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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 7, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on March 19, 2026 for the patent application 18/702,787 filed on April 18, 2024. Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-15 are amended. Claims 6 and 8 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-15 are pending. The first office action of May 2, 2025; the second office action of August 6, 2025; and the third office action of November 19, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-5, 7 and 9-15 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a workout guide device” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 10 is directed to “a workout guide method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 15 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “a workout guide,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“storing one or more target muscles when fitness equipment is used, a contribution of major muscles constituting each of the one or more target muscles, and a workout trajectory guide for each range of motion of a joint generated when the fitness equipment is used accurately with a correct posture;
detect a workout trajectory corresponding to a joint angle when a user moves the fitness equipment;
determine whether the workout trajectory corresponding to the joint angle matches the workout trajectory guide for a corresponding range of motion of the joint, determine that adjustment of a workout posture is required when a deviation between a shape of the workout trajectory corresponding to the joint angle and a shape of the workout trajectory guide exceeds a preset value, and set or update a target weight of the fitness equipment when a deviation between a movement displacement of the workout trajectory corresponding to the joint angle and a movement displacement of the workout trajectory guide exceeds a preset value; and
present a guide to adjust the workout posture or the set or updated target weight of the fitness equipment, wherein the workout trajectory is the movement displacement of the fitness equipment plotted against time, wherein the deviation comprises a difference between a height of the detected workout trajectory and a height of the stored workout trajectory guide.”
Per claim 10 and 15:
“detecting a workout trajectory corresponding a joint angle when a user moves the fitness equipment;
determining whether the workout trajectory corresponding to the joint angle matches a workout trajectory guide previously stored in a storage and generated when the fitness equipment is used accurately with a correct posture, determining that adjustment of a workout posture is required when a deviation between a shape of the workout trajectory and a shape of the workout trajectory guide exceeds a preset value, and setting or updating a target weight of the fitness equipment when a deviation between a movement displacement of the workout trajectory and a movement displacement of the workout trajectory guide exceeds a preset value; and
present a guide to adjust the workout posture or the set or updated target weight of the fitness equipment based on the determination by the processor, wherein the workout trajectory is the movement displacement of the fitness equipment plotted against time, wherein the deviation comprises a difference between a height of the detected workout trajectory and a height of the stored workout trajectory guide.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a display,” “a storage,” “a sensor,” “a processor,” and “a workout guider,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “a workout guide,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a display,” “a storage,” “a sensor,” “a processor,” and “a workout guider,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a display,” “a storage,” “a sensor,” “a processor,” and “a workout guider,” as described on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the Al workout guide device 300 may include a processor 310, a sensor 320, a communicator 340, a workout guider 360, and a display 370. Also, the Al workout guide device 300 may further include storage (not shown), a camera 330 and an image processor 350. The processor 310 may include an Al processor 312 when necessary. The Al processor 312 may detect a workout trajectory based on data sensed by the sensor 320 and analyze a difference between the detected workout trajectory and a workout trajectory guide. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, functions of the Al processor 312 may also be implemented in a workout guide processor 386 of the smart gym server 380. The storage may receive and store necessary data through communication with the smart gym server 380, the user terminal 390, or the external server 388.” As such, the Applicant’s “a display,” “a storage,” “a sensor,” “a processor,” and “a workout guider,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment and services within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9 and 11-14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9 and 11-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 10. Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and “a workout guide method, of claim 10.” Per M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(p): A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “A system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages...to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. In re Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement... occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); < Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
In Applicant’s case, claim 15 is reciting “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and “a workout guide method, of claim 10.” Because Applicant is claiming two separate statutory classes together in a single claim, claim 15 is deemed indefinite. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on March 19, 2026 related to claims 1-5, 7 and 9-15 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Discussion of Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Applicant respectfully argues “Regarding claims 4, 8 and 9, the Office asserted that "The limitation 'an updated workout trajectory guide,' is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. 'the updated workout trajectory guide')."
Applicant has amended the pending claims to consistently recite the limitation "workout trajectory guide" with proper antecedent basis. The pending claims no longer recite "an updated workout trajectory guide," and instead consistently recite "the workout trajectory guide" or "the previously stored workout trajectory guide." Thus, the antecedent basis issue identified by the Examiner has been resolved.
Regarding claim 8, the Office asserted that the term "big data" is indefinite. Claim 8 has been canceled without prejudice. Accordingly, the rejection based on the recitation of "big data" in claim 8 is moot.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, the Office asserted that the limitation "a workout trajectory guide" in claims 10 and 15 are indefinite.
As amended, independent claim 1 expressly recites "a workout trajectory guide for each range of motion of a joint generated when the fitness equipment is used accurately with a correct posture," and independent claim 10 likewise expressly recites "a workout trajectory guide previously stored in a storage and generated when the fitness equipment is used accurately with a correct posture." Accordingly, the subsequent recitations of "the workout trajectory guide" in the dependent claims now have clear antecedent basis in the respective independent claims.
For at least the above reasons, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn. However, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is necessitated by the Applicant’s claim 15 amendment.
Discussion of Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 2A prong 1
The Applicant respectfully argues “The above-mentioned limitations are neither mental process nor certain methods of organizing human activity. Rather, it is a sensor-based control system that processes physical movement data and produces real-time operational control of fitness equipment.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea of “a workout guide,” is related to “Mental Process” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Likewise, the abstract idea of “a workout guide,” is also related to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” by teaching and following rules or instructions. Here the claims are merely using a computer (i.e. “a processor”) as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A prong 2
The Applicant respectfully argues “they do not merely recite collecting workout data, analyzing the data, and displaying a result. Instead, they recite a specific device configuration integrated with fitness equipment, including a frame-mounted sensor that measures a real-time distance to a weight member, detects a workout trajectory corresponding to a joint angle, compares the detected trajectory to a stored trajectory guide for a corresponding range of motion, and uses that comparison to present posture guidance and a set or updated target weight on the fitness equipment itself. In this way, the claims are directed to a specific technical manner of operating a workout guide device with fitness equipment.
This is not the type of claim that the Federal Circuit has found ineligible as merely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results, such as in Electric Power Group, nor is it a claim that merely automates a manual process using generic computing components, as in Ficep. Rather, the amended claims recite a particular technical implementation tied to concrete fitness-equipment structures and specific real-time sensor-based trajectory processing.
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that some aspect of the claims could be characterized as involving evaluation of workout information, the claims as a whole integrate any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and therefore are not "directed to" an abstract idea.
In addition, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The ordered combination of the storage, the sensor installed at the frame structure of the fitness equipment, the processor configured to compare the detected workout trajectory with the workout trajectory guide for a corresponding range of motion of the joint, the display provided on the fitness equipment, and the workout guider configured to control the display to present the posture guide or the set or updated target weight defines a specific implementation and is not merely a generic instruction to apply an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “A frame mounted sensor” is merely a generic input device for collecting data. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• 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).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• 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).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea with generic exercise equipment and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, for the reasons stated here and above, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights