DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on April 17, 2026. Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 9 recites the limitation, “automatically resetting the use order of the exercise machines according to occupancy status of the exercise machines in the smart gym”. The term “the use order” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 11 recites “the processor” in line 2 which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 12 recites “the processor” in line 2 which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 14 recites “the processor” in line 5 which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 15 recites the limitation, “automatically resetting the use order of the exercise machines according to occupancy status of the exercise machines in the smart gym”. The term “the use order” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
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
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
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.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
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 NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
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.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-15 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim is directed to a predictive modelling.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite limitations, “determine an occupancy status of each of the exercise machines; automatically reset a use order of exercise machines according to the occupancy status of the exercise machines in the smart gym, wherein the determines whether remaining exercise machines are occupied when a preset reference including a repetition count or a preset percentage of repetitions is satisfied, and resets the exercise sequence such that an exercise machine not occupied is used first;” which are directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior under methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim is directed to managing a person’s exercise routine or training regimen based on the availability of exercise machines. The management of a person’s exercise routine or training regimen is a form of managing personal behavior.
Mathematical Concepts
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite limitations, “calculate an estimated muscular strength based on the user data, and estimate PMW_estimation that represents an estimated value of a Personal Maximum Weight (PMW) indicating muscular strength that can be exerted by the user against resistance of a weight with maximum effort, based on estimated muscular strength; and generate the exercise sequence such that a use frequency of an exercise machine having PMW_personal less than the PMW_estimation is increased to be higher than a preset reference value, wherein the PMW_personal represents a predicted maximum muscular strength value reflecting a user-specific objectification index obtained during exercise using an initial target weight set based on the PMW_estimation, wherein the user-specific objectification index includes exercise records;” are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas/equations, and mathematical calculations under mathematical concepts. The claimed limitation, “calculate an estimated muscular strength based on the user data, and estimate PMW_estimation that represents an estimated value of a Personal Maximum Weight (PMW) indicating muscular strength that can be exerted by the user against resistance of a weight with maximum effort, based on estimated muscular strength;” is directed to performing mathematical calculations using a mathematical formula (An estimated muscle strength value = A*gender + B*age + C*body fat percentage + D*BMI + E) to generate an estimated muscle strength value and an estimated PMW_estimation. With respect to claim limitation, “and generate the exercise sequence such that a use frequency of an exercise machine having PMW_personal less than the PMW_estimation is increased to be higher than a preset reference value, wherein the PMW_personal represents a predicted maximum muscular strength value reflecting a user-specific objectification index obtained during exercise using an initial target weight set based on the PMW_estimation, wherein the user-specific objectification index includes exercise records;” is directed to mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations based on the relationships between a PMW_personal and a PMW_estimation. Further, the relationship and calculation of the PMW_personal and PMW_estimation determine level or strength of the user’s muscle.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of a processor, user terminal, smart gym server, and exercise machine amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, and 12-13 recite a “processor”. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 recite a “exercise machine”. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10-14 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
generate an exercise sequence to be provided to the user, generate at least one exercise sequence for balanced development of full body muscle of the user by using information about main muscles and auxiliary muscles activated when the user uses an exercise machine, and generate the exercise sequence such that a use frequency of an exercise machine having PMW personal less than the PMW estimation is increased to be higher than a preset reference value, wherein the PMW personal represents a predicted maximum muscular strength value reflecting a user-specific objectification index obtained during exercise using an initial target weight set based on the PMW estimation, wherein the user-specific objectification index includes exercise records;
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. According to applicant’s argument on page 14 of the remarks discloses, “The amended claim 1 recites a specific smart gym system comprising, inter alia: (a) "[...] determine an occupancy status of each exercise machine based on user interaction with the exercise machine and sensor data," (b) "[...] generate at least one exercise sequence [...] by using information about main muscles and auxiliary muscles [...] PMW_personal [...] PMW_estimation [...] user-specific objectification," and (c) " [...] automatically reset the use order of exercise machines according to the occupancy status and exercise progression [...]". Such claim limitations (a) to (c) are not merely methods of organizing human activity and cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” is directed to the following categories: fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The aspect of practically performed in the human mind is directed to the abstract idea of mental processes, which, the examiner has not cited or applied. However, the claim limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior as described above.
B. According to applicant’s argument on pages 14-15 of the remarks disclose, “The amended claims do not merely recite selecting exercises according to a preference or a generic fitness goal. Rather, the claims recite a specific rule for generating the exercise sequence, namely increasing the use frequency of an exercise machine having PMW_personal less than PMW_estimation, where PMW_personal reflects a user-specific objectification index including exercise records. This is a concrete, claim-specific implementation using quantified exercise-related information, not an abstract concept divorced from technology.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not recite a rule for generating an exercise sequence. However, the claims are directed to implementing the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, mathematical calculations) to generate an exercise sequence. For instance, the claims limitations recite, “calculate an estimated muscular strength based on the user data, and estimate PMW_estimation that represents an estimated value of a Personal Maximum Weight (PMW) indicating muscular strength that can be exerted by the user against resistance of a weight with maximum effort, based on estimated muscular strength; and generate the exercise sequence such that a use frequency of an exercise machine having PMW_personal less than the PMW_estimation is increased to be higher than a preset reference value, wherein the PMW_personal represents a predicted maximum muscular strength value reflecting a user-specific objectification index obtained during exercise using an initial target weight set based on the PMW_estimation, wherein the user-specific objectification index includes exercise records;” demonstrate the generation of an exercise sequence using mathematical concepts.
C. According to applicant’s arguments on pages 15-16 of the remarks disclose, “The practical application resides in the claimed smart-gym-specific use of: (i) occupancy determination based on user interaction with the exercise machine and sensor data; (ii) generation of an exercise sequence for balanced development of full body muscle by using information about main muscles and auxiliary muscles activated when the user uses an exercise machine; (iii) generation of the exercise sequence such that the use frequency of an exercise machine having PMW_personal less than PMW_estimation is increased; and (iv) automatic resetting of the use order of exercise machines when a preset reference including a repetition count or a preset percentage of repetitions is satisfied. The claimed invention improves the technological field of smart gym systems. In details, the operation of smart gym systems enables automatic control of exercise-machine use order and utilization, rather than relying on generalized human judgment alone. A human trainer may suggest a next exercise in the abstract, but a human trainer cannot, as recited, determine occupancy status of each exercise machine based on user interaction with the exercise machine and sensor data, generate an exercise sequence based on PMW_personal relative to PMW_estimation and a user-specific objectification index including exercise records, and automatically reset the use order of exercise machines in response to a preset repetition count or preset percentage threshold being satisfied. The claimed invention constitutes a concrete technological implementation improving operation of smart gym systems. In details, the claimed invention employs specific technological components, including a determining unit configured to determine occupancy status based on user interaction with the exercise machine and sensor data, and an AI exercise sequence providing unit configured to automatically reset exercise-machine usage order according to occupancy status and exercise progression. These components operate in conjunction with a plurality of exercise machines in a smart gym to generate and automatically reset an AI exercise sequence based on occupancy status, main muscles and auxiliary muscles activated during use of an exercise machine, PMW_personal relative to PMW_estimation, and a user-specific objectification index including exercise records. This constitutes a concrete technological implementation that improves the operation of smart gym systems and exercise-machine utilization.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The USPTO Memorandum of Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 dated August 4, 2025 discloses, “Improvements consideration: In computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. The examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement. The specification does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification.” The applicant cites the smart gym systems enable automatic control of exercise-machine use order and utilization and employs a determining unit to determine occupancy status and an AI exercise sequence providing unit to automatically reset exercise machine usage order as an improvement. The applicant’s citation and claim limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to another technology or technical field as required for an “practical application”. The automatic implementation of an invention does not constitute an improvement. Additionally, the applicant’s citation and limitations do not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired result. The applicant’s specification does not describe an improvement that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, the examiner has noted that elements of “determining unit” and “AI exercise sequence providing unit” are no longer cited in the claim.
D. According to applicant’s argument on page 16 of the remarks discloses, “The above-mentioned limitations (a) to (c) in amended claim 1 are not generic post- solution activity and are not merely instructions to apply an abstract idea using a generic computer. Instead, they operate together as an integrated technological system for determining machine occupancy, generating a machine-use sequence based on user-specific exercise information, and automatically resetting the sequence according to machine status and exercise information, and automatically resetting the sequence according to machine status and exercise progression. Accordingly, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamil et al. US Publication 20150232520 A1 Charged Nutritive Fragments Proteins and Methods
Hamil discloses “Unless specified, "muscle strength" refers to maximum dynamic muscle strength. Maximum strength is referred to as "one repetition maximum" (1RM). This is a measurement of the greatest load (in kilograms) that can be fully moved (lifted, pushed or pulled) once without failure or injury. This value can be measured directly, but doing so requires that the weight is increased until the subject fails to carry out the activity to completion. Alternatively, 1RM is estimated by counting the maximum number of exercise repetitions a subject can make using a load that is less than the maximum amount the subject can move…” (paragraph 0091).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm EST.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights