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 and 10 have been amended. Claims 2, 17 and 22-26 are cancelled. Claims 3, 5, 9, 13-14, 18, 20-21, 25 and 29 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-16, 19, 27-28 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, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-16, 19, 27-28 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, 4, 6-8 and 27-28 are drawn to a method for generating a workout or a fitness program which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 10-12, 15-16, 19 and 30 are drawn to a system 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
receiving, from a wearable monitoring device associated with the user (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it; MPEP § 2106.05(h), generally linking), information relating to changes in exerciser specific information, wherein the exerciser specific information comprises:
physiological data selected from age, sex, height, body weight, body fat, body composition, heart rate, aspiration rate, blood oxyqenation, blood glucose, hydration, caloric expenditure, and VO2max; and/or
activity data 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,
wherein the changes in exerciser specific information are compared to a baseline profile of the user to evaluate the progress of the user;
automatically modifying at least one exercise parameter in the workout or fitness program in response to information, the at least one exercise parameter being selected from workout frequency, workout length, workout type, exercise intensity, resistance, incline, weight, number of repetitions, speeds, and cardiovascular demand.
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 Claim 10 is identical to the abstract idea for claim 1.
Dependent Claims 4, 6-8, 11-12, 15-16, 19, 27-28 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 and 10. 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, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-16, 19, 27-28 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); and
generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of a wearable monitoring device, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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 4, 6-8, 11-12, 15-16, 19, 27-28 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, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-16, 19, 27-28 and 30 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-16, 19, 27, 28 and 30 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 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
receiving information relating to changes in exerciser specific information (Paragraph [0019] discusses receiving exercise data from a client device.), wherein the exerciser specific information comprises:
physiological data selected from age, sex, height, body weight, body fat, body composition, heart rate, aspiration rate, blood oxyqenation, blood glucose, hydration, caloric expenditure, and VO2max (Paragraphs [0035] and [0139] discuss including the users age, height, weight, body fat percentage and heart rate data for the user to create a workout plan for the user.); and/or
activity data 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),
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, construed as progress.);
automatically modifying at least one exercise parameter in the workout or fitness program in response to the received information (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.), the at least one exercise parameter being selected from workout frequency, workout length, workout type, exercise intensity, resistance, incline, weight, number of repetitions, speeds, and cardiovascular demand (Paragraphs [0036], [0143], [0151] and [0165] discuss the exercise parameters including sets, repetitions, weight used, duration and speed. 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.),
but Gammell does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the data is received from a wearable monitoring device associated with the user. Examiner notes that Gammell discloses that the data is received from a client device in [0138] but does not explicitly list a wearable monitoring device.
Rose teaches receiving data from a wearable monitoring device associated with the user (Paragraphs [0029], [0031] and [0439] discusses obtaining exercise data from a smart watch of the user during the user’s exercise time, construed as being used to collect data regarding the user’s exercise behaviors, which is used to modify the workout plan.).
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 have “different workout plans [to] be matched to users goals or needs (Rose, Paragraph [0083]).”
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 7, Gammell does not appear to disclose wherein the wearable monitoring device is a smart watch or fitness monitor.
Rose teaches wherein the wearable monitoring device 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.).
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 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.).
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]).”
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 fat percentage data.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 “recites a specific technological process in which data generated by a wearable monitoring hardware is used in an automated feedback loop to dynamically alter workout parameters (Remarks, page 9).” The “abstract concepts” identified by the above rejection are taken directly from the claim language. The recitation of a wearable monitoring device does not render the claim eligible. The wearable device itself is not improved as a result of the claimed invention as the improvement resulting from the claims, if any, is to the abstract idea itself.
While the result may be “practical” in a real-world sense because it is useful, it does not result in a practical application as explained in MPEP § 2106 of the recited abstract idea. The modified workout that is output is considered part of the abstract idea. Therefore, it is not analyzed with respect the Prong Two analysis as that requires “ask[ing] does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2). As the modified workout plan is part of the abstract idea and not an additional element, it cannot result in a practical application as asserted by Applicant.
Applicant asserts that the claims are “not merely mental analysis performed on generic data (Remarks, page 10).” The rejection above does not assert that the claims recite a mental process. Rather, it asserts that the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity, and therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that the analysis improperly evaluates the claim elements individually rather than as an ordered combination.
Applicant asserts that as “an ordered combination, claims 1 and 10 recite:
acquisition of physiological and activity metrics from a wearable monitoring device;
comparison of changes in those metrics against a baseline profile;
automated evaluation of user progress; and
automatic modification of specific exercise parameters in response to that evaluation.”
Examiner maintains that the above limitations except for the wearable monitoring device, are part of the abstract idea. Under Step 2B for the well-understood, routine and conventional analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05. Here, the inventive concept is not the wearable device. It is merely used to collect data that is used for exercise data analysis and to modify the workout. Therefore, the claims do not rise to the level of significantly more.
Applicant asserts that the “Office Action cites conventional receipt and transmission of data over a network,” “the focus of the current claim is not data transmission,” and is instead on “the automated adaptation of exercise parameters based upon sensor-derived physiological measurements and baseline comparison (Remarks, page 11).” As required MPEP 2016, the rejection requires addressing all additional elements. Examiner does not assert that communicating data is the focus of the claimed invention, but rather shows communicating data, which is considered an additional element, is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity, as required by Berkheimer. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). The “automated adaption of exercise parameters” based on the data is considered abstract, as indicated in the above rejection.
Applicant asserts that the “cited rationale therefore does not address the claim as a whole (Remarks, page 11).” Each and every limitation is addressed in accordance with MPEP § 2106. The rejection uses the exact claim language and addresses each limitation, including identifying which limitations are abstract and which limitations are considered additional elements.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Applicant asserts that “Gammell, however, does not disclose, teach or suggest receiving, from a wearable monitoring device associated with the user, information relating to changes in exerciser specific information, wherein the exerciser specific information comprises: physiological data selected from age, sex, height, body weight, body fat, body composition, heart rate, aspiration rate, blood oxygenation, blood glucose, hydration, caloric expenditure, and VO2 max; and/or activity data 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 (Remarks, page 12).” The rejection has been updated to address the amendments as Gammell does not explicitly disclose a wearable monitoring device.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights