DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 18, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 18, 2026 for the patent application 18/557,756 filed on October 27, 2023. Claims 1 and 16 are amended. Claims 3, 17 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-16 and 18-19 are pending. The first office action of July 3, 2025 and the second office action of December 18, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this non-Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 16 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 19 is directed to “a non-transitory readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), 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.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “determining a metric that represents an overall effort of the user when performing an exercise activity,” 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). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“access information associated with a heart rate of a user of an exercise activity performed by the user during an exercise class presented to the user;
determine a metric that represents an overall effort of the user when performing the exercise activity during the exercise class based on the information associated with the heart rate of the user,
wherein the metric that represents the overall effort of the user when performing the exercise activity is a score that is based on the heart rate of the user being one or more heart rate zones of multiple different heart rate zones that define a range of heart rate values exhibited by the user when the user is performing the exercise activity;
present a graphic to the user that is associated with the metric representing the overall effort of the user when performing the exercise activity; and
modify the exercise class presented to the user by inserting an additional segment into the exercise class that is based on the metric representing the overall effort of the user when performing the exercise activity.”
Per claim 16:
“determining a metric that represents an overall effort of the user when performing the exercise activity and during an exercise class based on information associated with a heart rate of the user;
comparing the determined metric that represents the overall effort of the user to a target metric for the exercise class, by
determining the metric that represents the overall effort of the user is below the target metric for the exercise class; and
selecting an exercise class having a difficulty level greater than a difficulty level assigned to the exercise class for recommendation to the user;
presenting a recommendation for the selected exercise class that is based on the comparison of the determined metric to the target metric for the exercise class; and
switching the user out of the exercise class and into the selected exercise class.”
Per claim 19:
“determining an effort score, for a user performing an exercise activity during an exercise class streamed, is above a target effort score for the streamed exercise class,
wherein the effort score is based on determining, for a duration of the streamed exercise class, time spent by the user within multiple different heart rate zones and generating a score based on the time spent time spent by the user within the multiple different heart rate zones; and
modifying a subsequent segment of the streamed exercise class based on the effort score determined for the user being above the target effort score for the streamed exercise class.”
These limitations simply describe “a training program” (i.e. Multimedia Plus, Inc. v. PlayerLync LLC, 695 F. App’x 577 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Likewise, the limitations 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)) and “a mental process of evaluating” (i.e. In re BRCA1 and BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). 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.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a processor,” “one or more computing memories,” and “a display of an exercise machine,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “determining a metric that represents an overall effort of the user when performing an exercise activity,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
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 processor,” “one or more computing memories,” and “a display of an exercise machine,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are so sufficiently well-known, that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a processor,” as described in para. [0031] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0031] Further, any or all components depicted in the Figures described herein can be supported and/or implemented via one or more computing systems or servers. 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, AR/VR 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.” As such, the Applicant’s “a processor,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more computing memories,” as described in para. [0029] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0029] FIG. 1 and the components, systems, servers, and devices depicted herein provide a general computing environment and network within which the technology described herein can be implemented. Further, the systems, methods, and techniques introduced here can be implemented as special-purpose hardware (for example, circuitry), as programmable circuitry appropriately programmed with software and/or firmware, or as a combination of special-purpose and programmable circuitry. Hence, implementations can include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which can be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process. The machine-readable medium can include, but is not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical discs, compact disc read-only memories (CD-ROMs), magneto-optical disks, ROMs, random access memories (RAMs), erasable programmable read-only memories (EPROMs), electrically erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs), magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions.” As such, the Applicant’s “one or more computing memories,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data storing computing elements.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a display of an exercise machine,” as described in paras. [0019], [0024] and [0071] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “
“[0019] The exercise machine 110 can assist or facilitate the user 105 to perform the movements and/or can present interactive content to the user 105 when the user 105 performs the activity. For example, the exercise machine 110 can be a stationary bicycle, a stationary rower, a treadmill, a weight machine, or other machines. As another example, the exercise machine 110 can be a display device that presents content (e.g., streamed classes, dynamically changing video, audio, video games, instructional content, and so on) to the user 105 during an activity or workout.”
“[0024] The exercise machine 110, the media hub 120, and/or the user interface 125 can send or receive information over a network 130, such as a wireless network. Thus, in some cases, the user interface 125 is a display device (e.g., attached to the exercise machine 110), that receives content from (and sends information, such as user selections) an exercise content system 140 over the network 130. In other cases, the media hub 120 controls the communication of content to/from the exercise content system 140 over the network 130 and presents the content to the user via the user interface 125.”
“[0071] Further, the UIs can be displayed by various devices, such as mobile devices, televisions or set-top box displays, web/digital interfaces, smart watches, laptops, exercise machine displays, and so on.” As such, the Applicant’s “a display of an exercise machine,” is reasonably interpreted as any generic, well-known, and conventional display device or commercially available exercise equipment available today. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and exercise and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-15 and 18 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2, 4-15 and 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 16 or 19. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on May 18, 2026 related to claims 1-2, 4-16 and 18-19 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Objection to the Drawings
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Applicants submit replacement sheets and request the objections be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
Rejections Under Section 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Applicants have amended the claims to satisfy the concerns raised in the Office Action and request the rejections be withdrawn.
For example, claim 1 has been amended to recite that a system associated with an exercise machine modifies an exercise class presented to a user via a display of the exercise machine by inserting an additional segment into the exercise class that is based on a metric representing an overall effort of the user when performing an exercise activity.
Thus, claim 1 does not merely recite a "training program," but instead a system that modifies the presentation of content (e.g., changes an exercise class being presented/streamed) to a user of an exercise machine based on a specific determination of an "effort" exhibited by the user, such that a difficulty level of the exercise class is dynamically adjusted to meet a current (and dynamically determined) effort level of the user.
The Applicants respectfully assert that amended claim 1 recites a practical application to the streaming of exercise classes to users and/or includes "significantly more" than a mere training program, and submit that the claim, as amended, satisfy prongs 1 and/or 2 of Step 2A.
The other independent claims recite similar features. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Applicants submit that the claims recite subject matter that is eligible under Section 101, and request their early allowance.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “modifying the presentation of content (e.g., changes an exercise class being presented/streamed)” is understood as providing information using a different medium. Further, the information being provided is what coaches and trainers do in the analog, but instead, the Applicant is merely automating the process.
Second, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, for the reasons provided here and above in the rejection, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-16 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights