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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Belson et al. (US PGPub. 2023/0218950). Belson et al. describes the same invention as claimed, including:
Regarding claim 1, A system for implementing a dynamic performance enhancing schema comprising: an exercise machine (ABSTRACT: “An exercise machine”) having a load assembly (motor 106) for applying a load to a limb of a target individual (para. 27: “On the other end of the cable an actuator/handle (110) is coupled in order for a user to grip and pull on.”); a force sensor in electrical communications with the load assembly for detecting a force applied by the limb by the target individual using the exercise machine (para. 32: “a user tension sensor; a torque/tension/strain sensor and/or gauge to measure how much tension/force is being applied to the actuator (110) by the user. In one embodiment, a tension sensor is built into the cable (108). Alternatively, a strain gauge is built into the motor mount holding the motor (106). As the user pulls on the actuator (110), this translates into strain on the motor mount which is measured using a strain gauge in a Wheatstone bridge configuration. In another embodiment, the cable (108) is guided through a pulley coupled to a load cell. In another embodiment, a belt coupling the motor (106) and cable spool or gearbox (108) is guided through a pulley coupled to a load cell. In another embodiment, the resistance generated by the motor (106) is characterized based on the voltage, current, or frequency input to the motor.”); a velocity sensor for receiving velocity information representing a velocity applied by the limb by the target individual using the exercise machine (para. 30: “one or more of the following sensors (not shown in FIG. 1): a position encoder; a sensor to measure position of the actuator (110). Examples of position encoders include a hall effect shaft encoder, grey-code encoder on the motor/spool/cable (108), an accelerometer in the actuator/handle (110), optical sensors, position measurement sensors/methods built directly into the motor (106), and/or optical encoders. In one embodiment, an optical encoder is used with an encoding pattern that uses phase to determine direction associated with the low resolution encoder. Other options that measure back-EMF (back electromagnetic force) from the motor (106) in order to calculate position also exist;” Examiner notes additionally that a force-velocity curve illustrated in Fig. 2); and, a computer system (motor controller 104) in communications with the load assembly, the force sensor and the velocity sensor for determining an initial power (Fig. 2, Examiner notes that Power is easily derived from the Force Velocity Profile depicted using conventional methods, i.e. Power = Force x Velocity; Further evidenced by “Force-Velocity-Power Profile Characteristics”, an excerpt from NSCA’s Essentials of Sport Science, cited with this Office Action), receiving load information (para. 63: “The machine's resistance dynamically changes to match the user's applied force, while allowing the user to move the resistance at a prescribed constant speed during the concentric phase, establishing for a given speed (210), for example 50 inches/second, a corresponding produced force (218).”), receiving a velocity information (Fig. 2, Velocity 202), receiving a force information (Fig. 2, Force Produced), analyzing a power and velocity data (para. 67: “With one data point (218) or more (220, 222, 224) data points, a FVP (226) may be estimated for the user. This FVP (226) may intercept the y-axis at point (228), which represents the 1eRM of the user.”), modifying the load applied to the target individual according to the power and velocity data and applying the modified load to the limb of the target individual during a subsequent use of the exercise machine by the target individual (para. 71: “Once a 1eRM has been calculated, respective rep/weight recommendations may be made based on traditional “rep-percentage” charts which are known in the field to equate a 1eRM to a suggested weight for 10 reps, for example.”).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the limb is a first limb, the force sensor is a first force sensor, the velocity sensor is a first velocity sensor and the power and velocity analysis is a first power and velocity analysis and the computer system is adapted to create a work scheme for a second limb according to a second power and velocity analysis derive from a second force sensor and a second velocity sensor (para. 117: “[0117] Two-sided movements—those that have a “left side” and “right side” such as bicep curls—are limited by the weaker side. In one embodiment, if the rep count goal is 10 and the user did 12 reps on one side and 15 on the other, the set is treated as though they did the lower number, 12 reps, on both sides. In one embodiment, if the user exceeds the rep goal on one side but does not exceed the rep goal on another side, the set is treated as though they did not exceed the rep goal.” Also see: “[0158] Two Sided Movements. Two sided movements that have a left-side and right-side, may have specific techniques to accommodate their nature. For example, one technique is: [0159] If either side was below the rep goal, then decrease suggested weight from previous set by the greater of a pound or 10% of the base weight for the movement; [0160] If the following four conditions are met: [0161] the user exceeded their rep goal on both sides; [0162] the user did not reduce the weight for this movement in this workout; and [0163] a spotter and/or spotter mechanism did not reduce the weight by at least 10% on a rep, excepting the last rep, of the set's rep count goal for either side; and there are more than two reps in reserve (“RIR”) at the end of each side; [0164] Then increase suggested weight from previous set for the movement by the greater of a pound or 2.5% of the base weight for the movement; [0165] Else suggest the previous set's weight, for example a second side's weight, optionally adjusted for rep goal.”).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine a performance target according to historical performance information of the target individual according to the power and velocity data analysis (para. 122: “In the event this feature is used: [0123] if the user has done a threshold number of movements (for example, four movements) with similar muscle utilization, then the 1RM of this current movement is considered to be 90%×median of the best normalized 1RM of each movement with similar muscle utilization and a suggested starting weight for a given prescribed rep set is based on the 1RM of the current movement using a curve and process similar to that described above in associated with FIG. 3A.”).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine a performance target according to a set of mission parameters (para. 92: “A “rep goal” as referred to herein is any goal set by user, coach, and/or system for a number of reps in a given set for a specified movement.” Examiner notes that “mission parameters” is given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification. In the instant Specification, para. 13 establishes “Yet another individual may wish to train for a specific mission. One mission may require long hikes which require stamina while another mission may require carrying heavy loads, but shorter distances.”. This system of goal setting is anticipated by Para. 92 of Belson et al., as a rep goal is well known to depend on a training goal for the user).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine a target individual performance goal according to a set of historical mission parameters (para. 92: “A “rep goal” as referred to herein is any goal set by user, coach, and/or system for a number of reps in a given set for a specified movement.” Examiner notes that “mission parameters” is given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification. In the instant Specification, para. 13 establishes “Yet another individual may wish to train for a specific mission. One mission may require long hikes which require stamina while another mission may require carrying heavy loads, but shorter distances.”. This system of goal setting is anticipated by Para. 92 of Belson et al., as a rep goal is well known to depend on a training goal for the user).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine a target individual performance goal according to an individual performance goal (para. 92: “A “rep goal” as referred to herein is any goal set by user, coach, and/or system for a number of reps in a given set for a specified movement.”).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the target individual performance goal is a performance standard (para. 92: “A “rep goal” as referred to herein is any goal set by user, coach, and/or system for a number of reps in a given set for a specified movement.”. Examiner notes that “performance standard” is given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification. In the instant Specification, para. 114 establishes “A performance training plan can be created based on information from their performance evaluation as well as other training, task, and medical information (e.g., previous training metrics, mission-related tasks, injury history). A performance training plan can also be developed based upon the performance levels that have historically shown to provide for higher mission success, where the mission can be from graduation from boot camp to elite missions such as insurgence into hostile battle environments. A performance training plan can also be developed based upon one or more mission parameters. A performance training plan can also be developed based upon physical ability and stamina standards associated with the target individual service. For example, the minimum physical ability and stamina standards may be as shown in Table 1:
TABLE 1
Task
Score (points awarded)
Pull-ups 2 minutes
8
Sit-ups 2 minutes
50
Push-Ups 2 minutes
40
1 mile run
15
25-meter underwater swim
Pass / Fail
500-meter swim
15
A target individual may desire to improve on one or more of the above tasks so that the performance plan can be developed that seeks to improve the performance in one of more of the above tasks, while taking into consideration the current performance of the target individual. In some cases, the system can be used to evaluate the target individual so that weaknesses are identified and corrected prior to the point where the physical performance is tested. For example, prior to entering basic training, prior to joining an advanced or elite group, after an injury, to deploy or otherwise engage during a mission of other goal.”. This system of goal setting is anticipated by Para. 92 of Belson et al., as a rep goal is well known to depend on a training goal for the user).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine an estimated maximal load (Fig. 2, 1eRM).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine a workout scheme using an iterative process from a set of load information, a set of velocity information, and a set of force information received from the subsequent use of the exercise machine by the target individual (Figure 2 shows analysis over the course of several repetitions within an exercise session, also see “[0137] Increases in Suggested Weights. In one embodiment, suggested weight for a current set of a movement is increased by a determined threshold step in the event that there is a subset of consecutive sets where the user met their rep goal over a superset of sets of the movement. In one embodiment, increases in suggested weight do not occur for user-safety sensitive movements. For example, one technique is: [0138] If the user meets their rep goals for two consecutive sets of a movement or the user meets their rep goals for five consecutive sets in the event they have completed 40 sets for the movement; [0139] And all of the following conditions are met: [0140] 1RM in the previous set for the movement is less than or equal to 1RM in the set before the previous set for the movement; [0141] the user did not decrease the weight for this movement within this workout; [0142] a spotter and/or spotter mechanism did not reduce the weight in the previous consecutive sets. Reps that were spotted after the rep count goal may be ignored; [0143] there are more than two reps in reserve (“RIR”) at the end of the set; and [0144] the movement is not an Internal Shoulder Rotation or an External Shoulder Rotation, or any other movement indicated as user-safety sensitive; [0145] Then the suggested weight for the movement is increased by whichever is larger: an increase of one pound or an increase of 2.5% over the current base weight.”).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine whether modifications in the load applied to the target individual are repeated for each target individual session (see paras. 138-145, quoted above in the rejection of claim 12).
Claim(s) 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Miller et al. (US PGPub. 2017/0361165). Miller et al. describes the same invention as claimed, including:
Regarding claim 14, A system for implementing a dynamic performance enhancing schema comprising: a set of prior user characteristics (para. 163: “the user's unique physical characteristics (e.g., agonist-antagonist muscle ratio, MVC, tendency to deviate from a desired trajectory at a given positional coordinate, previously known injuries or conditions, health condition, etc.).”); a computer system adapted to receive a set of target individual characteristics and generate an initial workout scheme according to a similarity match of the target individual characteristics and the set of prior user characteristics (para. 163: “Based on a user's individual performance metrics, personalized training programs can be provided that are customized around a user's goals (e.g., sports training, rehabilitation, exercise for weight loss or conditioning, etc.”) as well as the user's unique physical characteristics (e.g., agonist-antagonist muscle ratio, MVC, tendency to deviate from a desired trajectory at a given positional coordinate, previously known injuries or conditions, health condition, etc.).”); an exercise machine (10) having a load assembly for applying a load to a limb of a target individual according to the initial workout scheme (para. 12: “establishing an initial resistance level of the brakes of the apparatus, and prompting a user to perform a number of repetitions of a movement over a desired trajectory with the exercise apparatus at the initial resistance level.”); a force sensor in electrical communications with the load assembly for detecting a force applied by the limb by the target individual using the exercise machine (in order to generate the power curves depicted in Fig. 4C, a force sensor must be present in the device); a velocity sensor for receiving velocity information representing a velocity applied by the limb by the target individual using the exercise machine (para. 11: “the apparatus including a user interface member coupled to the plurality of links and joints, brakes capable of resisting movement of at least a subset of the links or joints, and sensors capable of sensing movement at the joints.”); and, wherein the computer system is in communications with the load assembly, the force sensor and the velocity sensor and adapted for determining power information (Fig. 4C), receiving load information, receiving a velocity information, receiving a force information, determining a power and velocity analysis, creating a modified workout scheme according to the power and velocity analysis (para. 164: “For example, it is known that, during one phase of a throwing motion, the subscapularis and pectoralis muscles are actively contracting. Detecting an abnormality at this phase of a throwing motion can indicate a deficiency or injury in those particular muscles of a user. The detection of deficiency in these muscles can trigger an automated exercise plan that focuses on developing the muscles in need of improvement.”).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the modified workout scheme includes a modified load applied to the limb of the target individual during a subsequent use of the exercise machine by the target individual (para. 168: “A processer can be configured to aggregate trajectory and performance data generated by users, providing the ability to learn from individual user and aggregate user behavior. The system can thus automatically assess user performance, and the quality of a user's training, exercise, and recovery movements and overall programs without the need for direct human intervention or supervision. The system is further able to provide suggestions for correcting a user movement, providing recommendations for correcting or improving the user movement, and/or suggest or automatically generate personalized training and recovery programs to address a user's needs, such as overcoming a particular weakness.”).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the limb is a first limb, the force sensor is a first force sensor, the velocity sensor is a first velocity sensor, the power and velocity analysis is a first power and velocity analysis and the computer system is adapted to create a workout scheme for a second limb according to a second power and velocity analysis derive from a second force sensor and a second velocity sensor (para. 169: “The user 801 is able to interface with the device 10 through a user interface member (e.g., limb interface 8).”, para. 134: “[0134] An initial physical assessment can also be used to calibrate an exercise device to a user. For example, a device can learn the length of a user's limbs or user's range of motion. In particular, a user can be instructed to perform a series of movements, such as a lateral arm raise and a bicep curl. Since it is known, or it is assumed, or as it has been instructed to the user, that the position of the user's foot and/or other body segments are not changing during these motions, the device can calculate limb segment lengths based on an area or volume “carved out” by each movement. The device can, for example, calculate a total length of the user's arm based on an area carved out or created by the user during an arm raise movement and can calculate a length of the user's forearm based on an area carved out or created by a bicep curl.” And para. 163: “[0163] Based on a user's individual performance metrics, personalized training programs can be provided that are customized around a user's goals (e.g., sports training, rehabilitation, exercise for weight loss or conditioning, etc.) as well as the user's unique physical characteristics (e.g., agonist-antagonist muscle ratio, MVC, tendency to deviate from a desired trajectory at a given positional coordinate, previously known injuries or conditions, health condition, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the computer system is adapted to create the workout scheme for a second limb according to workout scheme of the first limb (para. 163: “[0163] Based on a user's individual performance metrics, personalized training programs can be provided that are customized around a user's goals (e.g., sports training, rehabilitation, exercise for weight loss or conditioning, etc.) as well as the user's unique physical characteristics (e.g., agonist-antagonist muscle ratio, MVC, tendency to deviate from a desired trajectory at a given positional coordinate, previously known injuries or conditions, health condition, etc.).”).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Miller et al. (US PGPub. 2017/0361165). Miller et al. describes the same invention as claimed, including:
Regarding claim 18, A system for implementing a dynamic performance enhancing schema comprising: a computer system adapted to receive a set of target individual characteristics and generate an initial workout scheme according to a set of mission performance parameters (para. 163: “[0163] Based on a user's individual performance metrics, personalized training programs can be provided that are customized around a user's goals (e.g., sports training, rehabilitation, exercise for weight loss or conditioning, etc.) as well as the user's unique physical characteristics (e.g., agonist-antagonist muscle ratio, MVC, tendency to deviate from a desired trajectory at a given positional coordinate, previously known injuries or conditions, health condition, etc.).”); an exercise machine (10) having a load assembly for applying a load to a limb of a target individual according to the initial workout scheme (para. 12); a force sensor in electrical communications with the load assembly for detecting a force applied by the limb by the target individual using the exercise machine (Fig. 4C); a velocity sensor for receiving velocity information representing a velocity applied by the limb by the target individual using the exercise machine (para. 11); and, wherein the computer system is in communications with the load assembly, the force sensor and the velocity sensor and adapted for determining power output (Fig. 4C), receiving load information, receiving a velocity information, receiving a force information, determining a power and velocity analysis, creating a modified workout scheme according to the power and velocity analysis (para. 163).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the limb is a first limb, and the initial workout scheme is a first initial workout scheme for the first limb and the computer system adapted to generate a second initial workout scheme for a second limb (para. 163).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the power and velocity analysis is a first power and velocity analysis for the first limb and the computer system adapted to generate a second power and velocity analysis for the second limb and determine a difference between the first power and velocity analysis and the second power and velocity analysis indicating a difference in performance between limbs (para. 132: “By understanding a user's unique movement patterns and capabilities, resistances can be adapted within and throughout a single motion or consistently throughout a motion, and movement patterns can be influenced to optimize a user's performance. Furthermore, performance comparisons between various movements and changes in performance over time can assist with diagnosing weaknesses or injuries of a user, or, alternatively, assessing whether a user has recovered sufficiently to return to a sport. Changes in performance can be considered, for example, within the same exercise set, across defined repetitions, across subsequent or previous sessions, and/or between different exercise types of a related or non-related movement. Through specificity testing, the device can provide more detailed information for clinical decision making, such as determining when it is safe to return a patient or athlete back to their functional activities.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belson et al. (US PGPub. 2023/0218950) in view of Miller et al. (US PGPub. 2017/0361165). Belson et al. describes substantially the same invention as claimed, but does not explicitly disclose:
Regarding claim 9, wherein the computer system is adapted to determine a peak power and power velocity.
Miller et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a computer system on a resistance training machine is adapted to determine a peak power and power velocity (Miller et al. para. 87: “A user can also view historical data, as shown in FIG. 9, where a comparison of power over multiple exercise sets is shown along with total calories burned, peak velocity, and peak power. An example of a user interface displaying performance metrics, for example, explosiveness, is shown in FIG. 32.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include the peak power and power velocity calculations taught by Miller et al. on the device of Belson et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of customizing the goal weight or number of repetitions on the Belson et al. device to create an exercise program customized to a particular user’s requirements. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Belson et al. as taught by Miller et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Belson et al. does not expressly show: wherein the computer system is adapted to determine a workout scheme according to power information, the load information, the velocity information, the force information, the power and velocity analysis and a performance target.
Miller et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to determine a workout scheme according to power information, load information, velocity information, force information, power and velocity analysis and a performance target (Miller et al. para. 163: “Based on a user's individual performance metrics, personalized training programs can be provided that are customized around a user's goals (e.g., sports training, rehabilitation, exercise for weight loss or conditioning, etc.) as well as the user's unique physical characteristics (e.g., agonist-antagonist muscle ratio, MVC, tendency to deviate from a desired trajectory at a given positional coordinate, previously known injuries or conditions, health condition, etc.).”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include the workout scheme determination of Miller et al. on the device of Belson et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of enabling the exercise machine to deliver a customized training routine that supports the user’s particular goals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Belson et al. as taught by Miller et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Belson et al. does not explicitly show: wherein the power information is a first power information, the load information is a first load information, the velocity information is a first velocity information, the force information is a first force information and the computer system is adapted to create a second power and velocity analysis according to a second power information, a second load information, a second velocity information, and a second force information received from a subsequent use of the exercise machine by the target individual.
Miller et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to provide a system wherein the power information is a first power information, the load information is a first load information, the velocity information is a first velocity information, the force information is a first force information and the computer system is adapted to create a second power and velocity analysis according to a second power information, a second load information, a second velocity information, and a second force information received from a subsequent use of the exercise machine by the target individual (Miller et al. para. 161: “Based on the measurements obtained to generate a user's performance profile, the system can automatically, continuously, and in real time, perform comparisons of the user to the user's peer groups, to other athletes, to the general population, or to the user's own or other users' previous performance(s). Comparisons can be used to further detect deficiencies, abnormalities, or risk, and can also be used to recommend a training regimen or adjust an established training regimen to focus on areas (e.g., particular muscles or muscle groups) specifically in need of improvement.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to include the iterative evaluation process described by Miller et al. in the Belson et al. devices’ exercise generation process, for the purpose of updating a customized weight recommendation for a user, in accordance with user training goals and injury prevention or rehabilitation. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Belson et al. as taught by Miller et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892 for cited art of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784