$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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant's claim for domestic priority benefit of Provisional Application no 63/521124, filed 6/15/23, is acknowledged.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 17, 20,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “receiving a user request to set up a user profile for an athletic activity point system, wherein the user request includes user profile information; receiving activity information as the user performs a first athletic activity; verifying the first athletic activity, wherein verifying the first athletic activity includes determining that the activity information falls within one or more thresholds associated with the user that are determined based on the user profile information; upon verifying the first athletic activity, determining a first amount of activity points to allocate to the user profile based on the first athletic activity; allocating the first amount of activity points to the user profile; and providing a activity point display showing the first amount of virtual activity points accumulated from the first athletic activity and one or more aspects of the first athletic activity”, are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-16, 18-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a computer, a processor, a virtual system, an activity monitoring device associated with a user”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Lyke et al. (2021/0093919) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 3, 5A-5B, ¶¶0060, 0114-0117, 0122-0123).
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyke et al. (2021/0093919) in view of Catani et al. (2015/0364057).
Re Claim 1,
Lyke discloses a computer-assisted method comprising:
receiving, from an activity monitoring device associated with a user, activity information as the user performs a first athletic activity (Fig 2A, ¶¶0086, 0095, 0124-0127; one or more activities performed by the user with measurable physiological and/or psychological impact are collected via one or more sensors of the user device interface);
verifying the first athletic activity, wherein verifying the first athletic activity includes determining that the activity information falls within one or more thresholds associated with the user that are determined based on the user profile information (¶¶0053-0055, 0063-0064, 0071-0072, 0099, 0105-0106; the user interface provides dynamic feedback during the workout by comparing a user’s performance with the expected performance, further, AI can be used to filter populations of users into subsets having similar characteristics, wherein the user profile may be updated based on analysis of the user's workout data records);
providing a display showing one or more aspects of the first athletic activity (Fig 2A, ¶¶0051-0052; a dynamic feedback user interface is displayed on the user’s device).
Lyke does not explicitly disclose receiving a user request to set up a user profile for an athletic activity virtual point system, wherein the user request includes user profile information, upon verifying the first athletic activity, determining a first amount of virtual activity points to allocate to the user profile based on the first athletic activity, allocating the first amount of virtual activity points to the user profile, and displaying the first amount of virtual activity points accumulated from the first athletic activity.
However, Catani teaches receiving a user request to set up a user profile for an athletic activity virtual point system, wherein the user request includes user profile information, upon verifying the first athletic activity, determining a first amount of virtual activity points to allocate to the user profile based on the first athletic activity, allocating the first amount of virtual activity points to the user profile, and displaying the first amount of virtual activity points accumulated from the first athletic activity (Fig 4-5, 7-10, ¶¶0022, 0073, 0223-0224, 0228-0229, 0245-0246). Catani further teaches such a configuration allows the system to provide recommended activities selected for that particular user based on the user's preferences (¶0224). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Catani into the workout system of Lyke in order to provide recommended activities selected for that particular user based on the user's preferences.
Re Claim 2,
Lyke discloses receiving user profile information includes receiving benchmark activity data, from the activity monitoring device, as the user performs a benchmark activity, and wherein the one or more thresholds for the user are determined based on the benchmark activity data (¶¶0047-0050).
Re Claim 3,
Lyke discloses receiving a plurality of user input parameters, wherein the plurality of user input parameters includes one or more of: age, sex, height, weight, medical issue, pace, heart rate, athletic equipment identification, target athletic goal, and personal record, and wherein the one or more thresholds for the user are determined based on at least one of the plurality of user input parameters (¶¶0063, 0081).
Re Claims 4, 18,
Lyke discloses training a machine learning model to determine the one or more thresholds for the user based on the plurality of user input parameters and accumulated data of a plurality of users across various user demographics, and wherein the one or more thresholds for the user are updated based on activity information as the user performs one or more athletic activities (¶¶0046, 0064, 0076-0078).
Re Claim 5,
Lyke discloses verifying the first athletic activity includes training a machine learning model to identify anomalous activity associated with the user profile based on at least the user profile information (¶¶0046, 0064, 0076-0078).
Re Claim 6,
Lyke discloses authenticating the user associating with the user profile before the user begins the first athletic activity (¶0378).
Re Claims 8, 19,
Lyke discloses upon determining that the activity information falls outside of the one or more thresholds associated with the user, determining a likelihood of anomalous data based on at least one of:a type of anomaly in the activity information or an extent to which the activity information falls outside of the one or more thresholds (¶¶0046, 0064, 0076-0078).
Re Claim 9,
Lyke discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose determining a first amount of virtual activity points includes: determining one or more parameters associated with the first athletic activity selected from: a level of effort by the user while performing the first athletic activity, a type of activity of the first athletic activity, and a time for the user to complete the first athletic activity; and selecting, based on the one or more parameters associated with the first athletic activity, a conversion rate from a plurality of rates for converting activity data to virtual activity points. However, Catani teaches determining a first amount of virtual activity points includes: determining one or more parameters associated with the first athletic activity selected from: a level of effort by the user while performing the first athletic activity, a type of activity of the first athletic activity, and a time for the user to complete the first athletic activity; and selecting, based on the one or more parameters associated with the first athletic activity, a conversion rate from a plurality of rates for converting activity data to virtual activity points (¶¶0022, 0073, 0223-0224, 0228-0229, 0245-0246).
Re Claim 10,
Lyke discloses all limitations as set forth above including determining a level of effort by the user while performing the first athletic activity; and comparing the level of effort by the user while performing the first athletic activity to a baseline effort of the user, wherein the baseline effort of the user is determined by training a machine learning model based on data from the user as the user performs one or more previous athletic activities and/or based on user profile information but does not explicitly disclose determining a first amount of virtual activity points. However, Catani teaches determining a first amount of virtual activity points (¶¶0022, 0073, 0223-0224, 0228-0229, 0245-0246). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 11,
Lyke discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose providing a workout display to a user device during the first athletic activity, wherein the workout display includes an estimate of activity points accumulated during the first athletic activity. However, Catani teaches providing a workout display to a user device during the first athletic activity, wherein the workout display includes an estimate of activity points accumulated during the first athletic activity (¶¶0022, 0073, 0223-0224, 0228-0229, 0245-0246). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 12,
Lyke discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the virtual activity point display includes a detailed activity point breakdown including with one or more parameters associated with the first athletic activity, one or more sections of the first athletic activity, and allotted points for each of the one or more sections. However, Catani teaches the virtual activity point display includes a detailed activity point breakdown including with one or more parameters associated with the first athletic activity, one or more sections of the first athletic activity, and allotted points for each of the one or more sections (¶¶0022, 0073, 0223-0224, 0228-0229, 0231, 0245-0246). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 15,
Lyke discloses upon determining that the activity information falls outside of one or more thresholds associated with the user, determining if the activity information is indicative of an anomaly relative to the user profile, and issuing an alert to a user device indicating that the activity information is indicative of an anomaly and prompting the user for a follow up verification (¶¶0064, 0078).
Re Claim 16,
Lyke discloses determining if the user has missed a scheduled activity; and issuing a prompt to a user device for the user to perform one or more replacement activities, wherein the one or more replacement activities are selected based on being associated with a potential virtual point allotment in proportion to a potential virtual point allotment of the missed scheduled activity (¶¶0053, 0093-0094).
Re Claims 17, 20,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyke et al. (2021/0093919) in view of Catani et al. (2015/0364057), further in view of Sonbol (2020/0321090).
Re Claim 7,
Lyke as modified by Catani discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on presenting a photo prompt to a display of a user device; receiving a photo responsive to user interaction with the photo prompt; and verifying, using an image recognition algorithm, that the photo matches image characteristics of the user associated with the user profile within a threshold amount. However, Sonbol teaches presenting a photo prompt to a display of a user device; receiving a photo responsive to user interaction with the photo prompt; and verifying, using an image recognition algorithm, that the photo matches image characteristics of the user associated with the user profile within a threshold amount (¶¶0019, 0024, 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sonbol into the workout system of Lyke as modified by Catani in order to provide a secure way to verify the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715