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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. In addition, the instant application has the status of a 371 of PCT/KR2022/007357. As such the earliest date of priority of 02/10/2022 is granted to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Photographs, color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one photograph (FIG. 5). Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 1-18 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 recites the limitation “a first reference scroll speed for the text” on lines 7-8. The specification does not define what the first reference scroll speed is meant to be the specification merely states that there is a reference scroll speed for text which as stated on page 10 line 11, is V1 which for example is 1 as stated on line 15. As such the examiner is considering the reference speed as an arbitrary value that the system applies when there is text on screen.
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation “a second reference scroll speed for the image” on line 10. Similar to the issues with the first reference scroll speed, the second reference scroll speed is another arbitrary value that can be adjusted as needed and is only more specifically defined as being different from the first reference scroll speed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a first reference scroll speed for the text” on lines 8-9. The specification does not define what the first reference scroll speed is meant to be the specification merely states that there is a reference scroll speed for text which as stated on page 10 line 11, is V1 which for example is 1 as stated on line 15. As such the examiner is considering the reference speed as an arbitrary value that the system applies when there is text on screen.
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation “a second reference scroll speed for the image” on line 10-11. Similar to the issues with the first reference scroll speed, the second reference scroll speed is another arbitrary value that can be adjusted as needed and is only more specifically defined as being different from the first reference scroll speed.
Dependent claims 2-3,7-9, 11-12, and 16-18 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Each of Claims 1-18 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 and 10 recites at least one step or instruction for classifying/ checking attributes of web content into a text and an image and to provide attribute information about the web content, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. This step/instruction does not require any specific structure as claimed, as a person can reasonably see when viewing a phone/computer display whether texts or images are on screen. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 and 10 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, claim 1 recites A non-motorized treadmill comprising: a web content provider (additional element) configured to classify attributes of web content into a text and an image and to provide attribute information about the web content (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and a controller (additional element) configured to control a scroll speed for the text at a first speed based on a first weight value according to a user's cadence speed, a second weight value according to an exercise intensity, and a first reference scroll speed for the text, and to control a scroll speed for the image at a second speed based on the first weight value, the second weight value, and a second reference scroll speed for the image.
In addition, claim 10 recites a method for driving a non-motorized treadmill by a controller (additional element) of the non-motorized treadmill, the method comprising: checking whether an attribute of web content belong to a text or an image (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); calculating a first weight value according to a user's cadence speed (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); calculating a second weight value according to an exercise intensity (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and controlling a scroll speed for the text at a first speed based on the first weight value, the second weight value, and a first reference scroll speed for the text, and controlling a scroll speed for the image at a second speed based on the first weight value, the second weight value, and a second reference scroll speed for the image.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 16-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 10 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-3,7-9, 11-12, and 16-18) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 10), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a controller are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., controller as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-18 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a controller.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification there is no definition or any structure in regards to what the claimed controller is.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term controller is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the controller. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-18 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the non-motorized treadmill and method of Claims 1-18 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-18 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 10 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-18 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-18 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-18 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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) 1,4-6, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 20130012357 A1, in view of McNamee US 9959902 B2, and further in view of Liao et al. US 20210275861 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Wang teaches a web content provider (application 71) configured to classify attributes of web content into a text and an image and to provide attribute information about the web content (“the application 71 in the electronic device 2 that is applicable to be controlled may be, practically, a web browser, a portable document file (PDF) reader, an office program, or an electronic book application.” See paragraph [0029]. The examiner notes that the claim language is merely reciting that the web content includes text and images which a web browser, electronic book, office program etc. can do, and that the controller knows what web content is being provided.); and a controller (control unit 50) configured to control a scroll speed for the text at a first speed based on a first weight value according to a user's cadence speed (The examiner notes that paragraph [0031] states that a rotation of a swinging pendulum generates actuation signals which are converted into the controls that determine when the web content is scrolled and in what direction, with paragraph [0032] stating that the speed of the users running, which corresponds directly to a runners cadence as cadence is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the beat, time, or measure of rhythmical motion or activity”, corresponds to the speed at which the actuation signals, and therefore the scrolling speed is affected by the users cadence), and a first reference scroll speed for the text (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language noted ,please see the rejection under 35 USC 112b presented above, and due to the system automatically adjusting the scrolling speed/direction of scrolling, of the text based on whether the user is speeding up/slowing down/ or changing direction on the treadmill, the reference value for the text scrolling is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations as being whatever speed the user is currently scrolling at each instance prior to and adjustment being made) .
Wang fails to teach that the exercise device used is a non-motorized treadmill, and a second weight value according to an exercise intensity, and to control a scroll speed for the text with all three of the first weight value, the second weight value, and a first reference scroll speed for the text, and to control a scroll speed for the image at a second speed based on the first weight value, the second weight value, and a second reference scroll speed for the image.
The examiner notes that as stated above Wang teaches the web content being images, and scrolling the web content based on a first weight value corresponding to a user’s cadence as noted above, but that specifically controlling the image scrolling at a second speed based on all three of the first weight value, the second weight value, and an image reference scroll speed as claimed is not taught.
McNamee, however, teaches methods and systems for receiving information descriptive of a pace at which a user is exercising; presenting video content depicting a race at a playback speed dependent on the pace; and displaying a dashboard including an indication of the pace (see abstract), and further teaches a second weight value according to an exercise intensity (“The computing device 108 can receive information directly from the exercise machine 104, such as speed, tilt, resistance, cadence, time elapsed, and user heart rate.” See col.6 lines 38-41. The examiner notes that as stated in the specification of the instant application on page 7 lines 7-9, the exercise intensity is related to the braking resistance provided to the rotation parts according to user settings, therefore the resistance setting of the treadmill in McNamee is being considered as the exercise intensity value. ), and to control a scroll speed for the image at a second speed based on the first weight value, the second weight value, and a second reference scroll speed for the image (“The computing device 108 can use the activity information received from the exercise machine 104 to control the playback speed of the video, as described above” See col. 6 lines 41-44. The examiner notes that col. 4 lines 35-48 state how the system will synchronize the playback speed of the video images which start at a first speed, which is the speed it was recorded, and is being considered the second reference scroll speed for the image under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations).
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 the control system of Wang to include a weight value according to the exercise intensity, and to control the text and image scrolling a respective first and second speed based on all three of the first weight value, the second weight value, and the image reference scroll speed as taught by McNamee, as this would provide a more immersive virtual experience for the user and would allow the controller to more accurately represent the real world actions of the user in the web content as they exercise.
The combination of Wang and McNamee however still fails to teach that the system is for a non-motorized treadmill. The examiner notes that Wang does state in paragraph [0028] that there are multiple possible embodiments and exercise devices that the system can be implements in, including a mechanically driven treadmill, but that specifically it being non-motorized is not stated.
Liao et al., however, teaches a manual treadmill that is capable of being set to a target exercise speed according to the demand of a user and is capable of being operated at the target exercise speed for the user walking or running thereon (See paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control system of Wang in an electronically controlled manual treadmill as taught by Liao, so that the user’s movements are in direct control of the web content scrolling, and there is no assistance from a motor or other driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 4:
Wang as modified teaches the non-motorized treadmill of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the second reference scroll speed is greater than the first reference scroll speed.
McNamee, however, teaches methods and systems for receiving information descriptive of a pace at which a user is exercising; presenting video content depicting a race at a playback speed dependent on the pace; and displaying a dashboard including an indication of the pace (see abstract), and further teaches wherein the second reference scroll speed is greater than the first reference scroll speed (The examiner notes that as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, and due to the unclear nature of the claim language regarding the reference scroll speeds, the recorded video speed of the image/video has been stated to be the second reference speed, which the video/ image scrolling is inherently faster than the text based scrolling as the text based scrolling speed can be 0 if the user stops, or go backwards as the user changes direction, therefore the speed the video plays at which initially is the speed it was recorded at is greater than the text reference scroll speed.)
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 the controller of Wang to have the second reference scroll speed be greater than the first reference scroll speed as taught by McNamee, as this allows the video content to continue playing even at slower speeds to maintain a synced playback rate that corresponds to the user’s exercise performance.
Regarding claim 5:
Wang as modified discloses the non-motorized treadmill of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to increase the scroll speed for the text and the scroll speed for the image in proportion to the user's cadence speed (See the rejection of claim 1 above, specifically the discussion of paragraphs [0031]-[0032] which discuss how the users cadence causes the controller to adjust the control speed for the content displayed).
Regarding claim 6:
Wang as modified by McNamee teaches the non-motorized treadmill of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to increase the scroll speed for the text and the scroll speed for the image in proportion to the exercise intensity (See rejection of claim 1, specifically the discussion regarding how McNamee uses the resistance setting of the exercise device as an input to control how fast the image/video plays in response to the user’s movements).
Regarding claim 10:
Wang teaches a method (the examiner notes that paragraph [0041] states that the method of the invention can be modified, which shows that there is a method for controlling a device) by a controller (control unit 50) of the non-motorized treadmill, the method comprising: checking whether an attribute of web content belong to a text or an image (“the application 71 in the electronic device 2 that is applicable to be controlled may be, practically, a web browser, a portable document file (PDF) reader, an office program, or an electronic book application.” See paragraph [0029]. The examiner notes that the claim language is merely reciting that the web content includes text and images which a web browser, electronic book, office program etc. can do, and that the controller knows what web content is being provided.); calculating a first weight value according to a user's cadence speed (The examiner notes that paragraph [0031] states that a rotation of a swinging pendulum generates actuation signals which are converted into the controls that determine when the web content is scrolled and in what direction, with paragraph [0032] stating that the speed of the users running, which corresponds directly to a runners cadence as cadence is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the beat, time, or measure of rhythmical motion or activity”, corresponds to the speed at which the actuation signals, and therefore the scrolling speed is affected by the users cadence); and controlling a scroll speed for the text at a first speed based on the first weight value, and a first reference scroll speed for the text(The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language noted ,please see the rejection under 35 USC 112b presented above, and due to the system automatically adjusting the scrolling speed/direction of scrolling, of the text based on whether the user is speeding up/slowing down/ or changing direction on the treadmill, the reference value for the text scrolling is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations as being whatever speed the user is currently scrolling at each instance prior to and adjustment being made) .
Wang fails to teach that the exercise device used is a non-motorized treadmill, and a second weight value according to an exercise intensity, and to control a scroll speed for the text with all three of the first weight value, the second weight value, and a first reference scroll speed for the text, and to control a scroll speed for the image at a second speed based on the first weight value, the second weight value, and a second reference scroll speed for the image.
The examiner notes that as stated above Wang teaches the web content being images, and scrolling the web content based on a first weight value corresponding to a user’s cadence as noted above, but that specifically controlling the image scrolling at a second speed based on all three of the first weight value, the second weight value, and an image reference scroll speed as claimed is not taught.
McNamee, however, teaches methods and systems for receiving information descriptive of a pace at which a user is exercising; presenting video content depicting a race at a playback speed dependent on the pace; and displaying a dashboard including an indication of the pace (see abstract), and further teaches a second weight value according to an exercise intensity (“The computing device 108 can receive information directly from the exercise machine 104, such as speed, tilt, resistance, cadence, time elapsed, and user heart rate.” See col.6 lines 38-41. The examiner notes that as stated in the specification of the instant application in paragraph ), and to control a scroll speed for the image at a second speed based on the first weight value, the second weight value, and a second reference scroll speed for the image (“The computing device 108 can use the activity information received from the exercise machine 104 to control the playback speed of the video, as described above” See col. 6 lines 41-44. The examiner notes that col. 4 lines 35-48 state how the system will synchronize the playback speed of the video images which start at a first speed, which is the speed it was recorded, and is being considered the second reference scroll speed for the image under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations).
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 the control system of Wang to include a weight value according to the exercise intensity, and to control the text and image scrolling a respective first and second speed based on all three of the first weight value, the second weight value, and the image reference scroll speed as taught by McNamee, as this would provide a more immersive virtual experience for the user and would allow the controller to more accurately represent the real world actions of the user in the web content as they exercise.
The combination of Wang and McNamee however still fails to teach that the system is for a non-motorized treadmill. The examiner notes that Wang does state in paragraph [0028] that there are multiple possible embodiments and exercise devices that the system can be implements in, including a mechanically driven treadmill, but that specifically it being non-motorized is not stated.
Liao et al., however, teaches a manual treadmill that is capable of being set to a target exercise speed according to the demand of a user and is capable of being operated at the target exercise speed for the user walking or running thereon (See paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control system of Wang in an electronically controlled manual treadmill as taught by Liao, so that the user’s movements are in direct control of the web content scrolling, and there is no assistance from a motor or other driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 13:
Wang as modified teaches the method of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the second reference scroll speed is greater than the first reference scroll speed.
McNamee, however, teaches methods and systems for receiving information descriptive of a pace at which a user is exercising; presenting video content depicting a race at a playback speed dependent on the pace; and displaying a dashboard including an indication of the pace (see abstract), and further teaches wherein the second reference scroll speed is greater than the first reference scroll speed (The examiner notes that as stated in the rejection of claim 10 above, and due to the unclear nature of the claim language regarding the reference scroll speeds, the recorded video speed of the image/video has been stated to be the second reference speed, which the video/ image scrolling is inherently faster than the text based scrolling as the text based scrolling speed can be 0 if the user stops, or go backwards as the user changes direction, therefore the speed the video plays at which initially is the speed it was recorded at is greater than the text reference scroll speed.)
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 the controller of Wang to have the second reference scroll speed be greater than the first reference scroll speed as taught by McNamee, as this allows the video content to continue playing even at slower speeds to maintain a synced playback rate that corresponds to the user’s exercise performance.
Regarding claim 14:
Wang as modified discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the scroll speed for the text and the scroll speed for the image are increased in proportion to the user's cadence speed (See the rejection of claim 10 above, specifically the discussion of paragraphs [0031]-[0032] which discuss how the users cadence causes the controller to adjust the control speed for the content displayed).
Regarding claim 15:
Wang as modified by McNamee teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the scroll speed for the text and the scroll speed for the image are increased in proportion to the exercise intensity (See rejection of claim 10, specifically the discussion regarding how McNamee uses the resistance setting of the exercise device as an input to control how fast the image/video plays in response to the user’s movements).
Examiner’s Notes
The examiner notes that there is no prior art rejection made in regards to dependent claims 2-3,7-9, 11-12, and 16-18, however they are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependency on a rejected base claim as stated above, and under 35 USC 101 as noted above. Please see the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, 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.
/J.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784