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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “file;” in line 15, needs to be changed to “file,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “device,” in line 10, needs to be changed to “device;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 1, in lines 2-4, recites; “each media file of the media files including one or more of video content, audio content, and an image representative of the media file”, and in lines 12-13, recites: “the processor instructions further configured to control the display to illustrate the image representative of the media file”. Claim 1, according to lines 2-4, requires each media file to include (at least) one of a video content, an audio content or an image representative of the media file, not all. As such, it is unclear how the processor controls the display to illustrate “the image representative of the media file”, if the media file includes a video content or an audio content and not an image representative of the media file. In other words, the phrase “the image representative of the media file” in lines 12-13 lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Watterson et al. (US 2013/0196821 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith (US 2019/0192906 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watterson discloses/teaches a system for an exercise machine, the system comprising:
a file server (112) configured to store and manage media files within a database (114, ¶ [49]), each media file of the media files including one or more of video content, audio content, and an image representative of the media file (¶ [49], [53], [86]), the file server further configured to control an online portal (i.e. application on a user device 106 (i.e. smartphone, tablet, etc.), website accessible by the user device 106) in communication with the database through a computer network (110, Fig. 1, ¶ [80]-[81], [85]-[86]);
an exercise machine (102) including a motion mechanism engageable or operable by a user to perform one or more physical exercises (¶ [48]);
an identifier (i.e. as part of 104) associated with the exercise machine and including a connection to the online portal to facilitate user access to the media files (¶ [47], [49]); and
a user device (106) including a display, an image capture device, and a processor including instructions (¶ [46]-[47], [79], [82], the user device (106) can be a smartphone. A smartphone (inherently) has an image capture device) configured to communicate with the online portal by scanning the identifier for user access to the file server (¶ [49], [55], [86]), the processor instructions further configured to control the display to illustrate the image representative of the media file, the user device configured to display at least one of the media files from the database via the display (¶ [49], [53]-[54]),
wherein the file server is configured to: receive, via the user device through the online portal, screening data related to the exercise machine (¶ [49], [53]), access the media files stored in the database via the computer network (¶ [53]), determine a recommended media file from the media files at least in part based on the screening data (¶ [49], [53]), and communicate at least a portion of the recommended media file to the user device through the online portal (¶ [49], [53], [80]-[81], [85]-[86]), and wherein the user device is configured to execute the recommended media file (¶ [49], [54]).
It is Office’s position that Watterson teaches scanning the identifier via the image capture device of the user device since the user may activate a scanning feature of the smartphone to scan the encoded information (i.e. barcode, QR code, etc.) affixed to an exercise machine (¶ [86]). A smartphone inherently includes an image capture device (i.e. camera), which is a scanning feature. However, if Applicant is not in agreement with the Office’s position, such limitations are taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a system comprising: an identifier associated with an exercise machine (i.e. bar code, QR code, etc.), and a user device (i.e. mobile device) including an image capture device (¶ [17], [116]), and a processor including instructions configured to communicate with an online portal (¶ [19]) by scanning the identifier via the image capture device (¶ [17], [116]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watterson’s invention wherein scanning the identifier is done via an image capture device of the user device, as taught by Smith in order to provide for a more convenient and user friendly system.
Regarding claim 2, Watterson alone or in view of Smith discloses/teaches wherein the user device includes an electronic device portable by the user (Watterson: ¶ [46]-[47], [49]-[51]; Smith: ¶ [17]), and the identifier is optically detectable by the image capture device for user identification so that the user is eligible to access the online portal to retrieve the recommended media file provided by the file server (Watterson: ¶ [49], [53]-[54], [86]; Smith: ¶ [17], [19], [116]).
Regarding claim 3, Watterson alone or in view of Smith discloses/teaches wherein the identifier includes a machine-readable code on the exercise machine having a static or dynamic quick response (QR) code or bar code that is specific to one type of exercise machine that is used by the user so that the user can see the recommended media file that is relevant to the one type of exercise machine (Watterson: ¶ [12]-[13], [47], [49]-[51], [53]; Smith: ¶ [17], [116]).
Regarding claim 6, Watterson alone or in view of Smith discloses/teaches wherein the online portal facilitates access by the user to the recommended media file or access to one or more workout programs (Watterson: ¶ [49], [53]-[54], [80]-[81], [85]-[86]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson alone or in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LoDuca et al. (US 11,130,022 B1).
Watterson alone or in view of Smith is silent about wherein the recommended media file is randomly selected from the media files stored in the file server based in part on whether the recommended media file has been previously selected.
Regarding claim 4, LoDuca teaches a system wherein a recommended media file is randomly selected from media files stores in a file server based on whether the recommended media file has been previously selected (col. 15 lines 3-59).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watterson’s invention alone or in view of Smith wherein the recommended media file is randomly selected from the media files stored in the file server based in part on whether the recommended media file has been previously selected as taught by LoDuca in order to reduce user boredom and encourage the user to continue exercising.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson alone or in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maser et al. (US 2014/0280219 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Watterson alone or in view of Smith teaches wherein the processor includes instructions configured to request the file server provide data related to the recommended media file through the computer network, and wherein when the user scans the identifier on the exercise machine and executes the recommended media file on the online portal, the file server transmits the data of the recommended media file to the user device through the computer network according to a request from the processor, and the processor controls the display to display the video content or the audio content, or both, of the recommended media file associated with the exercise machine (Watterson: Fig. 1, ¶ [49], [53]-[54], [85]-[86]).
Watterson alone or in view of Smith is silent about wherein the file server transmits the data of the recommended media file to the user device in a streaming manner.
Regarding claim 5, Maser teaches a system wherein a file server transmits data of a recommended media file to the user device through a computer network in a streaming manner according to a request from a processor (¶ [57]-[58]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watterson’s invention alone or in view of Smith wherein the file server transmits the data of the recommended media file to the user device in a streaming manner as taught by Maser in order to provide the user with wider ranges of exercises and therefore motivate the user to exercise.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson alone or in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Intonato et al. (US 2022/0339504 A1).
Watterson alone or in view of Smith is silent about wherein the online portal is controlled by the file server to display a specific quantity of categories for the user to choose from, and wherein one of the categories is associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements/wherein the online portal is controlled by the file server to display a first category of the media files associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements, a second category of media files associated with a pre-recorded video as a forward-motion video of outdoor reality, and a third category of media files associated with a workout program.
Regarding claims 7-8, Intonato teaches a system wherein an online portal is controlled by a file server to display a specific quantity of categories for a user to choose from, and wherein one of the categories is associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements/wherein an online portal is controlled by the file server to display a first category of media files associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements, a second category of media files associated with a pre-recorded video as a forward-motion video of outdoor reality, and a third category of media files associated with a workout program (Figs. 7A-7B, ¶ [50]-[51]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watterson’s invention alone or in view of Smith wherein an online portal is controlled by a file server to display a specific quantity of categories for a user to choose from, and wherein one of the categories is associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements/wherein an online portal is controlled by the file server to display a first category of media files associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements, a second category of media files associated with a pre-recorded video as a forward-motion video of outdoor reality, and a third category of media files associated with a workout program as taught by Intonato in order to accommodate wider population of users with different exercise/rehabilitation needs and goals, while keeping the user motivated to exercise and perform wider ranges of different exercises.
Claims 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson et al. (US 2021/0174268 A1) in view of Smith (US 2019/0192906 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Levinson teaches a system for exercise machines, comprising:
a file server (120) configured to store and manage a plurality of media files, each media file of the plurality of media files including one or more of video content, audio content, and an image representative of the media file (Figs. 4-6, ¶ [63]);
a plurality of exercise machines (110, 112, Fig. 1, ¶ [43]), each having a motion mechanism operable by a user to perform physical exercises (Fig. 1, ¶ [44]-[48]), each exercise machine having an identifier accessible to the user (¶ [57], [59], [61]), the identifier provided to allow the user to link to an online portal (i.e. mobile application 200, Figs. 2A-2B), that permits access by the user to the media files stored in the file server through a computer network (Fig. 1, ¶ [52]-[53], [55]), wherein the online portal is controlled by the file server to show an image representative of a recommended media file, the recommended media file selected from the media files stored in the file server and updated every day (Figs. 4-6, ¶ [15], [17], [67], [69], [70]);
a user device (140) including a display, an image capture device, and a processor (¶ [50], the mobile unit 140 may be or include a smartphone, or iPad, or tablet. Each of these devices, inherently includes a display, an image capture device (i.e. camera), and a processor), the user device operable to connected to the online portal by scanning the identifier (¶ [59]), the processor including executable instructions to control the display to display the online portal that shows the image representative of a recommended media file (Figs. 3-6, ¶ [55], [66], [72], [75]).
Levinson is silent about scanning the identifier through the image capture device, and wherein the file server delivers a programmed workout to manage the recommended media files for two or more exercise machines of the plurality of exercise machines so that the user has access to the recommended media files through the user device from different exercise machines in sequence for the programmed workout.
Regarding claim 9, Smith teaches a system comprising: an identifier associated with an exercise machine (i.e. bar code, QR code, etc.), and a user device (i.e. mobile device) including an image capture device (¶ [17], [116]), and a processor including instructions configured to communicate with an online portal (¶ [19]) by scanning the identifier via the image capture device (¶ [17], [116]), wherein a file server delivers a programmed workout to manage recommended media files for two or more exercise machines of a plurality of exercise machines so that a user has access to the recommended media files through a user device from different exercise machines in sequence for the programmed workout (¶ [8]-[9], [38], [41], [47], [88]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levinson’s invention wherein scanning the identifier is done via an image capture device of the user device, and wherein the file server delivers a programmed workout to manage the recommended media files for two or more exercise machines of the plurality of exercise machines so that the user has access to the recommended media files through the user device from different exercise machines in sequence for the programmed workout as taught by Smith in order to provide for a more convenient, efficient and user friendly system for users.
Regarding claim 16, Levinson teaches a method of using an exercise machine, the method comprising:
providing at least one file server (120) to store and manage a plurality of media files within a database (¶ [43]), each media file including video content, audio content, and an image representative of the media file (Figs. 4-6, ¶ [63]), the file server configured to control one or more online portals in communication with the database (Figs. 2A-6, ¶ [43], [57], [63], [65]-[66]);
providing an identifier associated with an exercise machine (110, 112, Fig. 1), the identifier scannable by a user through a user device (¶ [57], [59], [61]);
accessing an online portal of the one or more online portals via a user device (140, ¶ [50]) by scanning the identifier through the user device and displaying the online portal on a display of the user device (Figs. 3-6, ¶ [55], [66], [72], [75]),
accessing the plurality of media files stored in the database (¶ [43], [57], [63], [65]-[66]);
determining a recommended media file from the file server based on the identifier, the recommended media file selected from the media files stored in the file server and updated every day (Figs. 4-5, ¶ [15], [17], [67], [69], [70]);
communicating an image representative of the recommended media file through one online portal of the one or more portals to the display of the user device (Figs. 4-5); accessing the recommended media file from the file server in response to the user instructing the file server to execute the recommended media file displayed on the one online portal (Figs. 4-5, ¶ [87], [97]); and communicating the recommended media file, including the video content, the audio content, or both, through the one online portal to the user device (Figs. 4-5, ¶ [87], [97]).
Levinson is silent about scanning the identifier through the image capture device.
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches a system comprising: an identifier associated with an exercise machine (i.e. bar code, QR code, etc.), and a user device (i.e. mobile device) including an image capture device (¶ [17], [116]), and a processor including instructions configured to communicate with an online portal (¶ [19]) by scanning the identifier via the image capture device (¶ [17], [116]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levinson’s invention wherein scanning the identifier is done through the image capture device of the user device, as taught by Smith in order to provide for a more convenient and user friendly system.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Levinson in view of Smith teaches wherein the user device includes an electronic device portable by the user (Levinson: 140, Figs. 1 and 2B, ¶ [50]; Smith: mobile device, ¶ [17], [116]), and the identifier of each exercise machine of the plurality of exercise machines is optically detectable by the user device for user identification so that the user is eligible to access/login to the (one) online portal and the recommended media file provided by the file server (Smith: ¶ [17, [116]).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Levinson in view of Smith teaches wherein the identifier of each exercise machine includes a machine-readable code having a static or dynamic quick response (QR) code or bar code specific to one type of exercise machine such that the user can see the recommended media file corresponding with the type of exercise machine (Levinson: Figs. 4-5, ¶ [57], [59], [61], [82]-[84]; Smith: ¶ [17], [116]).
Regarding claim 14, Levinson in view of Smith teaches wherein the online portal is controlled by the file server to display a specific quantity of categories for the user to choose from, and wherein one of the categories is associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements (Levinson: Figs. 2A-6, ¶ [77], [99]-[100]).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson in view of Smith as applied to claims 9 and 16 above, and further in view of LoDuca et al. (US 11,130,022 B1).
Levinson in view of Smith is silent about wherein the recommended media file is randomly selected from the media files stored in the file server based in part on whether the recommended media file has been previously selected.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, LoDuca teaches a system wherein a recommended media file is randomly selected from media files stores in a file server based on whether the recommended media file has been previously selected (col. 15 lines 3-59).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levinson’s invention in view of Smith wherein the recommended media file is randomly selected from the media files stored in the file server based in part on whether the recommended media file has been previously selected as taught by LoDuca in order to reduce user boredom and encourage the user to continue exercising.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson in view of Smith as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Maser et al. (US 2014/0280219 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Levinson in view of Smith teaches wherein the processor of the user device includes instructions to request the file server to provide data of the recommended media file through the computer network, and wherein when the user scans the identifier on the exercise machine and executes the recommended media file on the online portal, the file server transmits the data of the recommended media file to the user device through the computer network according to the request of the processor, and wherein the processor will control the display device to display the video file of the recommended media file associated with the exercise machine (Levinson: Figs. 1-6, ¶ [57], [59], [61], [82]-[84]).
Levinson in view of Smith is wherein the file server transmits the data of the recommended media file to the user device in a streaming manner.
Regarding claim 13, Maser teaches a system wherein a file server transmits data of a recommended media file to the user device through a computer network in a streaming manner according to a request from a processor (¶ [57]-[58]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levinson’s invention in view of Smith wherein the file server transmits the data of the recommended media file to the user device in a streaming manner as taught by Maser in order to provide the user with wider ranges of exercises and therefore motivate the user to exercise.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson in view of Smith as applied to claims 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Intonato et al. (US 2022/0339504 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Levinson in view of Smith teaches wherein the online portal is controlled by the file server to display a first category of the media files associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements (Levinson: Figs. 2A-6, ¶ [77], [99]-[100]), and a third category of media files associated with a workout program (Levinson: Figs. 4-5, ¶ [87], [97]).
Levinson in view of Smith is silent about a second category of media files associated with a pre-recorded video as a forward-motion video of outdoor reality.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Intonato teaches a system wherein an online portal is controlled by the file server to display a first category of media files associated with an instructor-led class in which an instructor guides users to simulate their movements, a second category of media files associated with a pre-recorded video as a forward-motion video of outdoor reality, and a third category of media files associated with a workout program (Figs. 7A-7B, ¶ [50]-[51]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levinson’s invention in view of Smith wherein an online portal is controlled by the file server to display a second category of media files associated with a pre-recorded video as a forward-motion video of outdoor reality as taught by Intonato in order to accommodate wider population of users with different exercise/rehabilitation needs and goals, while keeping the user motivated to exercise and perform wider ranges of different exercises.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784