limitation “the transition time.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 2, 3, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “an electronic personal trainer.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[an]] the electronic personal trainer”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 11, 13, and 14, recites the limitation “two different exercise programs.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the two different exercise programs”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 3, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the guidance.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 3, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the rotation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 3, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the occurrence.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 3, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the interval time.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 3, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the visualization.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 3, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, recites the limitation “the correct way.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 3, 13, or 14, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 8, the phrase "among others" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "among others"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8, and substantially similar limitations in claims 11 and 12, recites the limitation “the training site.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 8, 11, or 12, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the distributed stations.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1 or 12, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the 4 stations.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1 or 12, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the mezzanine.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1 or 12, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, recites the limitation “a mobile or computer or tablet application.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the mobile or computer or tablet application”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, recites the limitation “a screen.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the screen”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “improving circuit physical training,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“choosing… a day, time, an exercise program of the day (which will indicate which will be a starting station), and a position at the starting station, provided that the starting station is available and has not been pre-scheduled by another user;
guiding… in each of the 3 to 16 stations… it has the identification of the user, in order to perform at least 3 types of exercises, totaling the time of 5 to 20 min in each station, with at least 3 sets of repetitions for each exercise per station; totaling an exercise program of 30 to 80 minutes, two different exercise programs being available to be performed per day, starting a new exercise program at each interval of 5 to 20 min, and occurring simultaneously in alternating or subsequent stations according to the periodization of each exercise plan carried out by a technical staff;
waiting for the time of user transitions between stations, which time is in a range from 10s to 90s;
starting the training at the starting station, which was indicated according to the exercise program chosen to perform on the day, as identified by the user…
completing the training at a last station indicated by the exercise program.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a mobile or computer or tablet application,” “a screen,” “an electronic personal trainer,” and “a system” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “improving circuit physical training” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a mobile or computer or tablet application,” “a screen,” “an electronic personal trainer,” and “a system” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a mobile or computer or tablet application,” “a screen,” and “an electronic personal trainer” are claimed to operate on “a system.” Instant specification paragraphs [0034-0035] specify that the “an electronic personal trainer” is an avatar displayed on a screen. The other additional elements are not explicitly defined, but are implicitly stated to be performed on “a mobile or computer or tablet,” as shown in the claim limitation “choosing through a mobile or computer or tablet application.”
Therefore, these elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitationsare reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependency to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korkie (US 2006/0223674) in view of Harris et al. (hereinafter “Harris,” US 2016/0372003).
Regarding claim 1, Korkie discloses a method for improving circuit physical training (Korkie [0034], “CTS 110 customizes the circuit training process to improve training effectiveness and variety”), comprising for each user:
choosing through a mobile or computer or tablet application, a day, time, an exercise program of the day (which will indicate which will be a starting station), and a position at the starting station, provided that the starting station is available and has not been pre-scheduled by another user (Korkie [0020], “Whether the instructions come from a personal trainer or computer display is irrelevant--the exerciser is completely guided through their workout”; also Korkie [0073-0074], “The starting position and circuit time interval is determined before a workout can be fully scheduled (step 525). The login control module 125 allows the user 1.5 minutes to prepare for their workout; therefore it determines the circuit time period in which the user's workout should begin… Login control module 125 then accesses the workout station schedule to determine whether there is a station that does not have another user scheduled for the desired time period… When the correct beginning time period and beginning workout station are determined, the entire workout is scheduled (step 530).”);
guiding through a screen with an electronic personal trainer, in each of the 3 to 16 stations, wherein on this screen it has the identification of the user, in order to perform at least 3 types of exercises, totaling the time of 5 to 20 min in each station, with at least 3 sets of repetitions for each exercise per station; totaling an exercise program of 30 to 80 minutes (Korkie [0070], “the login control module 125 accesses user data, checks the circuit for availability, determines which workout is to be performed, and schedules the entire workout with the correct weight setting and repetition data. When a user uses digitizer 155 to scan in his or her unique identifier, login control module 125 receives the input and queries circuit database to identify the user”; also Korkie [0072], “The circuit has a training interval and every workout has a specific duration. The total number of stations in the workout is calculated (step 520) by dividing the workout duration by the training interval and rounding up. For example, a 30 minute workout on a circuit with a training interval of 33 seconds will include 55 stations to complete (30*60/33).”),
…
waiting for the time of user transitions between stations, which time is in a range from 10s to 90s (Korkie [0080], “the weight equipment in a circuit workout is suitably arranged in such a way that each muscle group receives at least 1.5 minutes of recovery.”; also Korkie [0112], “Some stations in the circuit may be designated as recovery stations. If at a recovery station (step 1080), then no exercise is performed then user waits for a next change stations message (steps 1085 and 1060).”);
starting the training at the starting station, which was indicated according to the exercise program chosen to perform on the day, as identified by the user on the screen (Korkie [0072-0074], “The total number of stations in the workout is calculated (step 520) by dividing the workout duration by the training interval and rounding up… The starting position and circuit time interval is determined before a workout can be fully scheduled… When the correct beginning time period and beginning workout station are determined, the entire workout is scheduled”; also Korkie [0076], “When the workout has been successfully scheduled with the appropriate exercise weights for the user have been determined, the login module 125 displays the identification for the starting station (step 540) to instruct the user to move to the appropriate station to begin the exercise routine. In addition, the user needs to know when their workout will begin, so the login module 125 calculates how long until the user's workout begins and displays that as well.”);
completing the training at a last station indicated by the exercise program (Korkie [0074], “This process continues until an entry has been made for the (beginning time period+total stations in workout)|(final station in workout)|(user id) combination.”).
Korkie does not explicitly teach two different exercise programs being available to be performed per day, starting a new exercise program at each interval of 5 to 20 min, and occurring simultaneously in alternating or subsequent stations according to the periodization of each exercise plan carried out by a technical staff.
However, Harris discloses two different exercise programs being available to be performed per day, starting a new exercise program at each interval of 5 to 20 min, and occurring simultaneously in alternating or subsequent stations according to the periodization of each exercise plan carried out by a technical staff (Harris [0098], “A suggested workout program is provided to the customer to opt into 1410. The customer selects one of the suggested programs and registers, or customizes a program and registers 1412, which completes member registration 1414,” the user if offered a choice for opting into an exercise program).
Harris is analogous to Korkie, as both are drawn to the art of exercise systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Korkie, to include two different exercise programs being available to be performed per day, starting a new exercise program at each interval of 5 to 20 min, and occurring simultaneously in alternating or subsequent stations according to the periodization of each exercise plan carried out by a technical staff, as taught by Harris, in order to better customize the workout to the individual (Harris [0097]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Korkie in view of Harris discloses the transition time from exercise to exercise within a same station being able to range from 10s to 60s, and the transition time from one station to another station being able to range from 10s to 90s (Korkie [0072], “The circuit has a training interval and every workout has a specific duration. The total number of stations in the workout is calculated (step 520) by dividing the workout duration by the training interval and rounding up. For example, a 30 minute workout on a circuit with a training interval of 33 seconds will include 55 stations to complete (30*60/33).”; also Korkie [0080], “With respect to weight training equipment, circuit training configurations are flexible; any type of free weight or selectorized pin equipment may be used. To be effective for strength training, however, the weight equipment in a circuit workout is suitably arranged in such a way that each muscle group receives at least 1.5 minutes of recovery. In addition, effective cardiovascular includes the exercise being completed with minimal interruption. As such, the invention includes two or more pieces of adjustable resistance strength equipment.”).
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 14, Korkie in view of Harris discloses employing a software that is configured to: allow for the guidance of the exercises through an electronic personal trainer and the rotation of the exercise, being able to start in a new station a new exercise block every 5 to 20 minutes; and a new exercise program every 5 to 20 minutes; allow for the occurrence of two different exercise programs occurring simultaneously, using different stations; control: the interval time between one set and another, the transition time between one exercise and another, the transition time between one station and another; allow for the visualization on the screens of the correct way of performing the exercises, through the electronic personal trainer (Korkie [0037], “Primary client 105 and secondary client 100 may comprise any hardware and/or software suitably configured to facilitate input, receipt and/or review of any data related circuit control engine 140 or any data discussed herein.”; also Korkie [0072], “The circuit has a training interval and every workout has a specific duration. The total number of stations in the workout is calculated (step 520) by dividing the workout duration by the training interval and rounding up. For example, a 30 minute workout on a circuit with a training interval of 33 seconds will include 55 stations to complete (30*60/33)”; also Korkie [0080], “To be effective for strength training, however, the weight equipment in a circuit workout is suitably arranged in such a way that each muscle group receives at least 1.5 minutes of recovery.”; also Korkie [0106], “the workout weights that are displayed at the workout stations are guidelines to assist the user in the workout process. If they find that a weight setting for a workout is too easy or difficult, they can make the desired adjustment to the weight setting. The circuit attendant will then enter the new data which is stored in circuit database 145.”; also Korkie [0108], “The workout process is a fully automated process that guides the user through one complete workout. This process is the same for any exercise circuit as well as every workout type in a user's workout program.”).
Regarding claim 4, Korkie in view of Harris discloses the user can start a new exercise program every 10 minutes (Korkie [0069], “When the time interval array is constructed, circuit control engine 140 begins to continuously access the time period array to determine the current time period. First, the current time period is set to 1 (step 410). Next the CTS 110 checks the current system time (step 415) and compares it to the maximum interval end time in the circuit time period array (step 420). When this condition is met, circuit control engine 140 is shut down (step condition is not met, the CTS 110 determines where the current system time falls in relation to the circuit time period array (step 425). None of the time periods overlap; therefore the current time period will be assured of a unique value. The current time period is set to the value corresponding to its positioning in the circuit time period array (step 430). Steps 415, 420, 425, and 430 may repeat until the condition for executing step 435 is met.”).
Regarding claim 5, Korkie in view of Harris discloses exercises that may or may not be divided into exercise types by muscle groups on weekdays, or according to the training periodization established by the technical staff (Korkie [0019], “The thirty minute, three times per week exercise regiment offered by weight resistance circuit training is very effective and meets the needs of anyone who wants to maintain a good, to very good, level of fitness. Hydraulic resistance circuit training is limited to providing basic, high repetition cardio/strength workouts. The present invention provides the exerciser with many different exercise possibilities. The relative weight levels and rest interval can be changed to provide workout types including, for example, cardio, cardio/strength, strength, power, and pyramid. This variety and flexibility provides programs that meet the needs of most exercisers, except for possibly the elite athlete trainer.”).
Regarding claim 6, Korkie in view of Harris discloses employing a mix of stimuli from strength training, endurance, strength endurance, flexibility, bodybuilding, cardiovascular, aerobic, anaerobic, fitness, physical therapy, balance, mobility, functional, HIIT, calisthenics, stretching, among others (Korkie [0019], “The thirty minute, three times per week exercise regiment offered by weight resistance circuit training is very effective and meets the needs of anyone who wants to maintain a good, to very good, level of fitness. Hydraulic resistance circuit training is limited to providing basic, high repetition cardio/strength workouts. The present invention provides the exerciser with many different exercise possibilities. The relative weight levels and rest interval can be changed to provide workout types including, for example, cardio, cardio/strength, strength, power, and pyramid. This variety and flexibility provides programs that meet the needs of most exercisers, except for possibly the elite athlete trainer.”).
Regarding claim 7, Korkie in view of Harris discloses that each station comprises equipment and accessories for one type of exercise, which were selected by the technical staff according to the periodization of the exercise, comprising: exercises for the legs, exercises for the chest, exercises for the back, exercises for the abdomen, exercises for the shoulder, exercises for the triceps, exercises for the biceps and aerobic exercises (Korkie [0006], “Capacity is increased by simply adding another machine. Listed next is the probability that each machine type is chosen by a single member for an exercise within their workout. To determine this probability, it has been assumed that, through the process of trial and error, exercise facilities have observed bottlenecks and increased or decreased capacity accordingly. It is assumed that gyms generally have close to the optimal number of machines given member preferences, so the probability is approximated by dividing the number of machines of a given type by the total number of machines.”; also Korkie [0013], “Many fitness facilities have dedicated circuit training areas equipped with free weight or selectorized resistance machines.”).
Regarding claim 8, Korkie in view of Harris discloses that the training site comprises stations with exercises chosen from the group comprising: weight training, aerobics, wrestling, functional, cross training, cardio, Pilates, yoga, ginastica natural or natural gymnastics, dance, muay Thai, boxing, jiu-jitsu, spinning, running, air bike, flexibility, HIIT. Material and exercise Dumbbell, dumbbell, airbike, step, jump, treadmill,naval rope, spinning bike, exercise bike, ball with weight, TRX, mat, kettlebell, elastic, paddle, balance platform, Bosu, sled, fighting bob, rope, tire, small round cone, small triangular cone, balance board, exercise ladder, plyometric box, ladder, ladder mill, among others (Korkie [0019], “The thirty minute, three times per week exercise regiment offered by weight resistance circuit training is very effective and meets the needs of anyone who wants to maintain a good, to very good, level of fitness. Hydraulic resistance circuit training is limited to providing basic, high repetition cardio/strength workouts. The present invention provides the exerciser with many different exercise possibilities. The relative weight levels and rest interval can be changed to provide workout types including, for example, cardio, cardio/strength, strength, power, and pyramid. This variety and flexibility provides programs that meet the needs of most exercisers, except for possibly the elite athlete trainer.”).
Regarding claim 9, Korkie in view of Harris discloses an exercise program of up to 40 minutes distributed over 8 exercise stations (Korkie [0072], “The circuit has a training interval and every workout has a specific duration. The total number of stations in the workout is calculated (step 520) by dividing the workout duration by the training interval and rounding up. For example, a 30 minute workout on a circuit with a training interval of 33 seconds will include 55 stations to complete (30*60/33).”).
Regarding claim 10, Korkie does not explicitly teach that the training is carried out in a place that comprises two exercise programs in a total of 8 exercise stations, preferably 4 stations per exercise program are used simultaneously, according to the periodization of the exercises of that given day, determined by the technical staff.
However, Harris discloses that the training is carried out in a place that comprises two exercise programs in a total of 8 exercise stations, preferably 4 stations per exercise program are used simultaneously, according to the periodization of the exercises of that given day, determined by the technical staff (Harris [0098], “A suggested workout program is provided to the customer to opt into 1410. The customer selects one of the suggested programs and registers, or customizes a program and registers 1412, which completes member registration 1414.”).
Harris is analogous to Korkie, as both are drawn to the art of exercise systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Korkie, to include that the training is carried out in a place that comprises two exercise programs in a total of 8 exercise stations, preferably 4 stations per exercise program are used simultaneously, according to the periodization of the exercises of that given day, determined by the technical staff, as taught by Harris, in order to better customize the workout to the individual (Harris [0097]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Korkie does not explicitly teach that the training site comprises 8 stations, with 8 stations being used simultaneously, with two different exercise programs that use 4 stations for each program, comprising two different types of 40-minute exercise program, which occur simultaneously, and each exercise program uses 4 exercise stations, totaling 8 stations available, where 3 sets of 40 seconds of each exercise are performed with a transition period for 20-second rest in each station.
However, Harris discloses that the training site comprises 8 stations, with 8 stations being used simultaneously, with two different exercise programs that use 4 stations for each program, comprising two different types of 40-minute exercise program, which occur simultaneously, and each exercise program uses 4 exercise stations, totaling 8 stations available, where 3 sets of 40 seconds of each exercise are performed with a transition period for 20-second rest in each station (Harris [0065], “the present invention provides each patron or user an individualized exercise program, preferably of specifically sequenced exercises, tailor-made to that individual user and adaptable from workout session to workout session. The present invention provides an automated directed workout which guides the user from one exercise to another in a timed fashion, so as to complete a full exercise regimen within an allotted time period. In a particularly preferred embodiment of the present invention, the user performs these exercises in a private setting and receives guidance and is able to provide input via technology incorporated into the system.”; also Harris [0098], “A suggested workout program is provided to the customer to opt into 1410. The customer selects one of the suggested programs and registers, or customizes a program and registers 1412, which completes member registration 1414.”).
Harris is analogous to Korkie, as both are drawn to the art of exercise systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Korkie, to include that the training site comprises 8 stations, with 8 stations being used simultaneously, with two different exercise programs that use 4 stations for each program, comprising two different types of 40-minute exercise program, which occur simultaneously, and each exercise program uses 4 exercise stations, totaling 8 stations available, where 3 sets of 40 seconds of each exercise are performed with a transition period for 20-second rest in each station, as taught by Harris, in order to better customize the workout to the individual (Harris [0097]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korkie in view of Harris, and in further view of Shavit (US 2021/0205660).
Regarding claim 12, Korkie in view of Harris does not explicitly teach that the training site presents the distributed stations, side by side, of free transit for the users, there are no walls or structures that isolate each station leaving free the transit of the users between the stations, or being able to present the 4 stations on the ground floor of free transit for the users, and 4 stations of free transit on the mezzanine or first floor.
However, Shavit discloses that the training site presents the distributed stations, side by side, of free transit for the users, there are no walls or structures that isolate each station leaving free the transit of the users between the stations, or being able to present the 4 stations on the ground floor of free transit for the users, and 4 stations of free transit on the mezzanine or first floor (see Shavit Fig. 1, showing a gym floor with several stations of exercise equipment, with no walls separating the various stations).
Shavit is analogous to Korkie in view of Harris, as both are drawn to the art of exercise equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Korkie in view of Harris, to include that the training site presents the distributed stations, side by side, of free transit for the users, there are no walls or structures that isolate each station leaving free the transit of the users between the stations, or being able to present the 4 stations on the ground floor of free transit for the users, and 4 stations of free transit on the mezzanine or first floor, as taught by Shavit, since it combines prior art elements of an open exercise room floorplan according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715