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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 10th, 2026 have been considered.
As to the prior art remarks, they are viewed as moot in light of the new grounds of rejection detailed below.
Applicant’s also argued that the newly added limitations, namely the inclusion of one or more processors to implement the various components, was sufficient to overcome a 112(f) interpretation.
The Office respectfully disagrees. While the processor element is claimed to implement the various units, this does not necessarily require that the processor perform the function of the various units. See MPEP 2181 and Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 115 USPC2d 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “grouping unit”, “exercise sequency generating unit” in claims 1, 10, and 15 and “communication unit” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert (US 2004/0229729) in view of Wiebe (US 20180140902).
With respect to claim 1, Albert discloses, an apparatus (para. 12) for providing an exercise sequence (i.e. fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (para. 12; “a computer having a processor”) configured to implement;
a grouping unit configured to group exercise equipment in a smart gym into a plurality of exercise groups (36 in fig. 1; para. 85; also note the grouping in fig. 8 that details how the exercise equipment is grouped by equipment type and exercise type; finally note fig. 9, which labels various groups of exercise, “chest”, “shoulders”, “legs”); and
an exercise sequence generating unit configured to select at least one piece of exercise equipment belonging to each of the plurality of exercise groups (fig. 9 details a workout selections for chest, shoulders, legs), and generate an exercise sequence including a use order of the at least one piece of exercise equipment (para. 50; figs. 1, and 5, detail the method of generating the exercise sequence displayed in fig. 9) and an exercise program for each of the at least one piece of exercise equipment (fig. 9 details a specific exercise program for the user),
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the exercise sequence to balance a user's physical development status by increasing, among the plurality of exercise groups for exercise target muscles, a use frequency with which exercise equipment related to muscles for which the PMW_individual is less than a PMW_estimate is selected (paras. 46 and 61, the PMWindividual in Albert is seen as the current repetition or weight amount, and PMWestimate is the selected new repetition or weight amount), from each of the plurality of exercise groups for exercise target muscles (para. 61 and fig. 6; “[t]he present system adapts to the user and increases or decreases the difficulty of workouts as the user's strength and fitness increase. Thus, if a given workout is too easy for the user, the system will take this into account and increase the resistance used for similar exercises in subsequent workouts.”),
wherein the PMW_estimate indicates an estimated value of a user's personal maximum strength PMW based on an estimated muscle strength value calculated based on user data (para. 61 states user data, repetitions completed in Albert, is used to determine when a user is ready to progress to a new repetition or weight amount), and the PMW_individual indicates a personal maximum strength reflecting an objectification index (para. 61 details a “counter or running score” which is seen equivalent to applicant’s objectification index) for each user (para. 61 details this is unique to each user) obtained for a preset period (para. 64 details periodically reevaluating and setting new baseline weights as well) in which each user exercises based on an initial target weight of exercise equipment set using a PMW_estimate value (para. 61-64),
wherein the apparatus is configured to transmit the exercise sequence to the exercise equipment or a user terminal to be displayed through an exercise program installed on the exercise equipment or the user terminal (fig. 9; para. 9 detail a display device to display workout instructions through an exercise program).
Albert additionally discloses, limiting inclusion of exercises until a user achieves a baseline (para. 48; “certain squat exercises will not be assigned unless a member's baseline assessment on the 45 degree leg press is at least 90 lbs. Other guidelines include not assigning certain exercise to members of one gender or the other and limiting certain exercises to members of a given experience level.”), adjusting resistance increases based on user specifics (para. 63; “To determine the appropriate resistance change for a specified exercise, the gender of the person who will perform the exercise must be known. This information is present in the weight rules”). Finally Albert also discloses a determining if a user’s repetitions meet or exceed a threshold (para. 61; “These adjustments may occur as a result of follow up evaluations conducted by a trainer at the club, an increase in the number of repetitions regularly performed by a member, or specific input from the user that the exercise is too easy.”).
Albert does not expressly disclose however determining a physical development status or adjusting use frequency to balance muscle development.
Wiebe discloses, an exercise training plan (abstract)
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a physical development status of each exercise target muscle using a PMW_individual and a PMW_estimate identified for each exercise target muscle (para. 66; “Further, the graph 530 indicates that the athlete 150 is “20% leaning left,” for example, the athlete 150 is exerting approximately 20% more energy using the left quadriceps than using the right quadriceps, which is outside of a target range for balance (e.g., no more than 10% based on an exercise rule in the exercise data store 440). In other embodiments, the metric for balance may be based on other types of data such as the athlete's acceleration of each leg when jumping and landing while performing the squats, or the timing between muscle activation of the athlete's right and left quadriceps (e.g., whether one quadriceps is activated slower than the other quadriceps when jumping” Herein the target range discussed by Wiebe is seen as equivalent to the PMW_estimate parameter and PMW_individual is mapped to the actual measurement), and to generate the exercise sequence to balance a user's physical development status by increasing, among the plurality of exercise groups for exercise target muscles, a use frequency with which exercise equipment related to muscles for which the PMW_individual is less than a PMW_estimate is selected (figs. 5E-F and paras. 68-69 detail the modification of an exercise sequence to account for a muscle imbalance, namely the inclusion of unilateral exercise (increasing it’s frequency) to train specific unbalanced muscle groups. Para. 70 also details automatic modification of the exercise program to develop balance in specific muscles based on determined inequalities), from each of the plurality of exercise groups for exercise target muscles (para. 66 details receiving biofeedback for all the exercises performed and all the various muscles targeted by said exercise)
wherein the use frequency represents a number of times exercise equipment related to muscles for which the PMW_individual is less than the PMW_estimate is selected for inclusion in one or more exercise sequences generated during a preset time unit, and is distinguished from an exercise intensity, an exercise load, a target weight, a resistance level, or a number of repetitions set in the exercise program (figs. 5E-F and paras. 68-70; detail additional inclusion of specific exercises to cure any imbalance; specifically note the increase of balance in the fig. 5f routine compared to the fig. 5e routine),
wherein exercise records obtained while the user exercises include at least one of 1an exercise trajectory, a movement speed, and regularity of repetitions on a set-by-set basis (para. 66 details acceleration; para. 4 also details sensing if the user leans to one side or another, which is seen as equivalent to exercise trajectory), and further include at least one2 of a weight of exercise equipment used by the user, a number of repetitions, and a number of sets (para. 40 details number of repetitions and number of sets),
wherein the objectification index is a value obtained by numerically converting at least one of a degree of completeness of the exercise trajectory and a degree of completeness of the number of repetitions included in the exercise records (para. 55 details creation of a numeric score for an exercise performed by the user based on effort, balance and form).
Wiebe and Albert are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise sequence generation.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied Wiebe’s balancing mechanic and objectification index in the exercise machine categorization of Albert.
The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure optimal training and reduce chances of injury (Wiebe; para. 3).
With respect to claim 3, Albert in view of Wiebe discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the grouping unit performs grouping based on body parts (para. 46; also note fig. 9 and its grouping of chest, shoulders, legs).
With respect to claim 4, Albert in view of Wiebe discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit selects the at least one piece of exercise equipment (para. 45 details automatic generation of exercise sequences based on a user’s physical condition), based on a user's physical condition, and analyzes the user's physical condition by the user’s personal maximum strength PMW (fig. 1 details determining the user’s “overall fitness level”) or maximum oxygen intake (VO2Max) (28 in fig. 3b details recording the user’s VO2Max).
With respect to claim 5, Albert in view of Wiebe discloses, the apparatus of claim 4 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates the exercise program by setting an intensity of exercise performed for each exercise equipment belonging to the plurality of exercise groups (intensity is shown in suggested weight and repetitions in fig. 9), based on the user's physical condition (para. 61 details adapting the intensity to the user’s strength and fitness level), and sets the exercise intensity, based on exercise load and number of repetitions (para. 61 details adjusting repetitions and exercise load).
With respect to claim 9, Albert in view of Wiebe discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates a next exercise sequence by reflecting performance results of a user performing the exercise sequence in a preset time unit (para. 61 details adapting the intensity to the user’s strength and fitness level).
With respect to claim 10, Albert discloses, a method of providing an exercise sequence (fig. 1 and 5), the method comprising:
grouping, by a grouping unit, exercise equipment in a smart gym into a plurality of exercise groups (36 in fig. 1; para. 85; also note the grouping in fig. 8 that details how the exercise equipment is grouped by equipment type and exercise type; finally note fig. 9, which labels various groups of exercise, “chest”, “shoulders”, “legs”); and
selecting, by an exercise sequence generating unit, at least one piece of exercise equipment belonging to each of the plurality of exercise groups (fig. 9 details a workout selections for chest, shoulders, legs) and generating an exercise sequence including a use order of the at least one piece of exercise equipment (para. 50; figs. 1, and 5, detail the method of generating the exercise sequence displayed in fig. 9) and an exercise program for each of the at least one piece of exercise equipment (fig. 9 details a specific exercise program for the user); and
transmitting the exercise sequence to the exercise equipment or a user terminal to be displayed through an exercise program installed on the exercise equipment or the user terminal (fig. 9; para. 9 detail a display device to display workout instructions through an exercise program).
wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates the exercise sequence to balance a user's physical development status by increasing, among the plurality of exercise groups for exercise targe muscles, a use frequency with which exercise equipment related to muscles for which the a PMW_individual is less than the PMW_estimate (paras. 46 and 61, the PMWindividual in Albert is seen as the current repetition or weight amount, and PMWestimate is the selected new repetition or weight amount) is selected, from each of the plurality of exercise groups for exercise target muscles (para. 61 and fig. 6; “[t]he present system adapts to the user and increases or decreases the difficulty of workouts as the user's strength and fitness increase. Thus, if a given workout is too easy for the user, the system will take this into account and increase the resistance used for similar exercises in subsequent workouts.”),
wherein the PMW_estimate indicates an estimated value of user's personal maximum strength PMW based on an estimated muscle strength value calculated based on user data (para. 61 states user data, repetitions completed in Albert, is used to determine when a user is ready to progress to a new repetition or weight amount), and the PMWindividual indicates a personal maximum strength reflecting an objectification index (para. 61 details a “counter or running score” which is seen equivalent to applicant’s objectification index) for each user (para. 61 details this is unique to each user) obtained for a preset period (para. 64 details periodically reevaluating and setting new baseline weights as well) in which each user exercises based on an initial target weight of exercise equipment set using a PMW_estimate value (para. 61-64).
Albert additionally discloses, limiting inclusion of exercises until a user achieves a baseline (para. 48; “certain squat exercises will not be assigned unless a member's baseline assessment on the 45 degree leg press is at least 90 lbs. Other guidelines include not assigning certain exercise to members of one gender or the other and limiting certain exercises to members of a given experience level.”), adjusting resistance increases based on user specifics (para. 63; “To determine the appropriate resistance change for a specified exercise, the gender of the person who will perform the exercise must be known. This information is present in the weight rules”). Finally Albert also discloses a determining if a user’s repetitions meet or exceed a threshold (para. 61; “These adjustments may occur as a result of follow up evaluations conducted by a trainer at the club, an increase in the number of repetitions regularly performed by a member, or specific input from the user that the exercise is too easy.”).
Albert does not expressly disclose however determining a physical development status or adjusting use frequency to balance muscle development.
Wiebe discloses, an exercise training plan (abstract)
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a physical development status of each exercise target muscle using a PMW_individual and a PMW_estimate identified for each exercise target muscle (para. 66; “Further, the graph 530 indicates that the athlete 150 is “20% leaning left,” for example, the athlete 150 is exerting approximately 20% more energy using the left quadriceps than using the right quadriceps, which is outside of a target range for balance (e.g., no more than 10% based on an exercise rule in the exercise data store 440). In other embodiments, the metric for balance may be based on other types of data such as the athlete's acceleration of each leg when jumping and landing while performing the squats, or the timing between muscle activation of the athlete's right and left quadriceps (e.g., whether one quadriceps is activated slower than the other quadriceps when jumping” Herein the target range discussed by Wiebe is seen as equivalent to the PMW_estimate parameter and PMW_individual is mapped to the actual measurement), and to generate the exercise sequence to balance a user's physical development status by increasing, among the plurality of exercise groups for exercise target muscles, a use frequency with which exercise equipment related to muscles for which the PMW_individual is less than a PMW_estimate is selected (figs. 5E-F and paras. 68-69 detail the modification of an exercise sequence to account for a muscle imbalance, namely the inclusion of unilateral exercise (increasing it’s frequency) to train specific unbalanced muscle groups. Para. 70 also details automatic modification of the exercise program to develop balance in specific muscles based on determined inequalities), from each of the plurality of exercise groups for exercise target muscles (para. 66 details receiving biofeedback for all the exercises performed and all the various muscles targeted by said exercise)
wherein the use frequency represents a number of times exercise equipment related to muscles for which the PMW_individual is less than the PMW_estimate is selected for inclusion in one or more exercise sequences generated during a preset time unit, and is distinguished from an exercise intensity, an exercise load, a target weight, a resistance level, or a number of repetitions set in the exercise program (figs. 5E-F and paras. 68-70; detail additional inclusion of specific exercises to cure any imbalance; specifically note the increase of balance in the fig. 5f routine compared to the fig. 5e routine),
wherein exercise records obtained while the user exercises include at least one of 3an exercise trajectory, a movement speed, and regularity of repetitions on a set-by-set basis (para. 66 details acceleration; para. 4 also details sensing if the user leans to one side or another, which is seen as equivalent to exercise trajectory), and further include at least one4 of a weight of exercise equipment used by the user, a number of repetitions, and a number of sets (para. 40 details number of repetitions and number of sets),
wherein the objectification index is a value obtained by numerically converting at least one of a degree of completeness of the exercise trajectory and a degree of completeness of the number of repetitions included in the exercise records (para. 55 details creation of a numeric score for an exercise performed by the user based on effort, balance and form).
Wiebe and Albert are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise sequence generation.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied Wiebe’s balancing mechanic and objectification index in the exercise machine categorization of Albert.
The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure optimal training and reduce chances of injury (Wiebe; para. 3).
With respect to claim 11, Albert in view of Wiebe discloses, the method of claim 10 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit selects the at least one piece of exercise equipment (para. 45 details automatic generation of exercise sequences based on a user’s physical condition), based on a user's physical condition, and analyzes the user's physical condition by the user’s personal maximum strength PMW (fig. 1 details determining the user’s “overall fitness level”) or maximum oxygen intake (VO2Max) (28 in fig. 3b details recording the user’s VO2Max).
With respect to claim 12, Albert in view of Wiebe discloses, the method of claim 4 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates the exercise program by setting an intensity of exercise performed for each exercise equipment belonging to the plurality of exercise groups (intensity is shown in suggested weight and repetitions in fig. 9), based on the user's physical condition (para. 61 details adapting the intensity to the user’s strength and fitness level), and sets the exercise intensity, based on exercise load and number of repetitions (para. 61 details adjusting repetitions and exercise load).
With respect to claim 15, Albert in view of Wiebe discloses, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, storing instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform the method of claim 10 (see above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert (US 2004/0229729) in view of Wiebe (US 20180140902) and further in view of Chung (US 2008/0102023).
With respect to claim 2, Albert and Wiebe discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the grouping unit performs grouping based on exercise target muscles (fig. 9 details chest, shoulder, legs and their associated muscles).
Albert nor Wiebe does not expressly disclose, grouping based on joint movement or a number of joints used during exercise for each exercise target muscle.
Chung details categorizing exercises based on the joints exercised and the associated muscles (para. 49).
Chung, Wiebe and Albert are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise sequence generation.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied Chung’s joint categorization in the exercise machine categorization of Albert/Wiebe. The combination would have been predictable and resulted in additional categorizations to allow users’ to tailor their exercise based on specific joints for example rehabilitation purposes.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert (US 2004/0229729) in view of Von Prellwitz (US 2018/0001181).
With respect to claim 6, Albert in Wiebe discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 (see above).
Albert discloses, targeting different set of muscle groups throughout a week and during different workouts (para. 46).
Wiebe nor Albert expressly disclose, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates at least one exercise sequence in a preset time unit so that muscles of the user's entire body are developed evenly.
Von Prellwitz discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates at least one exercise sequence in a preset time unit so that muscles of the user's entire body are developed evenly (para. 75).
Von Prellwitz, Wiebe and Albert are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise sequence generation.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have generate exercise sequences in Albert/Wiebe to ensure that muscles are developed evenly as taught by von Prellwitz. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the risk of injury to the user (von Prellwitz; para. 75).
With respect to claim 7, Albert, Wiebe and von Prellwitz disclose, the apparatus of claim 6 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates the exercise program in consideration of the user's exercise fatigue and exercise rest period, when generating the at least one exercise sequence in the preset time unit (para. 38 details taking into consideration a user’s fatigue and rest period in terms of exercising 2, 3, or 4 days a week).
With respect to claim 8, Albert and Wiebe disclose, the apparatus of claim 1 (see above).
Wiebe nor Albert does not expressly disclose, a communication unit communicating with each exercise equipment in the smart gym.
Von Prellwitz discloses, a communication unit configured to communicate with each exercise equipment in the smart gym (fig. 10; para. 82).
Von Prellwitz, Wiebe and Albert are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise sequence generation.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include communication units, as taught by von Prellwitz, in the exercise equipment of Albert/Wiebe. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide real-time feedback to the user (von Prellwitz; para. 82; and also to allow inputting of workout completion in Albert automatically without user keyed feedback).
With respect to claim 13, Albert and Wiebe disclose, the method of claim 10 (see above).
Albert discloses, targeting different set of muscle groups throughout a week and during different workouts (para. 46).
Wiebe nor Albert expressly disclose, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates at least one exercise sequence in a preset time unit so that muscles of the user's entire body are developed evenly.
Von Prellwitz discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates at least one exercise sequence in a preset time unit so that muscles of the user's entire body are developed evenly (para. 75).
Von Prellwitz, Wiebe and Albert are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise sequence generation.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have generate exercise sequences in Albert to ensure that muscles are developed evenly as taught by von Prellwitz. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the risk of injury to the user (von Prellwitz; para. 75).
With respect to claim 14, Albert, Wiebe, and von Prellwitz disclose, the method of claim 13 (see above).
Albert further discloses, wherein the exercise sequence generating unit generates the exercise program in consideration of the user's exercise fatigue and exercise rest period, when generating the at least one exercise sequence in the preset time unit (para. 38 details taking into consideration a user’s fatigue and rest period in terms of exercising 2, 3, or 4 days a week).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohno – US 2023/0317236 – details determining user fatigue level to generate exercise sequences.
Alessandri – US 5916063 – details customized exercise sequences with a communication from the exercise devices
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alex Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
1 the exercise records are being interpreted as disjunctive and only one of the three is required to be disclosed to meet the claim limitation. If applicant intends these elements to be viewed conjunctively, i.e. that at least one of ALL three must be present, they should state as such unequivocally on the record
2 Ibid.
3 the exercise records are being interpreted as disjunctive and only one of the three is required to be disclosed to meet the claim limitation. If applicant intends these elements to be viewed conjunctively, i.e. that at least one of ALL three must be present, they should state as such unequivocally on the record
4 Ibid.
