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 1, 7, 10 and 23 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 9, 13-14, 18, 20-21, 25 and 29 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 26-28 and 30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 26-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 27-28 and Claims 23-24 and 26 are drawn to methods for generating a workout or a fitness program which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 10-12, 15-17, 19 and 30 and Claim 22 are drawn to systems for generating a workout which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Claim 1 (Group I) recites a computer implemented method for generating a workout or a fitness program comprising a plurality of workouts, wherein each of the workout comprises one or more exercises, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server computing device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), a request for a workout or a fitness program, wherein each request comprises one or more criteria, wherein each of the one or more criteria is selected from one or more fitness goals, workout type and workout length, wherein each request comprises a user submitting a request via a user interface on a user device, the user device communicating the request(s) with the server computing device optionally via the internet (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it; MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity);
generating, by the server computing device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), a workout or fitness program based on the one or more criteria;
displaying the workout or fitness program to the user; and
automatically modifying the workout or fitness program in response to feedback comprising information relating to changes in exerciser specific information, wherein the exerciser specific information comprises physiological data and/or activity data, wherein the information relating to changes in exerciser specific information is provided by user input and/or one or more monitoring devices, and wherein the changes in exerciser specific information are compared to a baseline profile of the user to evaluate the progress of the user.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 10, 22 and 23 is identical to the abstract idea for claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11-12, 15-17, 19, 24, 26-28 and 30 include other limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 10, 22 and 23. Examiner notes that claim 7 does include the additional element of a watch or fitness monitor, but these are recited at an apply it level.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 26-28 and 30 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a server computing device, user interface, user device, smart watch, fitness monitor, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see page 8 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of the user device communicating the request(s) with the server computing device optionally via the internet which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Pages 7-8 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. server computing device, user interface, user device, smart watch fitness monitor) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. sending data over the internet) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives request data, and transmits the data to a user over a network, for example the Internet.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11-12, 15-17, 19, 24, 26-28 and 30 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because they are recited at the apply it level (smart watch, fitness monitor) as indicated above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 26-28 and 30 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 15-17, 22-24, 26, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gammell (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0281249 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gammell discloses a computer implemented method for generating a workout or a fitness program comprising a plurality of workouts, wherein each of the workout comprises one or more exercises, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server computing device, a request for a workout or a fitness program, wherein each request comprises one or more criteria, wherein each of the one or more criteria is selected from one or more fitness goals, workout type and workout length, wherein each request comprises a user submitting a request via a user interface on a user device, the user device communicating the request(s) with the server computing device optionally via the internet (Paragraphs [0138-0139] discuss a user entering data to create a new workout plan using a computer, construed as a user device using a web application.);
generating, by the server computing device, a workout or fitness program based on the one or more criteria (Paragraph [0139] discusses a recommended schedule being generated based on the request and the user’s data.);
displaying the workout or fitness program to the user (Paragraph [0139] discusses displaying the recommended schedule to the user.); and
automatically modifying the workout or fitness program in response to feedback comprising information relating to changes in exerciser specific information, wherein the exerciser specific information comprises physiological data and/or activity data (Paragraphs [0139-0140] and [0150-0151] discuss generating and displaying a recommended schedule based on a user’s information including age, height, weight, goals, level , muscle focus and activities, and then modifying the exercise sessions based on progression rules laid out in paragraphs [0152-0162], construed as based on activity data.),
wherein the information relating to changes in exerciser specific information is provided by user input and/or one or more monitoring devices (Paragraph [0029] discusses the system being integrated with a fitness monitoring dashboard that collects user data.), and wherein the changes in exerciser specific information are compared to a baseline profile of the user to evaluate the progress of the user (Paragraph [0151] discusses using medium intensity exercise as a baseline for the user and adjusted according to the user’s performance, which are based on the progression goals laid out in paragraphs [0152-0162]. Paragraph [0186] discusses a metric being employed to summarize workout stats and to calculate an individual’s progression from week to week.)
Regarding claim 2, Gammell discloses wherein the physiological data is selected from age, sex, height, body weight, body fat, body composition, heart rate, aspiration rate, blood oxygenation, blood glucose, hydration, caloric expenditure, and V02max (Paragraphs [0035] and [0139] discuss including the users age, height, weight, body fat percentage, hear rate, to create a workout plan.), and wherein the activity data is selected from exercise weight/resistance data, exercise repetition data, exercise duration, body motion/acceleration data, step data, stride length data, stride cadence data, distance traversal data, and pace/speed data (Paragraphs [0036], [0143], [0151] and [0165] discuss the exercise parameters including sets, repetitions, weight used, duration and speed).
Regarding claim 4, Gammell discloses wherein the generating the workout comprises:
selecting, by the server computing device, exercises from one or more databases of exercises (Paragraphs [0050-0051] discuss a database of physical activities and exercises from which exercises are selected.); and
arranging selected exercises into a workout based on a workout template, a pre-determined set of rules and/or machine learning, wherein the step of arranging the selected exercises comprises selecting the workout template from one or more workout templates based on the one or more criteria and populating the templates with the selected exercises (Paragraph [0299] discusses using a workout template to organize exercises based off of the workout type and what movement pattern or exercises have already been used that combines multiple templates associated with a goal and workout type.).
Regarding claim 6, Gammell discloses wherein displaying the workout or fitness program to the user comprises displaying a listing of exercises or workouts in the fitness program and optionally with instructions and/or videos on how to perform each of the exercises (Paragraphs [0048] and [0254] discuss presenting the user with a list of exercises or workouts for the user to perform that can include tutorials of the exercises in the form of videos and coaching messages to guide the user on correct posture and control through the exercise.).
Regarding claim 8, Gammell discloses wherein a subsequent workout in a fitness program or a subsequent exercise in a workout is automatically modified in response to the feedback (Paragraphs [0150-0151] discusses modifying the exercise sessions based on progression rules laid out in paragraphs [0152-0162], construed as based on activity data, construed as in response to the feedback.).
2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1 and 4, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 11, Gammell discloses wherein each entry in the one or more exercise database comprises exercise name and associated metadata (Paragraph [0050] discusses the exercise database including the name of the exercises and how it maps to other data, construed as including metadata.), and optionally one or more of a video or http link to a video showing the exercise, one or more keywords, one or more diagrams showing the exercise and written description (Paragraphs [02080-0209] and [0254] discuss that the exercise activities are charactered in a knowledge based by factors, including activity type, construed as a keyword, video tutorials.).
Regarding claim 12, Gammell discloses wherein the one or more workout templates comprises one or more workout type- specific templates, wherein the one or more workout type-specific templates comprises cardiovascular workout template, strength training template, mobility training template, relaxation template, stretching template, weight-lifting template, interval training template, resistance training template, high-intensity interval training template, cross fit template or combination template, wherein the workout type-specific templates are modular, and/or wherein the workout generating engine is configured to combine two or more workout type-specific templates (Paragraphs [0163-0164], [0168] and [0299] discuss using workout specific templates or a combination of templates based on the user’s goals, including a cardiovascular workout or a strength workout or a combination workout.).
Regarding claim 15, Gammell discloses saving the generated workout in a workout database (Paragraph [0050] discusses a database which can be used to store data.).
Regarding claim 16, Gammell discloses wherein the user interface is configured to allow for selection of exerciser and wherein the workout generating engine is configured to retrieve one or more exerciser profiles (Paragraph [0019] discusses the user entering their personal information and the system using the personal information to generate a personalized workout program.).
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 22 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1, 4 and 10, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1 and 4, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 24 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 26 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 4, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 28, Gammell discloses further comprising interactive communication with a trainer (Paragraph [0254] discusses receiving messages from a coach.).
Regarding claim 30, Gammell discloses wherein the physiological data comprises bioimpedance analysis data and/or 3-D body scan data (Paragraph [0035] discusses the physiological data including body dat percentage data.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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 7, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gammell (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0281249 A1) in view of Rose (U.S. 2021/0050086 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Gammell does not appear to disclose wherein the feedback is provided automatically, wherein the one or more monitoring devices is a smart watch or fitness monitor.
Rose teaches wherein the feedback is provided automatically, wherein the one or more monitoring devices is a smart watch or fitness monitor (Paragraphs [0029], [0031] and [0439] discusses obtaining feedback from a smart watch of the user while the user is exercising, construed as automatically.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gammell to include Rose in order to “improve their health and fitness (Rose, Paragraph [0003])” and modify the exercise parameters accordingly (Rose, Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 19, Gammell discloses wherein the system is configured to receive third-party data, where in the third-party data is wearable fitness device data or health data, and wherein the system is optionally configured to output the generated workout on a display of a personal computing device.
Rose teaches wherein the system is configured to receive third-party data, where in the third-party data is wearable fitness device data or health data, and wherein the system is optionally configured to output the generated workout on a display of a personal computing device (Paragraphs [0092] and [0096] discuss the system obtaining health data from a third party system to be used to analyze the user’s plan and health and paragraph [0333] discusses delivering the workout plan to the user.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gammell to include Rose in order to “improve their health and fitness (Rose, Paragraph [0003]).”
Regarding claim 27, Gammell discloses wherein the workout or fitness program includes one or more of a group workout, an on-line workout, a workout with a personal trainer, and individual exercise (Paragraphs [0039] and [0139] discuss group exercise classes and an individual exercise plan.),
but Gammell does not disclose wherein the workout or fitness program optionally comprises a diet plan, the diet plan being customized based on the user's fitness and health status.
Rose teaches wherein the workout or fitness program optionally comprises a diet plan, the diet plan being customized based on the user's fitness and health status (Paragraph [0057] discusses the plan including a personalized diet plan for protein intake.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gammell to include Rose in order to “improve their health and fitness (Rose, Paragraph [0003]).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant asserts that the amended claims “do not recite any of the three judicial excerptions specifically enumerated in MPEP § 2106” citing to the limitations of “automatically modifying the workout or fitness program...” and “wherein the changes in exerciser specific information are compared of a baseline profile of the user to evaluate the progress of the user (Remarks, page 9).” Examiner maintains that the claim is directed towards organizing human activity as it evaluates a user’s characteristics during exercise and comparing to a baseline to monitor the user’s progress. The instant specification states that people can do this all their own or with a personal trainer (see at least page 1 of the specification). Examiner notes that this as the claims were categorized as reciting organizing human activity, it is moot whether or not the abstract can be performed mentally by a human or if they contain any mathematical concepts.
Applicant asserts that the instant claims recite “an improvement to technology for generating a workout or fitness program - that improvement is the claimed technique of generating an updated workout or fitness program that has increased efficacy in view of changes to exerciser specific information to a baseline profile of the user to evaluate the progress of the user (Remarks, page 10).” Any improvement resulting from the claims is an improvement to the abstract idea.
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) states limitations that the courts have found indicative of an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed
in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
First, there is no technical problem to be solved. Second, even if there was a technical problem with a technical solution resulting from the claimed invention, the instant claims do not result in an improvement to the additional elements, including the server computing device, user interface, user device, smart watch fitness monitor, as they are recited at an apply it level.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant asserts “claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2B because it as a whole recites the inventive concept of updating a workout or fitness program for a user based on information relating to changes in exerciser specific information, wherein the exerciser specific information comprises physiological data and/or activity data, wherein the information relating to changes in exerciser specific information is provided by user input and/or one or more monitoring devices, and wherein the changes in exerciser specific information are compared to a baseline profile of the user to evaluate the progress of the user (Remarks, page 10).” These limitations are part of the abstract idea and therefore cannot be used to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea themselves.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant asserts that “Gammell, however, does not disclose, teach or suggest automatically modifying the workout or fitness program in response to information relating to changes in exerciser specific information, wherein the exerciser specific information comprises physiological data and/or activity data, wherein the information relating to changes in exerciser specific information is provided by user input and/or one or more monitoring devices, and wherein the changes in exerciser specific information are compared to a baseline profile of the user to evaluate the progress of the user, as set out in amended claims 1, 10 and 23 (Remarks, page 11).” The rejection has been updated to address the amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amendments, which are moot in view of the updated rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686