Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/557,554 filed on 10/26/2023, and which claims as amended on 10/03/2025 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the status of the instant application as a 371 of PCT/US22/26965 which claims priority to provisional application 63/181,837. As such the earliest date of priority of 04/29/2021 is granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have not been sufficient to overcome the original rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action.
Drawings
Photographs, color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one photograph. Specifically figures 2-3A. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 1-17, and 22-24 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.
Each of Claims 1-17, and 22-24 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1,11, and 22 recite at least one step or instruction for selecting a playback rate for presenting content to a user, and presenting a sequence of image frames that display to the content at the selected playback rate via a user interface, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Selecting a playback rate for content presented to a user falls under a judgement or evaluation that could be practically performed in a human mind or with pen and paper, and thus is grouped as a mental process, and presenting image frames or displaying a distance based timeline via a user interface is either a generic additional element or a mental process abstract idea as a person can do the same via pen and paper e.g. drawings.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 11, and 18 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites: a system for presenting content to a user performing an exercise activity via an exercise machine, the system comprising: a processor; and one or more memories coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: select a playback rate for presenting content to the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG), wherein the selected playback rate is different from a playback rate that matches an actual rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and present a sequence of image frames that display the content at the selected playback rate via a user interface (additional element) of the exercise machine (either a mental process (evaluation or judgement with pen and paper, e.g., drawings), or an additional element that is insignificant extra solution activity (akin to displaying data).
Furthermore, Claim 11 recites a method, comprising: selecting a playback rate for content presented to a user performing an exercise activity (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) via an exercise machine (additional element); wherein the selected playback rate is different than an actual playback rate associated with an actual rate of movement of the user performing the exercise activity (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and presenting a sequence of image frames that display the content at the selected playback rate via a user interface (additional element) of the exercise machine (either a mental process (evaluation or judgement with pen and paper, e.g., drawings), or an additional element that is insignificant extra solution activity (akin to displaying data).
In addition, Claim 22 recites a method performed by an exercise machine, the method comprising: determining an actual playback rate, for a sequence of image frames, associated with an actual rate of movement of a user performing an exercise activity (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); modifying the determined actual playback rate by a multiplier(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG, and/or a mathematical concept); and presenting the sequence of image frames at the modified playback rate via a display of the exercise machine (additional element and insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., displaying content).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-10,12-17, 19 and 21 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 11, and 22 (and their respective dependent claims 2-10,12-17, and 23-24) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, and 22), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a processor, a user interface, a memory device, a computer device, as recited in independent Claims 1,11, and 22 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 11, and 22 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, and 22 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor, memory, computing system as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11 and 22(and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 11, and 22 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 11, and 22 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a processor, a user interface, a memory, a computing system. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, in paragraph [37], “Although not required, aspects of the various components or systems are described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a general- purpose computer, e.g., mobile device, a server computer, or personal computer. The system can be practiced with other communications, data processing, or computer system configurations, including: Internet appliances, hand-held devices, wearable devices, or mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, laptops, smart watches), all manner of cellular or mobile phones, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, set-top boxes, network PCs, mini-computers, mainframe computers, ARNR devices, gaming devices, and the like. Indeed, the terms "computer”, "host," and "host computer," and "mobile device" and "handset" are generally used interchangeably herein and refer to any of the above devices and systems, as well as any data processor.”
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor, memory, computing system, is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor, memory, or computing system. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements 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) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in independent Claims 1, 11, and 22 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the systems and methods of Claims 1-17, and 22-24 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-17, and 22-24 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 11, and 22 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-17 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-17, and 22-24 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-17, and 22-24 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schieffer et al. US 20130210579 A1.
Regarding claim 22:
Schieffer discloses a method performed by an exercise machine (“A method and apparatus to receive a measure of heart rate for a user while the user is exercising on a stationary exercise device, calculate a speed of the user based on the measure of heart rate, and display on a display device viewable by the user a location of where the user would be along a selected route based on the user's speed” See abstract), the method comprising: determining an actual playback rate, for a sequence of image frames, associated with an actual rate of movement of a user performing an exercise activity (“The sport selected by the user informs the user's software application as to which set of algorithms to use to translate heart rate into speed for the workout, which in turn controls the display of the course on the electronic display device, for example, the rate of playback of a video representation of the course” See paragraph [0027]); modifying the determined actual playback rate by a multiplier (“In yet another embodiment, a multiplier is calculated that changes the frame rate of the video to match the speed at which the user is traveling.” See paragraph [0030]); and presenting the sequence of image frames at the modified playback rate via a display of the exercise machine (“According to an embodiment of the invention, the user's software application manipulates the frame rate (e.g., the number of frames displayed per second) of the video as it is played back such that it matches the speed of the user based on the user's level of exertion, the user's level of fitness, and the terrain.” See paragraph [0035] and figure 3 which depicts video playback 305).
Regarding claim 23:
Schieffer discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the multiplier is based on the exercise machine or the exercise activity (The examiner notes that the inclusion of the phrase “or” requires that only one of the limitations are required for the invention. In addition Schieffer states, “The user's software application further includes physics or biology based algorithms, depending on the type of sport the user is participating in, that translate the user's heart rate into speed, as discussed further below.” See paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 24:
Schieffer discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the multiplier is based on an experience level of the user with respect to the exercise activity (“The software application also allows for user input, via one or more of keyboard 125, user input device 130, and sensor 110, of user profile information, such as the user's height, weight, age, gender, fitness level, hours and type of exercise over a selected period of time, e.g., per week, resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, etc.” See paragraph [0024]. The examiner notes that calibrating the system to fitness level, and statistics of the user’s workout history is the experience level of the user being applied).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-9,11-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieffer et al. US 20130210579 A1 in further view of Susanto WO 2021041307 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Schieffer teaches a system for presenting content to a user performing an exercise activity via an exercise machine “embodiments of the invention relate to exercising on a stationary equipment device while viewing an interactive display device that tracks a user's or exerciser's progress along a selected pre-recorded route.” See paragraph [0002]), the system comprising: a processor (computer processing device 145) ; and one or more memories coupled to the processor (“Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, and magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, NVRAMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus.” See paragraph [0066], and the examiner notes that the invention includes permanent storage 140 which is also a memory device, and that paragraph [0027] mentions the computer processing device includes local storage), wherein the processor is configured to: select a playback rate for presenting content to the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine (“The sport selected by the user informs the user's software application as to which set of algorithms to use to translate heart rate into speed for the workout, which in turn controls the display of the course on the electronic display device, for example, the rate of playback of a video representation of the course” See paragraph [0027]), and present a sequence of image frames that display the content at the selected playback rate via a user interface of the exercise machine (“According to an embodiment of the invention, the user's software application manipulates the frame rate (e.g., the number of frames displayed per second) of the video as it is played back such that it matches the speed of the user based on the user's level of exertion, the user's level of fitness, and the terrain.” See paragraph [0035] and figure 3 which depicts video playback 305).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
461
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schieffer fails to teach wherein the selected playback rate is different from a playback rate that matches an actual rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine. The examiner notes that Schieffer does select different playback rates depending on both the user’s actual rate of movement, and the speed the presented image frames were originally recorded at, which the system compares and calculates a different between the two as shown by the example discussed in paragraph [0030] in Schieffer, however this is in order to allow the user to have a more immersive exercise experience with the virtual course as the system tries to match the video playback speed to the users speed.
Susanto, however, teaches methods and systems for providing content during an activity, and more particularly to systems and related processes for identifying and adapting the playback speed of content to be provided during an activity (See paragraph [0002] and the abstract), and further teaches wherein the selected playback rate is different from a playback rate that matches an actual rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine (Paragraph [0033] outlines an example where the playback speed of content is adjusted in order to fit a duration of a cycling session on a stationary exercise bicycle, with paragraph [0056] outlining how the system adjusts the playback rate of the content in order to fit the duration(s) of various activities through the use of intensity factors correlating with different multipliers to speed up or slow down the content, which would require the selected playback to be different from a rate matching the rate of movement of the user since the video is either only sped up or down accordingly).
PNG
media_image3.png
670
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schieffer to be able to select a playback rate not matching the users rate of movement, so that the user can experience a virtual course or race that is longer than the time they have for a workout so that they can keep utilizing the immersive aspect of the system regardless of the time it takes for the course to be completed.
Regarding claim 2:
Schieffer as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor selects the playback rate for presenting content to the user by applying a multiplier to the playback rate that matches the actual rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine(“In yet another embodiment, a multiplier is calculated that changes the frame rate of the video to match the speed at which the user is traveling.” See paragraph [0030]); and wherein the multiplier is based on: a type of exercise machine via which the user is performing the exercise activity (“The user's software application further includes physics or biology based algorithms, depending on the type of sport the user is participating in, that translate the user's heart rate into speed, as discussed further below.” See paragraph [0024] and the citation of paragraph [0027] noted in the rejection of claim 1 for a more specific relationship between type of exercise/sport and the multiplier); and an experience level applied to the user performing the exercise activity (“The software application also allows for user input, via one or more of keyboard 125, user input device 130, and sensor 110, of user profile information, such as the user's height, weight, age, gender, fitness level, hours and type of exercise over a selected period of time, e.g., per week, resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, etc.” See paragraph [0024]. The examiner notes that calibrating the system to fitness level, and statistics of the users workout history is the experience level of the user being applied).
Regarding claim 3:
Schieffer as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor selects the playback rate for presenting content to the user by applying a multiplier to the playback rate that matches the actual rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine(“In yet another embodiment, a multiplier is calculated that changes the frame rate of the video to match the speed at which the user is traveling.” See paragraph [0030]); and wherein the multiplier is based on: a type of exercise machine via which the user is performing the exercise activity (“The user's software application further includes physics or biology based algorithms, depending on the type of sport the user is participating in, that translate the user's heart rate into speed, as discussed further below.” See paragraph [0024] and the citation of paragraph [0027] noted in the rejection of claim 1 for a more specific relationship between type of exercise/sport and the multiplier); and a current effort of the user performing the exercise activity (“This determination is based on the current heart rate and the current gradient (the latter being obtained from data embedded in the video), which are provided as input into an algorithm that indicates the speed to play the video.” See paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 4:
Schieffer as modified by Susanto teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018]), and wherein the selected playback rate is a playback rate that is based on the exercise machine being an exercise bicycle (The examiner notes that as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the user can select which exercise apparatus they are using and the system can apply a corresponding algorithm as a result.) and is greater than the playback rate that matches the actual rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise bicycle (The examiner notes that both Schieffer and Susanto discuss modifying the playback rate as a result of the system identifying the activity being completed while interacting with the displayed content, with the modification involving Susanto pointing directly towards the selected playback rate being greater than the playback rate that matches the rate of movement of the user).
Regarding claim 6:
Schieffer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018]), the processor is further configured to: determine that the user is expending effort above a threshold effort during a specific segment of the presented content (“As a user increases his or her effort, the user's speed increases in the video (assuming a consistent gradient). When the user encounters, for example, hills, a higher level of effort is required to maintain the same speed. According to the embodiment, the video is played back at the speed the user is achieving.” See paragraph [0016]); and continuously decrease the selected playback rate during the specific segment of the presented content (“It is appreciated that speed should be realistic, so for example if a user is traveling at 20 mph, and the new calculation says the user should be traveling at 1 mph, then the speed should decrease gradually, in as realistic manner as possible.” See paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 7:
Schieffer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: select a first playback rate for a first portion of the presented content (“The sport selected by the user informs the user's software application as to which set of algorithms to use to translate heart rate into speed for the workout, which in turn controls the display of the course on the electronic display device, for example, the rate of playback of a video representation of the course.” See paragraph [0027]. The examiner notes that the user select a route and then the sport desired for the exercise session which then selects the video/virtual terrain and initial playback rate is the processor selecting a first playback rate for the start/first portion of the content as the user must begin exercising at different rates in order for the processor to make the appropriate changes); and select a second playback rate, different from the first playback rate, for a second portion of the presented content (“Accordingly, while the video is playing, an event may be triggered every second or so, depending on processor capability. At each event, the speed at which to play the video is determined. This determination is based on the current heart rate and the current gradient (the latter being obtained from data embedded in the video), which are provided as input into an algorithm that indicates the speed to play the video.” See paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 8:
Schieffer as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the playback rate for presenting content (“According to an embodiment of the invention, the user's software application manipulates the frame rate (e.g., the number of frames displayed per second) of the video as it is played back such that it matches the speed of the user based on the user's level of exertion, the user's level of fitness, and the terrain. The speed of the user is calculated based on the user's heart rate.” See paragraph [0035]) to the user by: accessing a graph that relates playback speed to metrics associated with the user performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine (See figures 4A-5. The examiner notes Fig. 4A depicts the user’s baseline physiology, and 4B depicts the user’s heart rate at different speeds as explained in paragraph [0035]. In the case of biking Fig. 5 depicts a table translating the user’s heart rate to power in watts which the processor refers to in order to calculate the user’s effort on the bike, which are all graphs that relate the user’s metrics to the playback speeds presented in the videos as the user’s heart rate and effort are what is used to determine the playback rate.); and modifying the actual playback rate based on information from the accessed graph(“For example, the user may be calculated as traveling at a speed of 12 miles per hour and that section of the video may have been recorded at a speed of 18 miles per hour, thus the calculated multiplier is 0.66. This multiplier is then applied to the video playback function to adjust the speed of the video to match the speed of the user.” See paragraph [0030]. The examiner notes that as stated above the user’s speed is gathered from the various graphs discussed through Schieffer).
Regarding claim 9:
Schieffer as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle, a rowing machine, or a treadmill (“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 11:
Schieffer teaches a method (“A method and apparatus to receive a measure of heart rate for a user while the user is exercising on a stationary exercise device, calculate a speed of the user based on the measure of heart rate, and display on a display device viewable by the user a location of where the user would be along a selected route based on the user's speed” See abstract), comprising: selecting a playback rate for content presented to a user performing an exercise activity via an exercise machine (“The sport selected by the user informs the user's software application as to which set of algorithms to use to translate heart rate into speed for the workout, which in turn controls the display of the course on the electronic display device, for example, the rate of playback of a video representation of the course” See paragraph [0027]), and presenting a sequence of image frames that display the content at the selected playback rate via a user interface of the exercise machine (“According to an embodiment of the invention, the user's software application manipulates the frame rate (e.g., the number of frames displayed per second) of the video as it is played back such that it matches the speed of the user based on the user's level of exertion, the user's level of fitness, and the terrain.” See paragraph [0035] and figure 3 which depicts video playback 305).
Schieffer fails to teach wherein the selected playback rate is different than an actual playback rate associated with an actual rate of movement of the user performing the exercise activity. The examiner notes that Schieffer does select different playback rates depending on both the user’s actual rate of movement, and the speed the presented image frames were originally recorded at, which the system compares and calculates a different between the two as shown by the example discussed in paragraph [0030] in Schieffer, however this is in order to allow the user to have a more immersive exercise experience with the virtual course as the system tries to match the video playback speed to the users speed .
Susanto, however, teaches methods and systems for providing content during an activity, and more particularly to systems and related processes for identifying and adapting the playback speed of content to be provided during an activity (See paragraph [0002] and the abstract), and further teaches wherein the selected playback rate is different than an actual playback rate associated with an actual rate of movement of the user performing the exercise activity (Paragraph [0033] outlines an example where the playback speed of content is adjusted in order to fit a duration of a cycling session on a stationary exercise bicycle, with paragraph [0056] outlining how the system adjusts the playback rate of the content in order to fit the duration(s) of various activities through the use of intensity factors correlating with different multipliers to speed up or slow down the content, which would require the selected playback to be different from a rate matching the rate of movement of the user since the video is either only sped up or down accordingly).
Susanto further teaches wherein the selected playback rate is greater than or less than the actual playback rate, which matches the rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine (“For instance, if an activity duration is 20 minutes and has an intensity score that suggests a range of 1 5x - 1 75x playback speed is allowed, then an adjusted average runtime for the activity may be a range of 30 - 35 minutes.” See paragraph [0056], where the playback speed of 1.5x-1.75x causing the playback rate to be greater than the playback rate that matches the users actual speed so that the video runtime is shorter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schieffer to be able to select a playback rate not matching the users rate of movement, so that the user can experience a virtual course or race that is longer than the time they have for a workout so that they can keep utilizing the immersive aspect of the system regardless of the time it takes for the course to be completed.
Regarding claim 12:
Schieffer as modified by Susanto teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the selected playback rate is greater than or less than the actual playback rate (See rejection of claim 11), which matches the rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise machine (See rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 13:
Schieffer as modified by Susanto teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle(“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018]), and wherein the selected playback rate is a playback rate is greater than the playback rate that matches the actual rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise bicycle (The examiner notes that both Schieffer and Susanto discuss modifying the playback rate as a result of the system identifying the activity being completed while interacting with the displayed content, with the modification involving Susanto pointing directly towards the selected playback rate being greater than the playback rate that matches the rate of movement of the user).
Regarding claim 14:
Schieffer as modified discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018]), and wherein the selected playback rate is a playback rate that is between 1.0 and 1.1 times greater than the actual playback rate that matches the rate of movement of the user when the user is performing the exercise activity via the exercise bicycle (“It is appreciated given the above discussion that the video playback is adjustable according to an embodiment of the invention. One embodiment contemplates the ability to play video (e.g., .mp4 video) at various speeds, from 0 speed (video stopped) to 4 times the normal speed or frame rate.” See paragraph [0031]. The examiner notes that 1-1.1 times speed is within the 0-4 times playback speed of Schieffer, and that as stated above in the rejection of claim 11 the video/virtual coarse playback is controlled to match the speed of the user as they exercise).
Regarding claim 16:
Schieffer as modified discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: selecting a playback set of images from multiple playback sets of images for the exercise activity that is based on an experience level assigned to the user for performing the exercise activity (“For example, the user selects a pre-recorded video of an outdoor route, such as a particular stage of a grand tour bike race, e.g., a stage of the Tour de France. The course need not match the exercise machine the user is using. For example, one could choose a pre-recorded video of the Slickrock mountain bike route in Moab, Utah, even though s/he is actually running on a stationary treadmill. In all cases the user earns his or her way through the course in the sense that one's speed through the course is determined by one's level of physical condition and effort.” See paragraph [0014]. The examiner notes that selecting a course/road/route from a plurality of choices as cited above is selecting a playback set of images as a video is a set of images played back in rapid speed); and selecting the playback rate for the content presented to the user based on a playback rate for the selected playback set of images (“When an embodiment indicates that a user is riding at 17.3 miles per hour, the video is played back at a frame rate that approximates 17.3 miles per hour. In this way, the user is getting an accurate simulation of a particular course without a need for an embodiment of the invention to directly control the exercise machine's settings.” See paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 17:
Schieffer as modified discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle, a rowing machine, or a treadmill (“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018])..
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieffer et al. US 20130210579 A1, in view of Susanto WO 2021041307 A1, and further in view of Smithson et al. US 5240417 A.
Schieffer teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 5:
Schieffer teaches the system The system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle(“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018]), but fails to teach that the processor is further configured to: determine that the user is performing a coasting action via the exercise bicycle; and continuously increase the selected playback rate during the coasting action.
Smithson, however, teaches a system for simulating bicycle riding which incorporates a conventionally-appearing bicycle physically maneuverable by a system user and further teaches that the processor is further configured to: determine that the user is performing a coasting action via the exercise bicycle (“Alternatively, when the bicyclist has reached a downhill portion of the track, the computer signals the motor to increase the rotational speed of the drive axle 94 as caused by the bicyclist's pedalling action, thereby augmenting the bicyclist's efforts. This translates into easier pedalling by the bicyclist as the drive axle 94 is being rotated at a faster rate by the motor. As such, the bicyclist can coast along the downhill portion without pedalling as the bicycle continues to advance along the track.” See col. 18 lines 34-43); and continuously increase the selected playback rate during the coasting action (“As indicated above, the computer models simulated movement of the bicycle 14 as it progresses on the variable terrain track 18 using the selected software program, described in more detail below.” See col.10 lines 27-31. The examiner notes that the computer system as stated above recognizes the coasting action and the increased speed thereof during the downhill section and therefore controls the display of the virtual track accordingly which increases the playback rate while the user coasts in order to depict the user’s avatar as speeding up on while coasting).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schieffer to include the capability to detect a coasting action, and to control the playback rate to continuously increase as a result as taught by Smithson in order to allow the system to respond more accurately to the user’s real-world behaviors as a result of the on screen virtual/video display of courses, in order to more accurately track/understand/provide feedback on the user’s exercise habits while training.
Regarding claim 15:
Schieffer teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a stationary bike 105, but any form of fitness equipment, such as a treadmill, bike trainer, elliptical trainer, stair climber, rowing machine, etc., may be used according to embodiments of the invention.” See paragraph [0018]), but fails to teach wherein determining a playback rate for content presented to the user performing the exercise activity via the exercise bicycle includes: determining that the user is performing a coasting action via the exercise bicycle and during a downhill portion of a changing route of travel presented to the user via the user interface; and continuously increasing the selected playback rate during the coasting action.
Smithson, however, teaches a system for simulating bicycle riding which incorporates a conventionally-appearing bicycle physically maneuverable by a system user and further teaches wherein determining a playback rate for content presented to the user performing the exercise activity via the exercise bicycle includes: determining that the user is performing a coasting action via the exercise bicycle and during a downhill portion of a changing route of travel presented to the user via the user interface(“Alternatively, when the bicyclist has reached a downhill portion of the track, the computer signals the motor to increase the rotational speed of the drive axle 94 as caused