DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 3/10/2026.
Claims 1-17 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, 16, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 16, and 17 are independent claims.
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 .
Examiner Comments
Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “platter(s)” that is recited in claims 13 and 15 is a UI element such as a user interface object and/or affordance (see e.g. [0215], [0222], and [0246] among other paragraphs).
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al., US PGPUB 2016/0196759 Al (hereinafter as Kim) in view of Hamill et al., US PGPUB 2021/0065869 Al (hereinafter as Hamill).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches a computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices [see e.g. fig. 1 including display, control module, and input module and related description; see exemplary input devices in [0033]], comprising:
one or more processors [again, see control module in fig. 1 and related description]; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors [see memory in fig. 1 and related description], the one or more programs including instructions for:
receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first set of user inputs, including:
one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout days [note in [0048] the selection of workout days as shown in fig. 2B, 11]; and
one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout types [note in [0047] and fig. 9, step 910 user input to select a workout program as seen on fig. 2A; note that different programs are associated with a type of workout as in [0047]];
in response to receiving the first set of user inputs, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a workout plan user interface [note the display of a schedule of the workout program indicated in [0050] and shown in fig. 2C], including:
a representation of a first day that is selected based on the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout days [note the indication of a first day in fig. 2C, such as Sat. Aug 16 corresponding to selections in section 11 of fig. 2B];
a representation of a second day different from the first day that is selected based on the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout days [note the indication of a second day in fig. 2C, such as Tue. Aug 19 corresponding to selections in section 11 of fig. 2B];
an indication of a first workout corresponding to the first day and that is selected based on the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout types [note the indication of running 2.5 Km next to the first day (Sat. Aug 16) in fig. 2C, corresponding to the selection of a running program in fig. 2A; note the other options in [0047]]; and
an indication of a second workout corresponding to the second day and that is selected based on the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout types [note the indication of running 2.0 Km next to the second day (Tue. Aug 19 ) in fig. 2C, corresponding to the selection of a running program in fig. 2A; note the other options in [0047]].
Kim does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
while displaying the workout plan user interface, receiving a second set of user inputs that includes an input corresponding to the indication of the first workout; and
in response to receiving the second set of user inputs, displaying a second user interface, wherein the second user interface includes one or more options for modifying the first workout.
Hamill teaches a workout plan user interface including indications of different workouts [see fig. 9A with different indications 444] wherein:
while displaying the workout plan user interface, receiving a set of user inputs that includes an input corresponding to the indication of a first workout; and in response to receiving the set of user inputs, displaying a second user interface, wherein the second user interface includes one or more options for modifying the first workout [see e.g. the last 4 lines of [0107] indicating receiving a selection of one of the workout sessions 444 and the consecutive display of an interface including options to modify the selected workout session as shown in fig. 9B; see also [0108] and figs. 6C-D and the related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Kim and Hamill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s instructions by explicitly specifying while displaying the workout plan user interface, receiving a second set of user inputs that includes an input corresponding to the indication of the first workout; and in response to receiving the second set of user inputs, displaying a second user interface, wherein the second user interface includes one or more options for modifying the first workout, as per the teachings of Hamill. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable user customization and personalization to the workouts as desired by a user, as in the scenario taught by Hamill [again, see figs. 9A-B, 6C-D and the related description].
Claims 16 and 17 are analogously rejected.
Regarding independent claim 16, Kim also teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [see [0104]] storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, the one or more programs including instructions as those in claim 1 [see the rejection of claim 1 for the instructions and other similar components].
Regarding independent claim 17, Kim also teaches a method [see e.g. the title] comprising, at a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, instructions as those in claim 1 [see the rejection of claim 1 for the instructions and other similar components].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 in incorporated. Kim further teaches that the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout days specifies a number of workout days per week [again, see [0048] and fig. 2B; note the inputs corresponding to selecting T, Th, and S; note the indication “3 of 7 days selected under section 11 of fig. 2B].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 in incorporated. Kim further teaches that the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout days specifies one or more days of the week [again, see [0048] and fig. 2B; note the inputs corresponding to selecting T, Th, and S].
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 in incorporated. Kim further teaches that the first set of user inputs further comprises: one or more user inputs defining a first workout plan duration [again, see [0048] and note the total workout days or weeks as shown in elements 3 and 5 of fig. 2B].
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hamill, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gammell et al., US PGPUB 2011/0281249 A1 (hereinafter as Gammell).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kim does not explicitly teach that the first set of user inputs further includes: one or more user inputs corresponding to identification of one or more workout durations.
Gammell teaches user input that includes: one or more user inputs corresponding to identification of one or more workout durations [see e.g. [0045] indicating input for identification of one or more workout durations].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Gammell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s first set of user inputs by explicitly specifying that it further includes one or more user inputs corresponding to identification of one or more workout durations, as per the teachings of Gammell. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to accommodate a user’s weekly schedule when creating personalized workout programs, as suggested by Gammell [see [0045] and [0002]].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Gammell further teaches that the one or more user inputs corresponding to identification of one or more workout durations comprises identification of a single workout duration value [again, see e.g. [0045] indicating input for identification of one or more workout durations; note the option of entering one value for only one day or the option of entering the same value for multiple days]. Refer to the rejection of claim 4 for motivations to combine.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Gammell further teaches that the one or more user inputs corresponding to identification of one or more workout durations comprises identification of a plurality of workout duration values [again, see e.g. [0045] indicating input for identification of one or more workout durations; note the option of entering different values for two or more days of the week]. Refer to the rejection of claim 4 for motivations to combine.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Gammell further teaches that the plurality of workout duration values includes: a first workout duration value corresponding to a first day of the one or more workout days; and a second workout duration value corresponding to a second day of the one or more workout days different from the first day [again, see e.g. [0045] indicating input for identification of one or more workout durations for each day of the week; note the option of entering different values for two different days of the week]. Refer to the rejection of claim 4 for motivations to combine.
Claims 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hamill, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DEVINE et al., US PGPUB 2021/0255758 A1 (hereinafter as Devine).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kim does not explicitly teach that the first set of user inputs further comprises: one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more trainers of a plurality of trainers.
Devine teaches one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more trainers of a plurality of trainers [see e.g. selection 670 on fig. 6O and selection 672 on fig. 6P corresponding to selections of one or more trainers as seen in fig. 6S; see also e.g. [0246]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Devine, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim’s first set of user inputs by explicitly specifying that it further comprises: one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more trainers of a plurality of trainers, as per the teachings of Devine. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable filtering suggested workouts based on a user’s preferred trainer(s), as suggested by Devine [see [0246]] which would enable creating workout plans according to a user’s preference of trainer.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Devine further teaches displaying representations of a first subset of a plurality of trainers, wherein the first subset is selected from the plurality of trainers based on the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout types [note in [0246] in association with fig. 6O that the representations of a subset of a plurality of trainers has some of them obscured since they are not associated with a selected workout type (such as rowing), i.e. the remaining displayed subset corresponds to a user workout type selection]. See the rejection of claim 8 for motivations to combine the cited art and further note that correspondence of displayed trainer selections and selected workout types guarantees the consistency of selections across user preferences of workout types and trainers [again, see [0246] of Devine].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Devine further teaches that the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more trainers defines a first set of user-selected trainers [see e.g. selection 670 on fig. 6O and selection 672 on fig. 6P corresponding to selections of a first set of one or more trainers as seen in fig. 6S; see also e.g. [0246]].
Devine further teaches the display of an indication of a first workout that corresponds to a first trainer of a first set of user-selected trainers [see e.g. workout indication 616C on fig. 6I; note from [0230] the option of sharing a trainer between 616C and a user’s previously completed workout]; and the display of an indication of a second workout that corresponds to a second trainer of a plurality of trainers that is not in the first set of user-selected trainers [see e.g. workout indication 616K on fig. 6J ; note from [0241] the option of determining the workout based on a new trainer Matt that is different than user’s previously completed workout].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Devine, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim’s first set of user inputs to further specify that the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more trainers defines a first set of user-selected trainers, and to further modify the first and second workout indications being displayed by Kim to specify that the first workout corresponds to a first trainer of the first set of user-selected trainers; and the second workout corresponds to a second trainer of the plurality of trainers that is not in the first set of user-selected trainers, as per the teachings of Devine. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to encourage the user to try something new, as suggested by Devine [see top of fig. 6J].
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kim does not explicitly teach that the first set of user inputs further comprises: one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more music types of a plurality of types.
Devine teaches one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more music types of a plurality of types [see e.g. filtering workouts based on music genre in [0253]; see e.g. fig. 6V].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Devine, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim’s first set of user inputs by explicitly specifying that it further comprises: one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more music types of a plurality of types, as suggested by Devine [see [0246]] which would enable creating workout plans according to a user’s preference of music.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kim further teaches that:
the first set of user inputs correspond to a user request to generate a workout plan [note in the last 3 lines of [0049] the selection of object 15 to generate a schedule of a workout program (workout plan)]; and
the workout plan user interface corresponds to the workout plan [note the display of the schedule of the workout program (workout plan) shown in fig. 2C and described in [0050]].
Kim does not explicitly teach subsequent to displaying the workout plan user interface, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a workout selection user interface that comprises a plurality of workout platters corresponding to a plurality of workouts, including: displaying, in a first region of the workout selection user interface, a first workout platter associated with the first workout; and displaying, in a second region of the workout selection user interface, a second workout platter associated with a third workout different from the first workout, wherein the third workout is not part of the workout plan.
Devine teaches subsequent to displaying a workout plan user interface, displaying a workout selection user interface that comprises a plurality of workout platters corresponding to a plurality of workouts, including: displaying, in a first region of the workout selection user interface, a first workout platter associated with a first workout; and displaying, in a second region of the workout selection user interface, a second workout platter associated with a third workout different from the first workout, wherein the third workout is not part of a workout plan [note figs. 6G-6J and [0237]-[0240]; note in fig. 6G the display of a plan for particular workout program, as indicated in [0237]; note that, subsequent to this display and several user inputs, the display in fig. 6I (in region 616B at the top of the interface) showing a UI associated with a workout that is part of the plan and the display (after the scroll 638), of another workout suggestion 616J that is not part of the plan but is complementary to the plan, as indicated in [0240]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Kim and Devine, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of Kim’s workout plan user interface by further specifying subsequent to displaying the workout plan user interface, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a workout selection user interface that comprises a plurality of workout platters corresponding to a plurality of workouts, including: displaying, in a first region of the workout selection user interface, a first workout platter associated with the first workout; and displaying, in a second region of the workout selection user interface, a second workout platter associated with a third workout different from the first workout, wherein the third workout is not part of the workout plan, as per the teachings of Devine. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to include workouts that are complementary to the workouts in the workout plan and that balance physical activity in the plan, as suggested by Devine [see [0240]].
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach displaying representations of a plurality of workout types, wherein:
the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of the one or more workout types comprises one or more user inputs interacting with the representations of the plurality of workout types; and
the plurality of workout types are selected for display based on previous workouts completed by a user of the computer system.
Devine teaches displaying representations of a plurality of workout types [see e.g. UI elements 614A-D on fig. 6M indicating workout types], wherein one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of one or more workout types comprises one or more user inputs interacting with the representations of the plurality of workout types [note user selection of a workout type by user interaction 625 on element 614C shown on fig. 6M; see also fig. 6N].
Devine further teaches selecting a plurality of workout suggestions for display based on previous workouts completed by a user of the computer system [note from [0254] that the workout suggestions 616C-616D are selected based on user’s past workouts].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Kim and Devine, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim’s framework by specifying that displaying representations of a plurality of workout types, wherein: the one or more user inputs corresponding to user selection of the one or more workout types comprises one or more user inputs interacting with the representations of the plurality of workout types, as per the teaching of Devine and to further apply Devine’s teaching of selecting certain elements for display based on previous workouts completed by a user to the displayed workout types taught by Kim and modified by Devine. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable filtering suggested workouts based on a user’s preferred workout types, as suggested by Devine [see [0245]] and to further allow personalizing the candidate types based on a user’s history of completed workouts.
Devine’s known filtering of displayable options based on historical data is applicable to the workout types taught by Kim and modified by Devine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Devine’s technique of filtering of displayable options based on historical data to Kim/Devine’s environment would have yielded the predictable results of facilitating a more personalized interface for the users, which would make it more space- and time-efficient by displaying more relevant options that the user is likely to select.
The rationale for this last combination would be that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known invention that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I.D.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kim further teaches that:
the first set of user inputs correspond to a user request to generate a first workout plan [note in the last 3 lines of [0049] the selection of object 15 to generate a schedule of a workout program (workout plan)]; and
the workout plan user interface corresponds to the first workout plan [note the display of the schedule of the workout program (workout plan) shown in fig. 2C and described in [0050]].
Kim does not explicitly teach subsequent to displaying the workout plan user interface, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first workout selection user interface that comprises a first plurality of workout platters corresponding to a first plurality of workouts, including: displaying, in a first display region of the first workout selection user interface, a first platter associated with the first workout, wherein the first workout platter is selected for display in the first display region of the workout selection user interface based on the first workout being part of the first workout plan.
Devine teaches subsequent to displaying a workout plan user interface, displaying a first workout selection user interface that comprises a first plurality of workout platters corresponding to a first plurality of workouts, including: displaying, in a first display region of the first workout selection user interface, a first platter associated with a first workout, wherein the first workout platter is selected for display in the first display region of the workout selection user interface based on the first workout being part of a first workout plan [note figs. 6G-6H and [0237]-[0238]; note in fig. 6G the display of a plan for particular workout program, as indicated in [0237]; note that, subsequent to this display and user input 624C, the display in fig. 6H of UI element 616B associated with a workout that is part of the plan].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Devine, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of Kim’s workout plan user interface by further specifying subsequent to displaying the workout plan user interface, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first workout selection user interface that comprises a first plurality of workout platters corresponding to a first plurality of workouts, including: displaying, in a first display region of the first workout selection user interface, a first platter associated with the first workout, wherein the first workout platter is selected for display in the first display region of the workout selection user interface based on the first workout being part of the first workout plan, as per the teachings of Devine. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable easy and intuitive user selection by the user of workouts that belong to a particular plan/program, as suggested by Devine [see [0237]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in regards to the previously presented various informalities have been fully considered. The claim objections previously presented have been accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes from the cited art, US PGPUB 20230398407 A1, KIM et al., which teaches user modifications related to workouts [see e.g. fig. 12A].
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172