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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the previous 112(f) claim interpretation and 112(a) and 112(b) rejections given based on this interpretation have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 09/09/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 10 have been amended; claims 2-9 and 11-18 remain unchanged; claims 19-20 remain canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 03/29/2023
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
The previous claim interpretation has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) Rejections:
The previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims recite a particular application for surfacing content within a large, connected fitness library. Certain technological techniques are being relied on in the claims to identify and surface specific content items. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the claims recite limitations which could be performed by humans in order to identify and surface content. For example, the application of matrix factorization is not inherently nor explicitly a computer process. The computer performing this factorization as well is mere application of the abstract idea, where the abstract idea involves the factorization. Therefore, the claims do not line up with Applicant’s arguments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not taught by the previous references. Examiner however respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant towards the updated 103 rejection section.
Applicant further argues that the combination of Sullivan and Koren does not teach the application of matrix factorization to identify instructors of classes that are similar. Applicant states that the instructor data may be aligned with preference data. Examiner however would like to direct Applicant to the rejection as Examiner used the Koren reference to teach identification of similarities between entities. The entities being instructors was taught using Sullivan. While each reference alone may not teach the entire limitation, in combination they are being used to teach this limitation.
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 1-18 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. Claims 1-9 are drawn to a system and claims 10-18 are drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-18 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a system for surfacing content to a user of a connected fitness platform, the system comprising:
a) multiple processor-implemented hardware modules, including:
a1) an input module that 1) receives historical activity information for the user of the connected fitness platform,
wherein the historical activity information includes exercise classes previously performed by the user, and
wherein each exercise class of the exercise classes is associated with a specific instructor of the connected fitness platform;
a2) a similarity module that 2) applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information to identify, via a user-instructor matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an instructor matrix:
one or more highest engagement instructors that are most engaged with by the user of the connected fitness platform; and
one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization; and
a3) a surfacing module that 3) displays a user-selectable set of exercise classes via b) a user interface (if a computer) of the connected fitness platform,
wherein the set of exercise classes includes:
at least one exercise class associated with the one or more highest engagement instructors, and
at least one exercise class associated with the one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) receives historical activity information for the user of the connected fitness platform, wherein the historical activity information includes exercise classes previously performed by the user, and wherein each exercise class of the exercise classes is associated with a specific instructor of the connected fitness platform, 2) applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information to identify, via a user-instructor matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an instructor matrix: one or more highest engagement instructors that are most engaged with by the user of the connected fitness platform and one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization, and 3) displays a user-selectable set of exercise classes via a user interface (when a pen and paper) of the connected fitness platform, wherein the set of exercise classes includes: at least one exercise class associated with the one or more highest engagement instructors, and at least one exercise class associated with the one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one could determine relevant classes for an individual.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the step of 2) applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information to identify, via a user-instructor matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an instructor matrix: one or more highest engagement instructors that are most engaged with by the user of the connected fitness platform and one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization. This step also correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites a method, comprising:
4) accessing exercise class activity information for a user of a connected fitness platform,
wherein each exercise class is associated with an instructor;
5) applying matrix factorization to the exercise class activity information for the user to identify, via a user-instructor matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an instructor matrix, a first set of instructors and a second set of instructors similar to the first set of instructors; and
6) surfacing a user-selectable set of exercise classes via a user interface of the connected fitness platform,
wherein the set of exercise classes includes exercise classes associated with the first set of instructors and the second set of instructors.
Claim 10 recites, in part, performing the steps of 4) accessing exercise class activity information for a user of a connected fitness platform, wherein each exercise class is associated with an instructor, 5) applying matrix factorization to the exercise class activity information for the user to identify, via a user-instructor matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an instructor matrix, a first set of instructors and a second set of instructors similar to the first set of instructors, and 6) surfacing a user-selectable set of exercise classes via a user interface of the connected fitness platform, wherein the set of exercise classes includes exercise classes associated with the first set of instructors and the second set of instructors. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one could determine relevant classes for an individual.
Claim 10 also recites, in part, performing the step of 5) applying matrix factorization to the exercise class activity information for the user to identify, via a user-instructor matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an instructor matrix, a first set of instructors and a second set of instructors similar to the first set of instructors. These steps correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea.
Depending claims 2-9 and 11-18 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2 and 12 add a “determining rating vectors” step and “generating” step which are part of mathematical concepts and a “determining” step which is part of certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA); claim 4 adds a “receiving” step which is part of CMOHA; claim 5 adds a “displaying” step which is part of CMOHA; claim 6 adds a “displaying” step which is part of CMOHA; and claim 11 recites a “determining” step which uses math. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3, 7-9, and 13-18 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-9 and 11-18 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 10 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) multiple processor-implemented hardware modules, including a1) an input module, a2) a similarity module, and a3) a surfacing module, and b) a user interface (which might be from various objects including a treadmill from claims 7 and 16, an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17, and a mobile device from claims 9 and 18) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) multiple processor-implemented hardware modules, including a1) an input module, a2) a similarity module, and a3) a surfacing module, and b) a user interface (when a mobile device from claims 9 and 18) in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, for a lack of description of anything but what may be considered as generic computing components for these modules and paragraph [32] of the specification where the mobile device is generic, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The b) user interface (when a treadmill from claims 7 and 16 and an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17) in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as exercise equipment, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) multiple processor-implemented hardware modules, including a1) an input module, a2) a similarity module, and a3) a surfacing module, and b) a user interface (which might be from various objects including a treadmill from claims 7 and 16, an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17, and a mobile device from claims 9 and 18) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than a general linking to a particular technological field and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity or certain mathematical steps. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The current invention displays similar instructors utilizing a) multiple processor-implemented hardware modules, including a1) an input module, a2) a similarity module, and a3) a surfacing module, and b) a user interface (when a mobile device from claims 9 and 18), thus these computing devices are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the b) user interface (when a treadmill from claims 7 and 16 and an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to a user interface of a treadmill or an exercise bike, because limiting application of the abstract idea to exercise equipment is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or a general linking to a particular technological field cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-18 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al.
As per claim 1, Koren teaches a system for surfacing content to a user of a connected platform, the system comprising:
--multiple processor-implemented hardware modules, including:
--an input module that receives historical activity information for the user of the connected platform, (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is input of historical information for a user of the platform)
--wherein the historical activity information includes options previously performed by the user, (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is input of historical information for a user of the platform. The browsing history is taken into account, thus historical activity information of the user including the content options previously selected/viewed by the user) and
--wherein each option of the options is associated with a specific entity of the connected platform; (see: page 44, paragraph 3 and FIG. 3 where each content option is associated with a specific entity such as leads, humor, etc. of the Netflix platform)
--a similarity module that applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is matrix factorization based on this historical information) to identify, via a user-entity matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an entity matrix (see: page 44, “A BASIC MATRIX FACTORIZATION MODEL” where there is a dot product which is used to identify content. The dot product involves a user matrix/vector (pu) and an entity matrix/vector (qiT)):
--one or more highest engagement entities that are most engaged with by the user of the connected platform; (see: “Matrix Factorization Methods” on pages 43-44 where there is identification of content for users based on various factors. Also see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent (engagement) with consuming the content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3 where there are entities related to leads, humor, etc.) and
--one or more similar entities that are related to the one or more highest engagement entities based on the applied matrix factorization; (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)) and
--a surfacing module that displays a user-selectable set of options via a user interface of the connected platform, (see: page 42 paragraph 2 where there is recommendation of content using the various data. Also see: page 44, paragraph 3 where the data is historical data, and FIG. 3 where there is selected content being provided. The matrix factorization model here is being used with Netflix to optimize which content is being provided/surfaced to the user)
--wherein the set of options includes:
--at least one option associated with the one or more highest engagement entities, (see: “Matrix Factorization Methods” on pages 43-44 where there is identification of content for users based on various factors. Also see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent (engagement) with consuming the content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)). The content option here is associated with the something such as a most watched female lead (highest engagement entity)) and
--at least one option associated with the one or more similar entities that are related to the one or more highest engagement entities based on the applied matrix factorization (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity). The content option here is associated with similar female lead (similar entity) which is related to a most watched female lead (highest engagement entity)).
Koren may not further, specifically teach:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform;
2) --instructors as an entities; and
3) --exercise classe(s) as option(s).
Sullivan et al. teaches:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform)
2) --instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors) and
3) --exercise classe(s) as option(s) (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a 1) connected fitness platform as taught by Sullivan et al. for the connected platform as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of a connect platform thus it would be obvious to use another type of platform as predictable results would be obtained of using a connected platform. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 2) instructors as taught by Sullivan et al. for entities as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of entities thus one could replace that entity with another entity in the form of instructors to obtain predictable results of using an entity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3) exercise classes as taught by Sullivan et al. for options as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of options thus one could replace that entity with other options in the form of exercises to obtain predictable results of using options. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 9, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Sullivan et al. further teaches wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a mobile device via which the user consumes exercise content streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0079] where content is live streamed. Also see: paragraph [0120] where the fitness class app is on the mobile device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Koren teaches a method, comprising:
--accessing option activity information for a user of a connected platform, (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is input of historical information for a user of the platform)
--wherein each option is associated with an entity; (see: page 44, paragraph 3 and FIG. 3 where each content option is associated with a specific entity such as leads, humor, etc. of the Netflix platform)
--applying matrix factorization to the option activity information for the user to identify, via a user-entity matrix that is a product of a user matrix and an entity matrix, (see: page 44, “A BASIC MATRIX FACTORIZATION MODEL” where there is a dot product which is used to identify content. The dot product involves a user matrix/vector (pu) and an entity matrix/vector (qiT)) a first set of entities and a second set of entities similar to the first set of entities; (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is matrix factorization based on this historical information. Also see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)) and
--surfacing a user-selectable set of options via a user interface of the connected platform, (see: page 42 paragraph 2 where there is recommendation of content using the various data. Also see: page 44, paragraph 3 where the data is historical data, and FIG. 3 where there is selected content being provided. The matrix factorization model here is being used with Netflix to optimize which content is being provided/surfaced to the user)
--wherein the set of options includes options associated with the first set of entities and the second set of entities (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity). The content option here is associated with similar female lead (similar entity) which is related to a most watched female lead (highest engagement entity)).
Koren may not further, specifically teach:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform;
2) --instructors as an entities; and
3) --exercise classes as options.
Sullivan et al. teaches:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform)
2) --instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors) and
3) --exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a 1) connected fitness platform as taught by Sullivan et al. for the connected platform as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of a connect platform thus it would be obvious to use another type of platform as predictable results would be obtained of using a connected platform. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 2) instructors as taught by Sullivan et al. for entities as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of entities thus one could replace that entity with another entity in the form of instructors to obtain predictable results of using an entity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3) exercise classes as taught by Sullivan et al. for options as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of options thus one could replace that entity with other options in the form of exercises to obtain predictable results of using options. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 18, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Sullivan et al. further teaches wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a display screen that is part of a mobile device via which the user consumes exercise content streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0079] where content is live streamed. Also see: paragraph [0120] where the fitness class app is on the mobile device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0104148 to R et al.
As per claim 2, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Koren further teaches wherein the applied matrix factorization includes:
--determining rating vectors for entities of the connected platform; (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is a determination of rating vectors of factor vectors for factors (entities) such as comedies, etc.)
--generating a rating matrix that maps the instructors of the connected platform with their determined rating vectors; (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 where there is generation of a rating matrix) and
--determining the one or more similar entities are related to the one or more highest engagement entities (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is determination of similar factors entities to the ones already liked).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform) and
--instructors as an entities (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity.
R et al. teaches:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity (see: paragraphs [0059] and [0060] where cosine similarity is used to determine similarity between objects).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine entities are related to entities using cosine similarity as taught by R et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of rating things (see: paragraph [0059] of R et al.).
As per claim 3, Koren, Sullivan et al., and R et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Koren further teaches wherein determining the rating vectors for the entities of the connected platform includes determining the rating vectors for all entities associated with options of a common discipline (see: FIG. 3 and page 47 where the rating vectors for the factors/entities includes rating vectors for all factors associated with content of a common genre).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform)
--instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors)
--exercise discipline as a discipline; (see: paragraph [0003] where there are commonly involved exercise regimens) and
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Koren further teaches wherein applying matrix factorization to the option activity information includes determining the first set of entities is similar to the second set of entities (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is matrix factorization based on this historical information. Also see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors) and
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity.
R et al. teaches:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity (see: paragraphs [0059] and [0060] where cosine similarity is used to determine similarity between objects).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine entities are related to entities using cosine similarity as taught by R et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of rating things (see: paragraph [0059] of R et al.).
As per claim 12, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Koren further teaches wherein applying matrix factorization to the exercise class information includes:
--determining rating vectors for entities of the connected platform; (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is a determination of rating vectors of factor vectors for factors (entities) such as comedies, etc.)
--generating a rating matrix that maps the entities of the connected platform with their determined rating vectors; (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 where there is generation of a rating matrix) and
--determining the first set of entities is similar to the second set of entities (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is determination of similar factors entities to the ones already liked).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform) and
--instructors as an entities (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity.
R et al. teaches:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity (see: paragraphs [0059] and [0060] where cosine similarity is used to determine similarity between objects).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine entities are related to entities using cosine similarity as taught by R et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of rating things (see: paragraph [0059] of R et al.).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of U.S. 2008/0051919 to Sakai et al.
As per claim 4, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Koren further teaches wherein the input module receives information for options previously performed by the user that identifies a duration of each of the options (see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on page 46 where there is a time a user has watched a certain show/content/option. This information is being received).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--receives information for options previously performed by the user that identifies music selections for each of the options.
Sakai et al. teaches:
--receives information for options previously performed by the user that identifies music selections for each of the options (see: paragraph [0011] where there is historical information about music playback which identifies songs for each exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to receive information for options previously performed by the user that identifies music selections for each of the options as taught by Sakai et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of maintaining or enhancing health (see: paragraph [0008] of Sakai et al.).
As per claim 13, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Koren further teaches wherein the option activity information includes a duration information for the options (see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on page 46 where there is a time a user has watched a certain show/content/option. This information is being received).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--wherein the option activity information includes music selections for the options.
Sakai et al. teaches:
--wherein the option activity information includes music selections for the options (see: paragraph [0011] where there is historical information about music playback which identifies songs for each exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the option activity information includes music selections for the options as taught by Sakai et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of maintaining or enhancing health (see: paragraph [0008] of Sakai et al.).
Claims 5, 7-8, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of W.O. 2020/123756 to Evancha et al.
As per claim 5, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform (see: paragraphs [0038] where there is a home screen which a user accesses to access exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing direct links for information (see: paragraph [0038] of Evancha et al.).
As per claim 7, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a treadmill with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 8, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a bicycle with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 14, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform (see: paragraphs [0038] where there is a home screen which a user accesses to access exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing direct links for information (see: paragraph [0038] of Evancha et al.).
As per claim 16, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a treadmill with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 17, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a bicycle with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0272859 to Mueller et al.
As per claim 6, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach further teaches wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes.
Mueller et al. teaches:
--wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes (see: claim 6 where there is such a row of user-selectable content of exercise classes).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes as taught by Mueller et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of displaying exercises (see: paragraph [0006] of Mueller et al.).
As per claim 15, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform includes one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes.
Mueller et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform includes one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes (see: claim 6 where there is such a row of user-selectable content of exercise classes).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform includes one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes as taught by Mueller et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of displaying exercises (see: paragraph [0006] of Mueller et al.).
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 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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights