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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and system for providing an exercise sequence to a user. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lIl), concepts relating to mental processes are drawn to abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the provision of generic computer components does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the factors set forth in MPEP 2106. Such factors include:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state of being;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Further guidance is provided by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). Alice held that a method of mitigating settlement risk was drawn to an abstract idea. Alice further held that the performance of the method performed on a computer did not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea, and thus the claimed invention was drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea:
These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 3). Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Bilski, supra, at 610-611. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement]” an abstract idea “on ... a computer,” Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 16), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our §101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F.3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo, 566 U.S., at_(slip op., at 8-9).
Id at pp 1983-1984. Alice further held that apparatus claims drawn to a computer system were subject to the same analysis as the method claims, and were also not patentable subject matter:
Petitioner's claims to a computer system and a computer-readable medium fail for substantially the same reasons. Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims. En Banc Response Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 11 -1301 (CA Fed.) p. 50, n. 3. As to its system claims, petitioner emphasizes that those claims recite “specific hardware” configured to perform “specific computerized functions.” Brief for Petitioner 53. But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware— a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, see App. 954, 958, 1257—is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method bclaims. See 717 F.3d, at 1290 (Lourie, J., concurring). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers.” Id., at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S., at 610-611).
Id. at pp 1984-1985. Turning to the claimed invention, a method and system for receiving and analyzing information, and displaying the results of the analysis, is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(ll)(D) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 -52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Each of the recited steps – storing information concerning one or more muscles activated during an exercise, generating an exercise sequence, and determining a cumulative amount of an exercise that has been completed -- is a mental process pertaining to receiving and analyzing information. The method is performed by a generic computing device which under Alice is not sufficient to impart patentability to the system or method.
Consideration of the factors listed above pertaining to what is significantly more than the judicial exception, as viewed in light of the holding in Alice, weighs against patentability. While the method includes the use of a computer, the method does not involve an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology. Rather, generic computer components are used in their usual and customary way to perform the method. Mere automation of mental processes to improve efficiency is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed method does not require the use of a particular machine, as a generic computer system is not a “particular machine” under Alice, nor does it result in the transformation of a physical article. Rather, the result of the claimed method is an exercise sequence to be performed by a user, which itself is an abstract concept.
Dependent claims 2-11, 3 and 14 also fail to recite limitations which would overcome the rejection. These claims are generally directed to the types of information being received, analyzed, and displayed as part of the method. Again, generic computer components are being used in their routine and conventional way. Because the claimed invention does not involve significantly more than the abstract concept of analyzing information, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonnette. Bissonnette discloses in the Figures and specification an AI a storage unit that store information concerning at least one muscle associated with the use of an exercise machine (see paragraphs [0087-98], see also Fig. 41C and paragraphs [0251-253]). Bissonnette further discloses an AI exercise sequence generating unit configured to generated an exercise plan based on energy consumption metrics. This disclosure, viewed in combination with Fig. 41C and paragraphs [0251-253], suggests that the exercise plan is based at least in part on a target exercise amount of a target muscle. Bissonnette further discloses at paragraphs [0116-117], [0191] and [0208-09] a measuring unit configured to measure the progress of the user during an exercise (i.e. a cumulative exercise amount). Again, this disclosure in combination with Fig. 41C and paragraphs [0251-253], suggests that a step of measuring an exercise amount applied to each muscle activated during an exercise.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Bissonnette discloses at paragraphs [0108] and [0139] that the exercise sequence includes a plurality of exercise machines, target weight information for the machines, and a number of times the machines are used (set/reps). With respect to claims 3, 6, and 7, Bissonnette discloses at paragraphs [0122] and [0139] a display unit configured to display various information to a user related to the exercises. With respect to the specific content of the information being displayed, applicant is advised that the content of information or other nonfunctional descriptive material will not overcome the prior art where there is no new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the underlying computer system, and where the system merely serves as support for the information. See MPEP 2111.05(III). In this case the claim limitations are directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human observer. With respect to claim 4, the tracking of progress as disclosed at paragraphs [0116-117], [0191] and [0208-09] suggests a calculating of a remaining exercise amount of the target muscle as recited. With respect to claims 5 and 14, Bissonnette discloses at paragraph [0177] that the AI exercise sequence is generated based on a progress of the user towards the target (i.e. a remaining exercise amount). With respect to claim 8, the exercise machines disclose by Bissonnette at paragraphs [0087-98] include both aerobic and anaerobic exercise machines. With respect to claim 9, Bissonnette discloses at paragraphs [0458] and [0463] that its generated exercise sequence includes stretching. With respect to claim 10, Bissonnette discloses at paragraph [0080] that various personal information regarding the user including gender, age, height, and weight, is received by the system and used when generating an exercise sequence. With respect to claim 11, the claim limitations are suggested by the disclosure at paragraph [0167] of Bissonnette that a target exercise amount is based at least in part on a weight of the exercise machine, a number of reps and a number of sets. Bissonnette further discloses at paragraphs [0162-163] the provision of real-time visual and/or sensorial feedback during an exercise including “one or more measurements associated with speed, repetitions, balance, any other suitable measurement”, thus suggesting tracking information such as an exercised trajectory and movement speed. Speed and range of motion thresholds are also taught at paragraph [0166]. With respect to claim 12, Bissonnette suggests the recited method as discussed above with respect to claim 1. With respect to claim 12, Bissonnette discloses at paragraph [0007] a computer readable medium including instructions configured to execute a method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 at 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 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
January 14, 2026