Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/566,381 filed on 12/01/2023, and which claims as amended on12/10/2025 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 applications status as a 371 of PCT/US2022/032158, which claims priority to provisional applications 63/309,321 and
63/196,445, and as such the earliest date of priority of 06/03/2021 is granted to the
instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have not been sufficient to overcome the original drawing objections and rejections under 35 USC 101 present in the Non-Final Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the resistance knob of claims 2-3, 12, and 13, the rotary control of claim 5, and the treadmill of claims 5-7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1,12, and 20 recites at least one step or instruction for controlling a video game and causing an avatar that represents the user performing exercise activity to move within the video game to a location , which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1,12, and 20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a system for controlling actions within a video game environment, the system comprising: an input module that interfaces with an exercise machine upon which a user is performing an exercise activity, wherein the input module receives input from the exercise machine, including: input information that represents an effort of the user while the user is performing the exercise activity, and input information that indicates a current setting of the exercise machine while the user is performing the exercise activity; (the underlined text could possibly be a mental process, e.g., observation, but this underlined text could be considered to be an additional element that represents extra-solution activity akin to data collection) and a game control module that communicates with the input module (additional element) and controls a video game running within the video game environment that is presented to the user performing the exercise activity via a display of the exercise machine, by: controlling an avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity to move within the video game to a lane displayed within the video game that is associated with the current setting of the exercise machine; and causing the user performing the exercise activity to score points within the video game when the information that represents the effort of the user satisfies a threshold associated with points rewards within the video game running within the video game environment (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Claim 12 recites, a method of controlling an interactive game presented by a display of an exercise bicycle (additional element), the method comprising: presenting an avatar moving through the interactive game via one of multiple lanes displayed within the interactive game(the underlined text could possibly be a mental process, e.g., observation, but this underlined text could be considered to be an additional element that represents extra-solution activity akin to data collection), wherein the avatar represents a user performing an exercise activity on the exercise bicycle (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)), and wherein each of the multiple lanes is associated with a range of resistance levels input by the user to the exercise bicycle via a resistance knob of the exercise bicycle (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).; determining that the user has modified a current resistance level of the exercise bicycle via the resistance knob (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and causing the avatar to move through the interactive game via a different lane displayed within the interactive game that includes the modified resistance level within the range of resistance levels associated with the lane(managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Claim 20 recites, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (additional element) whose contents, when executed by a gaming platform associated with an exercise machine (additional element), cause the gaming platform to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving an indication that a user of an exercise machine has adjusted a difficulty setting of the exercise machine (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG, and causing an avatar associated with the user that is within an interactive game displayed to the user via a display of the exercise machine to move within the interactive game based on the adjustment of the difficulty setting of the exercise machine (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)), wherein moving within the interactive game includes moving through the interactive game via a lane displayed within the interactive game that is associated with the adjusted difficulty setting of the exercise machine (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-11,and 13-19 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 1,12,and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-11, and 13-19) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1,12, and 20), 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: an input module, a game control module, a display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, as recited in independent Claims 1,12, and 20 and their dependent claims; are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1,12, and 20 (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 1,12, and 20 (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., an input module, game control module, display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium 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 1,12, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1,12, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1,12, and 20 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: an input module, game control module, display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, as recited in independent Claims 1,12 and 20 and their dependent claims.
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 [39] where it states “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.”, in paragraph [40] where it states, “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.”
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term input module, game control module, display, and non-transitory computer readable medium 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 input module, game control module, display, and non-transitory computer readable medium. 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 Claims 1,12, and 20 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 1-20 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 1-20 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 1,12, and 20 (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 1-20 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 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 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 § 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) 1-4,7,10-11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. US 20030064860 A1, in further view of Foley et al. US 20140038781 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Yamashita teaches a system for controlling actions within a video game environment (Yamashita discloses various exercise apparatus, the main example being the exercise bike, which is used with a video game to control a virtual avatar in various game types.. See paragraph [0007]), the system comprising: an input module (input/output controller 61) that interfaces with an exercise machine upon which a user is performing an exercise activity (The examiner notes that the main embodiment of Yamashita is a cycling machine, however, as stated in paragraph [0035] there are different example exercise equipment’s the system can be applied to including walking machines such as treadmills. See figures 1 and 26A-D), wherein the input module receives input from the exercise machine (“The controller 61 performs such signal processing and input/output processing, for example, in a time-sharing manner. An external equipment controller 62 outputs the control signals to the respective actuators and inputs the detection signals from the respective detectors during the respective time-sharing periods.” See paragraph [0043] and figure 2, which depicts the exercise equipment controller 62 receiving inputs from the exercise equipment sensors and outputting the information as an input to the input module/controller 61), including: input information that represents an effort of the user while the user is performing the exercise activity (“The speed calculating device 302 calculates the turning speed of the pedals 11b (virtually running speed of the simulated cycling machine) based on the cycle of the rotation signal from the rotation sensor 11c.” See paragraph [0053]. The examiner notes that the speed the user pedals directly corresponds to the users effort), and input information that indicates a current setting of the exercise machine while the user is performing the exercise activity (“The exercise monitoring unit 30 is provided with a pulse monitoring device 301, a speed calculating device 302, a position calculating device 303, a message processing device 304, a load controlling device 305, a consumed calorie calculating device 306, and a data administering device 307.” See paragraph [0053]. The examiner notes that the load controlling device of the exercise machine controls the amount of braking the user acts against while exercising and therefore indicates a setting of the exercise device) ; and a game control module (game executing unit 33) that communicates with the input module and controls a video game running within the video game environment that is presented to the user performing the exercise activity via a display of the exercise machine (“On the other hand, the character corresponding to the user is displayed together with the background image on the monitor screen, and the character is caused to make the simulated motion related to the exercise within the background image in accordance with the detection result of the exercise detecting means.” See paragraph [0008]), by: causing the user performing the exercise activity to score points within the video game (See figure 8 which depicts a score with points) when the information that represents the effort of the user satisfies a threshold associated with points rewards within the video game running within the video game environment (“Specifically, if the running speed corresponding to the pulse rate detected by the pulse monitoring device 301 coincides with the running speed corresponding to the preset target pulse rate at the top position of the jumping platform immediately before the jump, landing is made within the zone of 1000 pts.” See paragraph [0070]. The examiner notes this example relates to the jumping game of Yamashita, however paragraph [0062] outlines how the heart rate of a user playing the virtual cycling course game) .
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1: perspective diagram showing a cycling machine as one example of an exercising equipment to which the invention is applied)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3:software construction diagram of a CPU)]
PNG
media_image1.png
696
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
698
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIGS. 26A, 26B, 26C and 26D are perspective diagrams showing other examples of the exercising equipment to which the invention is applied)]
PNG
media_image3.png
546
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (hardware construction diagram showing one embodiment of an exercise assisting apparatus according to the invention)][AltContent: textbox (diagram of a screen displayed upon the lapse of a specified period after the start)]
PNG
media_image4.png
478
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
466
570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yamashita fails to teach controlling an avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity to move within the video game to a lane displayed within the video game that is associated with the current setting of the exercise machine. The examiner notes that Yamashita does teach controlling an avatar (roll playing character 102) that represents the user performing the exercise activity to move within the video game (“The roll-playing character 102 corresponds to the user and is so displayed as to pedal the cycling machine character 103 at a speed corresponding to the speed information obtained by the speed calculating device 302 in accordance with the rotation signal from the rotation sensor 11c (to make a motion (simulated motion) related to the exercise performed by the user), and a running movement is presented by relatively moving the position of the cycling machine character 103 in accordance with the position information obtained by the position calculating device 303, in other words, relatively moving the scenery image in a direction opposite from the running direction.” See paragraph [0061]. The examiner notes that the roll-playing character 102 and the cycling machine character 103 move through the virtual course in accordance with the data from the speed calculating device and position calculating device in order to provide a video game representation of the user cycling along the course, or moving through the video game levels according to their performance, but that specifically to a lane displayed within the video game is not taught.
Foley, however, teaches networked exercise systems and methods whereby one or more stationary exercise bicycles, referred to generally herein as stationary bikes, are equipped with an associated local system that allows the user to fully participate in live instructor-led or recorded cycling classes from any location that can access a suitable communications network (See paragraph [0030]), and further teaches that the avatar which represents user performance moves in the video game to a lane displayed in the video game (The examiner notes that paragraph [0050] of Foley outlines various examples of depictions of the users performance such as color changing arrows, moving live graphs, etc. which are in the broadest reasonable interpretation avatars representing the user performing the exercise, and as depicted in figures 8-10 include a moving graphs showing the resistance changing by moving up and down on the graph representing the value as the resistance is changed, and therefore is an avatar moving in a lane displayed in the video game).
[AltContent: textbox (Virtual environment/video game depicting the representative avatar of resistance moving from higher to lower positions.)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
452
684
media_image6.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 game of Yamashita to include a depiction of a lane that the game avatar moves in as taught by Foley, as this is a simple graphical depiction of a user’s progress throughout a virtual course, and Yamashita already includes various video game environments that different avatars move through according to the user’s performance.
Regarding claim 2:
Yamashita teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle (“The cycling machine is of the stationary type and simulates a bicycle excluding front and rear wheels.” See paragraph [0036]) but fails to teach the current setting of the exercise bicycle is a resistance setting set by the user of the exercise bicycle by turning a resistance knob of the exercise bicycle; and wherein the game control module causes the avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity to move from a first lane displayed within the video game to a second lane displayed within the video game when the input module receives information that the user has turned the resistance knob to increase the resistance setting of the exercise bicycle.
Foley, however, teaches networked exercise systems and methods whereby one or more stationary exercise bicycles, referred to generally herein as stationary bikes, are equipped with an associated local system that allows the user to fully participate in live instructor-led or recorded cycling classes from any location that can access a suitable communications network (See paragraph [0030]), and further teaches the current setting of the exercise bicycle is a resistance setting set by the user of the exercise bicycle by turning a resistance knob of the exercise bicycle (“In various exemplary embodiments, the force on the pedals necessary to spin the flywheel 122 can be adjusted using a resistance adjustment knob 124. The resistance adjustment knob may directly or indirectly control a device that increases or decreases the resistance of the flywheel to rotation.” See paragraph [0035]) and wherein the game control module causes the avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity to move from a first lane displayed within the video game to a second lane displayed within the video game when the input module receives information that the user has turned the resistance knob to increase the resistance setting of the exercise bicycle (The examiner notes that paragraph [0050] of Foley outlines various examples of depictions of the users performance such as color changing arrows, moving live graphs, etc. which are in the broadest reasonable interpretation avatars representing the user performing the exercise, and as depicted in figures 8-10 include a moving graphs showing the resistance changing by moving up and down on the graph representing the value as the resistance is changed, and therefore is an avatar moving from a first lane displayed within the game, such as an upper position on the graph, to a second lane displayed in the game, such as the next lower position depicted).
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 exercise bike of Yamashita to include a resistance knob to change the resistance as taught by Foley, as Yamashita already includes means to change the resistance of the exercise bike and adjusts the avatar/video game in accordance with the resistance changes and a knob is well known in the art of exercise devices as a way of adjusting settings on a device.
Regarding claim 3:
Yamashita teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle (“The cycling machine is of the stationary type and simulates a bicycle excluding front and rear wheels.” See paragraph [0036]), but fails to teach wherein the current setting of the exercise bicycle is a resistance setting set by the user of the exercise bicycle by turning a resistance knob of the exercise bicycle.
Foley, however, teaches networked exercise systems and methods whereby one or more stationary exercise bicycles, referred to generally herein as stationary bikes, are equipped with an associated local system that allows the user to fully participate in live instructor-led or recorded cycling classes from any location that can access a suitable communications network (See paragraph [0030]), and further teaches wherein the current setting of the exercise bicycle is a resistance setting set by the user of the exercise bicycle by turning a resistance knob of the exercise bicycle (“In various exemplary embodiments, the force on the pedals necessary to spin the flywheel 122 can be adjusted using a resistance adjustment knob 124. The resistance adjustment knob may directly or indirectly control a device that increases or decreases the resistance of the flywheel to rotation.” See paragraph [0035]).
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 exercise bike of Yamashita to include a resistance knob to change the resistance as taught by Foley, as Yamashita already includes means to change the resistance of the exercise bike and adjusts the avatar/video game in accordance with the resistance changes and a knob is well known in the art of exercise devices as a way of adjusting settings on a device.
Regarding claim 4:
Yamashita teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bicycle(“The cycling machine is of the stationary type and simulates a bicycle excluding front and rear wheels.” See paragraph [0036]), but fails to teach wherein the input information that represents an effort of the user while the user is performing the exercise activity includes information that identifies a cadence associated with pedal strokes performed by the user via the exercise bicycle.
Foley, however, teaches networked exercise systems and methods whereby one or more stationary exercise bicycles, referred to generally herein as stationary bikes, are equipped with an associated local system that allows the user to fully participate in live instructor-led or recorded cycling classes from any location that can access a suitable communications network (See paragraph [0030]), and further teaches wherein the input information that represents an effort of the user while the user is performing the exercise activity includes information that identifies a cadence associated with pedal strokes performed by the user via the exercise bicycle (“As shown in FIG. 8, window 222 displays distance and speed. Window 224 displays current pedal cadence, along with the user's average and maximum cadence and the class average, and an indicator arrow 232 showing whether the user's cadence is increasing or decreasing.” See paragraph [0051] and figure 8).
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 exercise bike of Yamashita to include a resistance knob to change the resistance as taught by Foley, as Yamashita already includes means to change the resistance of the exercise bike and adjusts the avatar/video game in accordance with the resistance changes and a knob is well known in the art of exercise devices as a way of adjusting settings on a device.
Regarding claim 7:
Yamashita as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is a treadmill(“In this walking machine 501, a rotatable endless belt 502 inclined down to the back is so held by left and right guides 503 as to turn.” See paragraph [0090]. The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 1 the system of Yamashita can be applied to various exercise machines), and wherein the input information that represents an effort of the user while the user is performing the exercise activity includes information that identifies a belt speed of the treadmill (“Although not shown, a load condition changing member such as an electromagnetic clutch for varying the load of the turning movement of the endless belt 502 is provided at a suitable position between the opposite guides 503, and a moved amount detecting sensor corresponding to the rotation sensor 11c of FIG. 1 and adapted to detect the turned amount of the endless belt 502 is provided at a suitable position between the opposite guides 503.” See paragraph [0090]. The examiner notes that the sensor 11c as discussed in claim 1, is used to detect the speed of the member of the exercise device being acted upon by the user, for example the pedals in the exercise bike embodiment, and in this instance the amount the endless belt turns would be the speed of the treadmill).
Regarding claim 10:
Yamashita as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the game control module causes the user performing the exercise activity to score points within the video game when the information that represents the effort of the user indicates the user has increased an effort of performing the exercise activity for a certain period of time (“An instruction is given to set the landing position within the zone of 500 pts, 300 pts. or 100 pts. according to the difference between the detected pulse rate and the target pulse rate. This means that, even if the pedals 11b are turned quickly to earn a longer jumping distance, i.e. to jump farther, a high score is not necessarily given.” See paragraph [0070]. The examiner notes that the long jump game in Yamashita requires the user to meet the target threshold for pulse rate for the time it takes the character to actually meet the end of a ramp and perform the jump in game, therefore the different scores for each zone which correspond to a jump distance which the game calculates based on the speed calculator and position calculator mention above in claim 1, require the user to increase their effort to the target level, and maintain that effort in order to increase their score.).
Regarding claim 11:
Yamashita as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the game control module causes the user performing the exercise activity to score points within the video game when the information that represents the effort of the user indicates the user has maintained a threshold effort of performing the exercise activity for a certain period of time (“Specifically, if the running speed corresponding to the pulse rate detected by the pulse monitoring device 301 coincides with the running speed corresponding to the preset target pulse rate at the top position of the jumping platform immediately before the jump, landing is made within the zone of 1000 pts.” See paragraph [0070]. The examiner notes that the detected pulse rate and speed needing to match target pulse rate and speed for the duration of the run to the ramp and at the point of the jump is the effort needing to be maintained for a certain period of time).
Regarding claim 20:
Yamashita teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium whose contents (“Part or all of the read image, sound and control program are saved in the RAM 4. Thereafter, the CPU 3 proceeds the processing in accordance with the control program and data (image data including polygons and textures of objects to be displayed and other character images, sound data) saved in the RAM 4, the detection signals from the detectors, and the contents of instructions given through the operation of the user.” See paragraph [0048]), when executed by a gaming platform (game executing unit 33) associated with an exercise machine (The examiner notes that the main embodiment of Yamashita is a cycling machine, however, as stated in paragraph [0035] there are different example exercise equipment’s the system can be applied to including walking machines such as treadmills. See figures 1 and 26A-D), cause the gaming platform to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving an indication that a user of an exercise machine has adjusted a difficulty setting of the exercise machine (“"Harder" button and "Lighter" button 104, 105 displayed at the left and right sides below the screen are used to give the user an opportunity to change the load condition.” See paragraph [0063]), and causing an avatar associated with the user that is within an interactive game displayed to the user via a display of the exercise machine to move within the interactive game based on the adjustment of the difficulty setting of the exercise machine (“The roll-playing character 102 corresponds to the user and is so displayed as to pedal the cycling machine character 103 at a speed corresponding to the speed information obtained by the speed calculating device 302 in accordance with the rotation signal from the rotation sensor 11c (to make a motion (simulated motion) related to the exercise performed by the user), and a running movement is presented by relatively moving the position of the cycling machine character 103 in accordance with the position information obtained by the position calculating device 303, in other words, relatively moving the scenery image in a direction opposite from the running direction.” See paragraph [0061]. The examiner notes that the speed calculating device providing speed information corresponding to the speed the user is pedaling the exercise machine directly correlates to the load setting which makes it harder or lighter to pedal the exercise machine and therefore varies the speed).
Yamashita fails to teach wherein moving within the interactive game includes moving through the interactive game via a lane displayed within the interactive game that is associated with the adjusted difficulty setting of the exercise device.
Foley, however, teaches networked exercise systems and methods whereby one or more stationary exercise bicycles, referred to generally herein as stationary bikes, are equipped with an associated local system that allows the user to fully participate in live instructor-led or recorded cycling classes from any location that can access a suitable communications network (See paragraph [0030]), and further teaches wherein moving within the interactive game includes moving through the interactive game via a lane displayed within the interactive game that is associated with the adjusted difficulty setting of the exercise device (The examiner notes that paragraph [0050] of Foley outlines various examples of depictions of the users performance such as color changing arrows, moving live graphs, etc. which are in the broadest reasonable interpretation avatars representing the user performing the exercise, and as depicted in figures 8-10 include a moving graphs showing the resistance changing by moving up and down on the graph representing the value as the resistance is changed, and therefore is an avatar moving in a lane displayed in the interactive game associated with the adjusted difficulty settings of the machine).
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 game of Yamashita to include a depiction of a lane that the game avatar moves in as taught by Foley, as this is a simple graphical depiction of a user’s progress throughout a virtual course, and Yamashita already includes various video game environments that different avatars move through according to the user’s performance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. US 20030064860 A1, in view of Foley et al. US 20140038781 A1 and further in view of Dalebout et al. US 10625137 B2.
Yamashita as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 6:
Yamashita as modified teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the exercise machine is a treadmill (“In this walking machine 501, a rotatable endless belt 502 inclined down to the back is so held by left and right guides 503 as to turn.” See paragraph [0090]. The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 1 the system of Yamashita can be applied to various exercise machines),but fails to teach wherein the current setting of the treadmill is an incline level setting set by the user of the treadmill by turning a rotary control of the treadmill.
Dalebout, however, teaches an exercise device including a frame, an upright portion of the frame, a movable element connected to the frame and movable in the performance of an exercise, a first display connected to the upright portion of the frame, and a second display connected to the frame (See abstract) and wherein the current setting of the treadmill is an incline level setting set by the user of the treadmill (“For instance, the user may select a tread belt speed, a pre-programmed workout, a climate setting, an incline orientation, a tilt orientation, an entertainment setting, and so forth, with the input mechanisms.” See col.7 lines 11-15) by turning a rotary control of the treadmill (“The input mechanisms may include a touch screen, a push button, a dial, a lever, a microphone, another type of input mechanism, or combinations thereof.” See col.7 lines 15-17).
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 treadmill of Yamashita to include rotary incline controls as taught by Dalebout, as the walking machine (treadmill) of Yamashita is already inclined and includes electronic controls for the load conditions of the belt, therefore including controls to vary the incline would allow the user to more accurately simulate virtual walking conditions which is known in the art of treadmills with virtual displays and simulated exercise.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. US 20030064860 A1, in view of Foley et al. US 20140038781 A1, and further in view of Su US 5667459 A.
Yamashita as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Yamashita as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the video game running within the video game environment causes the avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity to progress through the video game at a speed that matches a tempo of music being played within the video game.
Su, however, teaches, a computerized exercise game machine provides continuous and instantaneous feedback to the exerciser or user to maintain the user's exercise goal in real time (See abstract) and further teaches wherein the video game (computer video system 14) running within the video game environment (course environment 115) causes the avatar (video object 11) that represents the user performing the exercise activity to progress through the video game at a speed that matches a tempo of music being played within the video game (“During the warm up period, the shadow object or domain moves with a fixed rhythm and music may be provided. However, the user is required to maintain the video object 11 within the domain 13 during this period, the same as during the remainder of the exercise session.” See col.6 lines 54-58. The examiner notes that the shadow object moving at a pace with a fixed rhythm according to the music, and the user needing to keep the avatar at the same pace in order to complete the exercise is the video game making the avatar progress through the game at a speed matching the tempo of the music in the game).
[AltContent: textbox (Su: Schematic view of a computerized exercise game machine in accordance with the present invention.)]
PNG
media_image7.png
470
384
media_image7.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 video game of Yamashita to cause the avatar that represents the user to progress through the video game at the same speed as the tempo of the music as taught by Su, as Yamashita already includes a video game with background music and audio capabilities, and programming the game to cause the avatar to match the background music speed as the user exercises, as either a goal of the game or in general to add immersion to the system would be no more than modifying the code of the game, which is common in the art of video games.
Regarding claim 9:
Yamashita as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the video game running within the video game environment causes the avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity to encounter scoring objects within the video game at a speed that matches a tempo of music being played within the video game.
Su, however, teaches, a computerized exercise game machine provides continuous and instantaneous feedback to the exerciser or user to maintain the user's exercise goal in real time (See abstract) and further teaches wherein the video game (computer video system 14) running within the video game environment (course environment 115) causes the avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity to encounter scoring objects (shadow object or domain 13, The examiner notes that Su describes the scoring aspect of the video game as “Depending on the extra amount of aerobic exercise of each session, there is a potential maximum score and the user will earn a percentage of this score depending upon the amount of time the user stays within the shadow.” In col.10 lines 37-41) within the video game at a speed that matches a tempo of music being played within the video game(“During the warm up period, the shadow object or domain moves with a fixed rhythm and music may be provided. However, the user is required to maintain the video object 11 within the domain 13 during this period, the same as during the remainder of the exercise session.” See col.6 lines 54-58. The examiner notes that the shadow object moving at a pace with a fixed rhythm according to the music, and the user needing to keep the avatar at the same pace in order to complete the exercise is the video game making the avatar progress through the game at a speed matching the tempo of the music in the game).
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 video game of Yamashita to cause the avatar that represents the user to encounter scoring objects as it moves through the video game at the same speed as the tempo of the music as taught by Su, as Yamashita already includes a video game with background music and audio capabilities, and programming the game to cause the avatar to match the background music speed as the user exercises, as either a goal of the game or in general to add immersion to the system would be no more than modifying the code of the game, which is common in the art of video games.
Examiner notes
The examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to reject dependent claim 5, and independent claim 12 as the claims would be allowable over the closest prior art of record.
However, dependent claim 5 is objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim, claim 1 which is rejected in view of the Yamashita reference and the rejection under 35 USC 101, and in addition claim 5 is subject to a drawing objection as noted above.
Claim 12 would be allowable over the closest prior art of record including Yamashita and Foley, as the closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose a method of controlling an interactive game presented by a display of an exercise bicycle, and more specifically, presenting an avatar moving through the interactive game via one of multiple lanes displayed within the interactive game, wherein the avatar represents a user performing an exercise activity on the exercise bicycle, and wherein each of the multiple lanes is associated with a range of resistance levels input by the user to the exercise bicycle via a resistance knob of the exercise bicycle; determining that the user has modified a current resistance level of the exercise bicycle via the resistance knob; and causing the avatar to move through the interactive game via a different lane displayed within the interactive game that includes the modified resistance level within the range of resistance levels associated with the lane.
However, claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as noted above for claiming an abstract idea, and is subject to the drawing objection as noted above, and as a result is rejected with no prior art and the dependent claims 13-19 are objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards, to the applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections presented in the previous Non-Final Action the examiner respectfully disagrees that the features of the resistance knob, the treadmill, and the rotary control are not necessary to understand the claimed subject matter, as the resistance knob appears to be an integral structure in at least dependent claims 2-3, and 13, and independent claim 12 which is necessary for the core function of the interactive game and the exercise device. In addition, the treadmill which has an incline controllable via a rotary control must be shown as is also a core feature of dependent claim 5 which is not illustrated in the drawings and as such the drawing objection(s) have been maintained.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 under 35 USC 101, the examiner has maintained the rejection as rules for a game are an abstract idea, particularly a certain method of organizing human activity, and even now with the newly amended limitation of “controlling the avatar” in claim 1, the system still requires the user to follow certain rules in order to play the game via the additional elements of input module, a game control module, a display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, which as claimed are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity.
The examiner also notes that due to the amendments presented by the applicant, an updated search and consideration of the claims was necessary, and therefore the new rejection under 35 USC 103 in view of the combination of Yamashita and Foley for claims 1-4,7,10-11, and 20 has been presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached on (571) 272-4966. 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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784