Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Mar. 2, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because the claims as amended are sufficiently distinct from the patented claims such that the rejections are no longer appropriate.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant asserts the claims do not recite an abstract idea because various limitations cannot be performed in the mind. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because gathering data about customers and modifying information available to them is an abstract idea because these limitations encompass analyzing customer information to determine services to offer the customer (i.e., performing customer research and providing relevant services).
Second, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant asserts the claims reflect a practical application because the claims optimize the computerized services. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because an improvement in the abstract idea itself (is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing Trading Techs). That is, gathering data about customers and modifying information available to them does not reflect an improvement in technology because it reflects an improvement in the abstract idea (i.e., using market research to determine services to offer the customer). Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. Applicant assert the references do not teach changing colors. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Quatrochi ¶ 128 teaches using a different color scheme, or the like depending on whether the user or athlete, met, exceeded, or fell short of the training goal on a particular day. Accordingly the 103 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 10-18 are directed to a process; and claims 1-9, 19 and 20 would be directed to a machine if amended as suggested.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…identify one or more participants to participate in an athletic activity with a user by determining that one or more attributes of the user have a threshold similarity to one or more attributes of the one or more participants and that the one or more participants share a common performance objective;
upon the user initiating the athletic activity, automatically collect, using the sensor, data corresponding to the athletic activity performed by the user;
determine one or more metrics from the collected data;
determine an accumulated total based on the one or more metrics;
determine whether the accumulated total of the one or more metrics has met a predetermined threshold associated with the common performance objective;
obtain behavioral data associated with the user interacting with a user interface for accessing activity information;
modify one or more interactive navigational paths of the user interface based on the obtained behavioral data;
in response to determining the accumulated total of the one or more metrics has met the predetermined threshold associated with the common performance objective, generate a display notification of the accumulated total for the user and each of the one or more participants to determine relative performance of the user and each of the one or more participants; and
cause simultaneous output of the display notification to a user device associated with the user and to additional user devices associated with the one or more participants to automatically update the user interface of the user device associated with the user and to automatically update a user interface of each of the user devices with the display notification, wherein respective colors of each of the icons automatically change color upon reaching different thresholds.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations) because these limitations encompass analyzing customer information to determine services to offer the customer (i.e., performing customer research and providing relevant services). Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…identify one or more participants to participate in an athletic activity with a user by determining that one or more attributes of the user have a threshold similarity to one or more attributes of the one or more participants and that the one or more participants share a common performance objective;
upon the user initiating the athletic activity, automatically collect, using the sensor, data corresponding to the athletic activity performed by the user;
determine one or more metrics from the collected data;
determine an accumulated total based on the one or more metrics;
determine whether the accumulated total of the one or more metrics has met a predetermined threshold associated with the common performance objective;
obtain behavioral data associated with the user interacting with a user interface for accessing activity information;
modify one or more interactive navigational paths of the user interface based on the obtained behavioral data;
in response to determining the accumulated total of the one or more metrics has met the predetermined threshold associated with the common performance objective, generate a display notification of the accumulated total for the user and each of the one or more participants to determine relative performance of the user and each of the one or more participants; and
cause simultaneous output of the display notification to a user device associated with the user and to additional user devices associated with the one or more participants to automatically update the user interface of the user device associated with the user and to automatically update a user interface of each of the user devices with the display notification, wherein respective colors of each of the icons automatically change color upon reaching different thresholds.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of automatically collecting data using the sensor(s) and obtaining behavioral data, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computers communicating with one another and performing generic computer functions of receiving, storing and sending data (e.g. receiving and storing user data and transmitting the data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of generating a display notification, cause simultaneous output of the display notification, and automatically update the user interfaces with different colors, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computers communicating with one another and performing generic computer functions of displaying data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, claims 1 and 19 further recite the additional elements: “a processor; at least two sensors; a display; and a memory storing computer-readable instructions” and “a processor; a sensor; and a memory storing computer-readable instructions”. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because a threshold being a treadmill or pace challenge is a part of analyzing customer information (e.g., monitoring their preferred activities).
Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 recite the additional elements of an interface generating an icon, a display and notifications. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are claimed too broadly and generally to be more than generic user interface elements.
Claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because updating a scheduler is apart of analyzing customer information (e.g., analyzing the frequencies of their behaviors).
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 recite the additional elements of displaying icons in changing colors and sizes. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are claimed too broadly and generally to be more than generic user interface elements.
Claim 14 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because gathering data on customers’ activities and converting the activities to points is a part of advertising (i.e., analyzing customer information to determine services to offer the customer and issuing financial incentives to the customers).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20110191158 to Katerass et al. (hereinafter Katerass) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090012925 to Brown in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090233771 to Quatrochi et al. (hereinafter Quatrochi).
Referring to Claim 1, 10, and 19 (substantially similar in scope and language), Katerass discloses. An apparatus and method (see Katerass: Abstract) comprising:
a processor; at least two sensors; and a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 11 “Data collection units 110 may be worn by a user and may include at least one sensor for collecting data indicative of the physical activity level of the user. For example, data collection unit 110 may include a sensor array (including one or more sensors); see also Kateraas: ¶ 13 “Data collection portals 120 may also include a personal portal 126 configured as a peripheral device to provide a computer 125, for example, with an ability to communicate with a data collection unit 110. Data collection portals 120 may also include a public portal 127. A public portal 127 may include a unit positioned in malls, public parks, fitness centers, sporting fields or any other public or private location frequented by users of data collection units 110”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 25 “Mainframe 130 may be configured to perform many tasks associated with system 100. For example, mainframe 130 can store and maintain user accounts (e.g., in storage area networks housing a database)”), cause the processor to:
upon the user initiating the athletic activity, automatically collect, using the sensor, data corresponding to the athletic activity performed by the user (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 10-24 “data collection unit 110 may be configured to determine and store a biological signature of an authorized user of the data collection unit. Such a signature may be determined using the same array of sensors used monitor temperature, blood oxygen level, physical movement, and pulse rate”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 30 “System 100 can be configured to collect and store each user's baseline and zoned activity history and reflect this history in terms of minutes or hours spent within the baseline or zoned activity levels”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 35-36 “In one embodiment, zoned physical activities may be determined based on a predetermined set of criteria applied uniformly to all users of a data collection unit 110. For example, a zoned physical activity may be defined as any activity that causes a measured physical parameter associated with an individual user to exceed a preselected threshold value. One such measured physical parameter may include a user's heart rate, for example. Microcontrollers associated with data collection units 110 may be configured to universally credit users with a zoned physical activity determination whenever the heart rate of those users exceeds a predetermined value”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 43-46 “Thus, system 100 may be configured such that mainframe 130 performs substantially all of the calculations associated with the algorithm and the microcontrollers of data collection units 110 forward the basic underlying data for those calculations”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 52-53 “Each individual user of a data collection unit 110 may have a unique account in which the activity units accrued and redeemed by the individual can be tracked.”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 55, 59, 62-65, and 69-71);
determine one or more metrics from the collected data; determine an accumulated total of the one or more metrics; determine whether the accumulated total of the one or more metrics has met a predetermined threshold associated with the common performance objective (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 29 “the currency that can be used to acquire goods and services rewards may take the form of an electronically determined unit calculated based on the time spent in a predetermined physical activity zone or above a system determined individual predetermined threshold or baseline”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 36 “a zoned physical activity may be defined as any activity that causes a measured physical parameter associated with an individual user to exceed a preselected threshold value”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 42 “If the PAS exceeds a certain predetermined threshold value, then the physical activity qualifies as zoned physical activity for which activity units may be accrued”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 47-48 “the predetermined threshold against which the PAS is compared (i.e., to determine whether physical activity qualifies as zoned physical activity for which activity units may be accrued) may correspond to any desired threshold level”); and
in response to determining the accumulated total of the one or more metrics has met the predetermined threshold associated with the common performance objective, generate on a display a user interface of the accumulated total for the user and each of the one or more participants to determine relative performance of each of the user and the one or more participants (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 60 “Entities (e.g., corporations, military, government, associations, or other groups) may also access system 100 to evaluate the fitness level of a particular individual or a group of individuals”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 61 “In addition to individual-specific physical fitness profiles, system 100 may also be configured to determine/maintain a physical fitness profile for a group of individuals”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 72-73: “the program community may include any group affiliated with an active lifestyle”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 55 “where data collection units 110 include a display, such data collection units may be configured to allow an individual to view account data on the display.”).
Kateraas fails to state:
identify one or more participants to participate in an athletic activity with a user by determining that one or more attributes of the user have a threshold similarity to one or more attributes of the one or more participants and that the one or more participants share a common performance objective
and cause simultaneous output of the display notification to a user device associated with the user and to additional user devices associated with the one or more participants to automatically update the user interface of the user device associated with the user
Kateraas specifically discloses that the “system 100 may also be configured to determine/maintain a physical fitness profile for a group of individuals (e.g., workers of a common entity, residents of a particular jurisdiction, members of a club or group, military units, etc.)” (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 61).
Kateraas further discloses that “third parties may use a uniform comparative measure of fitness to evaluate and monitor physical activity of one or more individuals and to compare individual physical fitness profiles to a selected broader demographic” (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 28).
Kateraas further discloses the system monitoring thresholds to determine activity units (points) based on their activity (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 45-47).
Kateraas does not explicitly state matching the users based on their shared goals and performance or using a threshold similarity to one or more attributes of the one or more participants and that the one or more participants share a common performance objective.
However, Brown, which teaches a method and system for matching individuals based on their specific goals and affinities, teaches it is known to identify one or more participants to participate in an athletic activity with a user by determining that one or more attributes of the user have a threshold similarity to one or more attributes of the one or more participants and that the one or more participants share a common performance objective (see at least Brown: ¶ 22 “a matching function can match user 110 and user 120 with respect to the domain D. In an embodiment, the purpose of profile matching can be related to certain goals, needs, or interests of the users.”; see also Brown: ¶ 24, 31, 33, and 35-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of matching people based on their athletic activity and performance objective (as disclosed by Brown) to the known method and system of tracking individuals and groups and their athletic performance (as disclosed by Kateraas) to offer suggestions to their users for possible matches with other users. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of matching people based on their athletic activity and performance objective because it would offer suggestions to their users for possible matches with other users (see Brown ¶ 3).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of matching people based on their athletic activity and performance objective (as disclosed by Brown) to the known method and system of tracking individuals and groups and their athletic performance (as disclosed by Kateraas) to offering suggestions to their users for possible matches with other users, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of matching people based on their athletic activity and performance objective to the known method and system of tracking individuals and groups and their athletic performance to offer suggestions to their users for possible matches with other users). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
The combination of Kateraas and Brown does not explicitly state:
obtain behavioral data associated with the user interacting with a user interface for accessing activity information;
modify one or more interactive navigational paths of the user interface based on the obtained behavioral data;
and cause simultaneous output of the display notification to a user device associated with the user and to additional user devices associated with the one or more participants to automatically update the user interface of the user device associated with the user and to automatically update a user interface of each of the user devices with the display notification
wherein respective colors of each of the icons automatically change color upon reaching different thresholds;
Quatrochi teaches:
obtain behavioral data associated with the user interacting with a user interface for accessing activity information (see at least Quatrochi ¶ 42 monitors athletic activity, Quatrochi ¶ 128, 132 after user begins training program);
modify one or more interactive navigational paths of the user interface based on the obtained behavioral data (see at least Quatrochi ¶¶ 79-82 modifies user interface and icons based on user interactions);
automatically update a user interface of each of the user devices with the display notification. Quatrochi, which talks about a system for monitoring physical training events, teaches it is known to automatically display a ranked position of a user compared to other similar users within a physical activity (see at least Quatrochi: ¶ 105, 108, and 110-111 “some implementations of the invention may provide a ranking of where a user stands with respect to other users. The ranking may be based upon a simple comparison, or it may be limited to a specific demographic group, a particular geographic region, or some combination therefore.”).
wherein respective colors of each of the icons automatically change color upon reaching different thresholds (see at least Quatrochi ¶ 128 uses different color schemes depending on whether the user or athlete, met, exceeded, or fell short of the training goal on a particular day);
Further, please note, Kateraas discloses a transmit the display notification to user devices associated with the user and to additional user devices associated with the one or more participants (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 25 “Mainframe 130 may also compile selected data or data summaries and may provide access to this data and/or data summaries to selected entities, including corporate sponsors, health insurance providers, associations, the military, or any other entity that may have an interest in monitoring physical activity data”; see at least Kateraas: ¶ 56, 58, and 60 “these entities may access and analyze the physical fitness profiles of multiple individuals using, for example, a batch processing algorithm to assess the average fitness level of a selected group of individuals”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 61 “In addition to individual-specific physical fitness profiles, system 100 may also be configured to determine/maintain a physical fitness profile for a group of individuals (e.g., workers of a common entity, residents of a particular jurisdiction, members of a club or group, military units, etc.)”).
Quatrochi further teaches the system automatically updating the rankings based on the automatically monitored physical event or activity related to the participant (see at least Quatrochi: ¶ 60 “With some implementations of the invention, the athletic data collection module 505 may automatically forward collected athletic data to the athletic data display configuration device 601. For example, the athletic data collection module 505 may attempt to forward collected athletic data to the athletic data display configuration device 601 immediately after collection, at a prescheduled interval, upon the detection of a network connection to the athletic data display configuration device 601, or some combination thereof. Alternately or additionally, the athletic data collection module 505 may prompt a user to specify when collected athletic data is sent to the athletic data display configuration device 601.”; see also Quatrochi: ¶ 132 “FIG. 43 illustrates that during the training program creation and/or editing, a user or athlete may save their training program, have their training program saved automatically, delete the program, or begin the training program (e.g., start training)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of ranking exercise or physical activity users against each other (as disclosed by Quatrochi) to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas and Brown) to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of ranking exercise or physical activity users against each other because it would monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others (see Quatrochi Abstract).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of ranking exercise or physical activity users against each other (as disclosed by Quatrochi) to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas and Brown) to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of ranking exercise or physical activity users against each other to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Referring to Claim 2, 11, and 20 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, method of claim 10, and computer readable medium of claim 19, including wherein the predetermined threshold is associated with an activity challenge (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 70 and 73-74 “athletic event timing information, such as start times, split times, and finishing times (or any other measure of individual timing performance) for running, walking, cycling, skiing, and triathlon events, among others”).
Referring to Claim 3 and 12 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 2 and method of claim 11, including wherein the activity challenge comprises a treadmill distance and pace challenge (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 70 and 73-74 “athletic event timing information, such as start times, split times, and finishing times (or any other measure of individual timing performance) for running, walking, cycling, skiing, and triathlon events, among others”).
Referring to Claim 4 and 13 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 3 and method of claim 10, including wherein the user interface includes an icon indicative of a current performance metric of the user and the one or more participants (see at least Kateraas: ¶ 60 “Entities (e.g., corporations, military, government, associations, or other groups) may also access system 100 to evaluate the fitness level of a particular individual or a group of individuals”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 61 “In addition to individual-specific physical fitness profiles, system 100 may also be configured to determine/maintain a physical fitness profile for a group of individuals”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 72-73: “the program community may include any group affiliated with an active lifestyle”; see also Kateraas: ¶ 55 “where data collection units 110 include a display, such data collection units may be configured to allow an individual to view account data on the display.”).
Referring to claim 5 combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, including determining whether the accumulated total of the one or more metrics has met the predetermined threshold associated with the common performance objective includes determining one or more updates to a scheduler for the user and the one or more participants to achieve the common performance objective (see at least Quatrochi: ¶ 126 “a user or athlete may globally alter the training program based on a target pace or target time... The user interface 1700 may alter the training schedule in response to the user's or athlete's target pace or target time by, for example, altering the number of miles required per day, altering the number of days that don't require running, and/or altering the length (e.g., in days, weeks, months, etc.) of the program”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of scheduling (as disclosed by Quatrochi) to the known system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas, and Brown) to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a scheduler to convey information regarding performance because it would monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others (see Quatrochi: Abstract).
Referring to claim 6 combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 5, generating the display notification includes generating a display of the one or more updates to the scheduler (see at least Quatrochi: ¶ 126 “The user interface 1700 may alter the training schedule in response to the user's or athlete's target pace or target time by, for example, altering the number of miles required per day, altering the number of days that don't require running, and/or altering the length (e.g., in days, weeks, months, etc.) of the program”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of scheduling (as disclosed by Quatrochi) to the known system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas, and Brown) to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a scheduler to convey information regarding performance because it would monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others (see Quatrochi: Abstract).
Referring to claim 14 combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 10, upon determining that the athletic activity corresponds to a first type of athletic activity and determining that a source of the athletic activity corresponds to a first type of device, converting data corresponding to the athletic activity performed by the user to a first number of points using a first conversion algorithm (see at least Kateraas ¶ 29 Activity units may be allocated to an individual user account whenever the individual's physical activity pattern exceeds, by a predetermined amount, a stored baseline pattern associated with the individual);
automatically collecting additional data associated with the user; in response to determining at least one of: the additional data corresponds to a second type of athletic activity and a determined source of the additional data corresponds to a second type of device, select a second conversion algorithm from a plurality of conversion algorithms, wherein the second conversion algorithm is different from the first conversion algorithm; and convert the additional data associated with the user to a second number of points using the second conversion algorithm (see at least Kateraas ¶ 32 various forms of activity unit bonuses may be associated with physical activity status levels. For example, when a user moves to a more active status, a bonus may be awarded. Similarly, bonuses may be awarded for maintaining a certain physical activity status level over a certain period of time. In this way, a user may be motivated not only to exercise in order to accrue activity units currency, but the user may also be motivated to increase his or her physical activity status or to maintain a certain level of physical activity over an extended period of time in order to receive bonuses).
Referring to claim 15 combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 14, generate a second display notification of an accumulated total of points for the user based on the first number of points and the second number of points; and transmit the second display notification simultaneously to the user device associated with the user to additional user devices associated with the one or more participants (see at least Kateraas ¶ 56 an individual user can determine his or her activity unit balance or review account activity (e.g., activity unit credits or debits corresponding to reward redemption activities, among other account activities). The individual may also print a rewards redemption certificate or coupon, redeem activity units for rewards via an electronic transaction).
Referring to Claim 9 and 18 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 10; including wherein the icons comprise bubbles for displaying information associated with performance levels.
Quatrochi, which talks about a method and system for providing training and exercise information to the user, teaches it is known to track performance of a user within an activity or exercise and display the resulting performance in the form of a bubble (see at least Quatrochi: ¶ 153 “FIGS. 87 and 88 illustrate that within any of the coaching and team related user interface 1700 embodiments, a coach, trainer, team leader, or team member may offer comments or support to another team member. For example, the coach, trainer, team leader, or team member may view another team member's training program and actual performance and may add a comment or support to one or more days in the form of a link, bubble, overlay, or the like. In an embodiment, the coach, trainer, team leader, or team member may only add comments or support to future days as additional incentive to provide constructive and positive support versus comments about not reaching a particular day's goal or similar”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of using bubbles to convey information regarding performance (as disclosed by Quatrochi) to the known system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas, and Brown) to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using bubbles to convey information regarding performance because it would monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others (see Quatrochi: Abstract).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of using bubbles to convey information regarding performance (as disclosed by Quatrochi) to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas and Brown) to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of using bubbles to convey information regarding performance to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users to monitor athletic data for multiple persons can be collected at a central location, and subsequently displayed to a user at a desired remote location, so that the user can compare his or her athletic activities to others). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 7, 8 16, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20110191158 to Katerass et al. (hereinafter Katerass) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090012925 to Brown in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090233771 to Quatrochi et al. (hereinafter Quatrochi) in view U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080300572 to Rankers et al. (hereinafter Rankers).
Referring to Claim 7 and 16 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and method of claim 14; The combination fails to state wherein displaying the icons indicative of the first performance level includes displaying a first color associated with the first performance level, and wherein generating the display includes displaying a second color associated with the second performance level, the second color being different from the first color.
However, Rankers, which talks about a method and system for tracking various metrics related to health related activities of a user, teaches it is known to provide a display of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics (see at least Rankers: ¶ 168, 173-174 and 181 “the monitor may allow the user to select different display characteristics associated with event markers, including, without limitation: alphanumeric characters; colors; icons, graphics, or other content; displayed marker size; brightness; the font size of displayed alphanumeric markers; or the like. This feature allows the user to personalize and customize the monitor as needed to accommodate his or her lifestyle and schedule. In practice, the monitor can save the settings for these user-defined event markers 518 in memory 320 (FIG. 6).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics (as disclosed by Rankers) to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi) to help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics because it would help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance (see Rankers ¶ 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics (as disclosed by Rankers) to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi) to help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users to help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Referring to Claim 8 and 17 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi teaches he apparatus of claim 5 and method of claim 14, wherein the icons change font size upon reaching different thresholds.
However, Rankers, which talks about a method and system for tracking various metrics related to health related activities of a user, teaches it is known to provide a display of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics (see at least Rankers: ¶ 168, 173-174 and 181 “the monitor may allow the user to select different display characteristics associated with event markers, including, without limitation: alphanumeric characters; colors; icons, graphics, or other content; displayed marker size; brightness; the font size of displayed alphanumeric markers; or the like. This feature allows the user to personalize and customize the monitor as needed to accommodate his or her lifestyle and schedule. In practice, the monitor can save the settings for these user-defined event markers 518 in memory 320 (FIG. 6).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics (as disclosed by Rankers) to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Crowley) to help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics because it would help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance (see Rankers ¶ 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics (as disclosed by Rankers) to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users (as disclosed by the combination of Kateraas, Brown, and Quatrochi) to help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of displaying of a plurality of information using customizable display options including colors, shapes, font, and graphics to the known method and system for tracking, monitoring, displaying metrics, and reporting exercise activities of users to help an individual to modify and monitor their daily lifestyle to keep their body in balance). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
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 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 BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights