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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0266502 to Aragones et al. (hereinafter Aragones).
Regarding claim 10, Aragones teaches method of operating fitness equipment, comprising:
measuring, by a first sensor of the fitness equipment (e.g., an image capture device and/or one or more sensors in steps 504, 508, and 510 of Fig. 5), a first attribute of performance of an exercise task by a user interacting with the fitness equipment (e.g., one or more of deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active leg raise, push up and rotary stability in ¶ 92);
measuring, by the first sensor or a second sensor of the fitness equipment (e.g., an image capture device and/or one or more sensors in steps 504, 508, and 510 of Fig. 5), a second attribute of performance of a game task by the user, wherein the exercise task and the game task are different types of movements performed at different times (e.g., a different one of deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active leg raise, push up and rotary stability than above in ¶ 92); and
simulating, by the fitness equipment, an action in a virtual game based on both the first attribute and the second attribute (e.g., generating a human movement screen score to be displayed on the screen of a video game console and used in future exercise sessions, described in at least ¶¶ 92 and 94-95).
Regarding claim 13, Aragones teaches wherein simulating the action in the virtual game comprises:
determining an exercise performance score by comparing the first attribute to a target for the first attribute (e.g., comparing the attributes of various body movements to a given score threshold, as discussed in ¶ 95 and shown in Fig. 7);
determining a quality of the action based on the second attribute (e.g., comparing a different one of the attributes of various body movements to a given score threshold, as discussed in ¶ 95 and shown in Fig. 7); and
adjusting the quality of the action as a function of the exercise performance score (e.g., generating a personalized exercise program based on the human movement score in at least ¶¶ 95 and 99).
Regarding claim 14, Aragones teaches wherein the first attribute is a heartrate of the user and the target is a target heartrate value or target heartrate zone, the method further comprising determining the target heartrate value or target heartrate zone based on the exercise task (e.g., the one or more sensors that determine the human movement score may include a heart rate monitor in at least ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 15, Aragones teaches wherein the first attribute is a pace of the exercise task and the first sensor is configured measure movement of a component of the fitness equipment to determine the pace of the performance of the exercise task by the user (e.g., the sensors may detect speed, distance, and/or steps taken in ¶ 80 and/or tempo in ¶ 107).
Regarding claim 16, Aragones teaches further comprising performing a comparison of the pace of the performance of the exercise task by the user to a target value or range, wherein simulating the action is based on the comparison (e.g., tempo may be scored relative to a scoring range spanning several categories in ¶ 107 and Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 19, Aragones teaches receiving a user selection to retry the action in the virtual game; and operating the fitness equipment to provide an additional task associated with retrying the action in the virtual game (e.g., generating a personalized exercise program, which can change over time, based on the human movement score in at least ¶¶ 95 and 99).
Regarding claim 20, Aragones teaches simulating an additional action in the virtual game based on a third attribute of performance of the exercise task by an additional user and a fourth attribute of performance of the game task by the additional user, wherein the action and the additional action provide competition between the user and the additional user in the virtual game (e.g., a challenge session where a user competes against another user in ¶¶ 129-131).
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, 2, 4-9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragones in view of US 2021/0308528 to Soifer (hereinafter Soifer).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9, 17, and 18, Aragones teaches the invention substantially as described above, including a teaching of varying load (e.g., weight) and intensity (see at least ¶ 118). Aragones lacks in explicitly teaching controlling force feedback by the fitness equipment based on the exercise task, and similarly, controlling an electric motor of the fitness equipment to provide force to an end effector. In a related disclosure, Soifer teaches a weight-machine apparatus having adjustable resistances accomplished by a geared electric motor for generating at least one of linear force and rotatory force based on commands and controlled via a processing device (see at least ¶ 7). Soifer further teaches the use of workout programs having templates with incremental weight adjustments, specified timing, reps, and rest data (see at least ¶¶ 103-107). Soifer teaches that the weight machine apparatus may be in communication with a computer, portable electronic device, or video game console (see at least ¶ 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Aragones to include the computer controlled force feedback by the fitness equipment using an electric motor of the fitness equipment to provide force to an end effector, as taught by Soifer, in order to automate the process of adjusting the load or intensity of a workout.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Aragones and Soifer teaches or suggests a screen, wherein the circuitry is programmed to cause the screen to display a visualization of the action (e.g., Aragones ¶ 119 displaying an image of a user performing the drill).
Claims 5-7 are taught or suggested by Aragones (in view of Soifer), as discussed above with respect to claims 13-16.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Aragones and Soifer teaches or suggests a force plate configured to support the user during performance of the exercise task or the game task, wherein the force plate is configured provide a force measurement, wherein the attribute of the performance of the game task or the attribute of the performance of the exercise task is based on the force measurement (e.g., a force sensor system may be included in a shoe of a user in ¶¶ 72-74 of Aragones).
Claims 3, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragones, alone or in view of Soifer, in further view of US 2006/0166737 to Bentley (hereinafter Bentley).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 12, Aragones alone or in view of Soifer teaches or suggests the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching a golf club having a sensor and a virtual golf game in which distance or accuracy of a virtual shot in the golf game is based on the second attribute and adjusted based on the first attribute such that the game task is swinging a golf club. It is noted that Aragones teaches the use of the invention in the context of golf by including sensors in golf apparel (¶ 67), but lacks in stating that the golf club contains the sensors. In a related disclosure, Bentley teaches a system for athletic motion analysis and instruction which analyzes a golf swing of a golf club with a plurality of sensors, scoring parameters of component parts of the motion, and prescribing a training regimen with exercises based on user input (abstract). Bentley further teaches that golf swing motion analysis may be performed using inertial sensor data to measure the golfer’s body performance (e.g., shoulder rotation, club path, etc.) and use these parameters to extrapolate a predicted ball in flight such as total distance travelled, ball flight character, etc. (see at least ¶ 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify Aragones, either alone or in combination with Soifer, to include the golf club with sensors and virtual representation of a golf ball flight corresponding to the sensor readings, as taught or suggested by Bentley, in order to allow athletes to improve their golf performance through personalized exercises based on their individual golf club swing performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes that the previous objection to the drawings and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in light of the instant amendments and reply.
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 WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights