DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite a method comprising:
receiving one or more performance metrics, and
displaying a leaderboard comprising class content, the metrics, and leaderboard data comparing the user to stored user data.
The limitations of receiving metrics and displaying content and leaderboard data, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processing system” in claim 1 nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing system” language, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually observing the metrics and stored user data and displaying results, for example using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the claimed steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of comparing and displaying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also recite an exercise apparatus with sensors producing the metrics. This amounts to no more than an attempt to link the use of the exception to a particular technological environment and/or extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(h), (g). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not includee additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the use of an exercise machine with a sensor amounts to no more than an attempt to link the use of the exception to a particular technological environment and/or extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(h), (g). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional details of the abstract idea (sampling the leaderboard, filtering, determining rankings, calculating spacings, being performed by the generic processor). Accordingly, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-20 distinguish patentably from the prior art of record. The prior art of record, Evancha et al. (US 2021/0299520 A1) discloses an exercise machine with a leaderboard to compare a user to other users (see e.g. Par. 40), but does not disclose the combination of features in claim 1, including displaying class content, metrics, and a leaderboard comparing current performance of the user to stored class data, wherein the leaderboard is a ranking of a user and a plurality of participants from a sample leaderboard comprising a subset of the participant data.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715