DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/11/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Exercise bike embodiment) in the reply filed on 6/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-18, and 20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 11,173,342 (Min et al., hereinafter “Min”).
Regarding claim 1, Min discloses a method, comprising:
determining a user of an exercise machine is moving within a certain section of a gaming environment presented to the user via a display of the exercise machine (cyclist in a virtual world or digital world can enter a gaming environment that has virtual hills - Col 3:21-56); and
automatically adjusting a difficulty setting of the exercise machine as the user moves within the certain section of the gaming environment (For example, if a cyclist in a virtual world or digital world is cycling “up” a virtual hill with a nine percent grade, then the resistance applied by the trainer 111A would be increased to simulate that nine percent grade - Col 3:21-36).
Regarding claim 2, Min teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein determining a user of an exercise machine is moving within a certain section of a gaming environment includes determining an avatar representing the user of the exercise machine has reached a virtual target within the gaming environment (Col 3:21-56); and wherein automatically adjusting a difficulty setting of the exercise machine as the user moves within the certain section of the gaming environment includes: identifying a current effort performed by the user via the exercise machine (Col 3:21-56); and incrementing the difficulty setting of the exercise machine based on parameters associated with the virtual target and based on the identified current effort performed by the user via the exercise machine (Col 3:21-56).
Regarding claim 3, Min teaches the method of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bike and the current effort performed by the user includes a current cadence of the user pedaling the exercise bike (Col 5:52-60).
Regarding claim 5, Min teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein determining a user of an exercise machine is moving within a certain section of a gaming environment includes: determining an avatar representing the user of the exercise machine has reached a virtual target within the gaming environment; and incrementing the difficulty setting of the exercise machine based on parameters associated with the virtual target (Col 3:21-56).
Regarding claim 7, Min teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bike and the difficulty setting is a resistance setting of the exercise bike (Col 3:21-56).
Regarding claim 8, Min teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the certain section of the gaming environment presents a hill traversed by an avatar representing the user, and automatically adjusting the difficulty setting includes applying an adjustment curve to the difficulty setting that maps to a shape of the hill traversed by the avatar within the gaming environment (resistance is automatically applied by trainer 111A corresponding to the grade of the virtual hill - Col 3:21-56).
Regarding claim 9, Min teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the certain section of the gaming environment presents a multi-stage hill traversed an avatar representing the user, and automatically adjusting the difficulty setting (resistance is automatically applied by trainer 111A - Col 3:24-32) includes applying multiple adjustments to the difficulty setting that map to multiple stages of the multi-stage hill traversed by the avatar within the gaming environment (Col 3:21-56; road may vary in both height and curve in different cases - Col 10:6-11; Portion B of the in-game map as shown in FIG. 6 is a difficult hill-climb section with a plurality of hills - Col 13:4-36).
Regarding claim 10, Min teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses determining the user of the exercise machine is performing with an effort that is below a baseline effort associated with the certain section of the gaming environment; and automatically adjusting the difficulty setting of the exercise machine to a previous setting while the user performs with the effort that is below the baseline effort associated with the certain section of the gaming environment (power ups can be introduced to digital environment to change the relationship of the physical effort to movement of a competitor’s digital avatar such that less physical movement or exertion is required to move a digital avatar within the digital world. Another power up could actually be a power down - Col 15:36-55).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of US 10,576,348 (Hawkins, III et al., hereinafter “Hawkins”).
Regarding claim 11, Min discloses an exercise machine, comprising:
a memory 312 (Col 9:36-38); and
a processor 310 coupled with the memory 312 (Col 9:36-38) and configured to cause the exercise machine to:
present a gaming environment to a user of the exercise machine via a display of the exercise machine (Col 10:6-16);
determine an avatar representing the user of the exercise machine has moved within a target area of the gaming environment (Col 10:6-16).
However, Min does not disclose the steps of: select an adjustment curve associated with the target area of the gaming environment; and apply the selected adjustment curve to a difficulty parameter of the exercise machine while the avatar representing the user is within the target area of the gaming environment.
Hawkins teaches an analogous exercise machine having a processor coupled with a memory and configured to cause the exercise machine to: select an adjustment curve associated with the target area of the gaming environment (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57); and apply the selected adjustment curve to a difficulty parameter of the exercise machine while the avatar representing the user is within the target area of the gaming environment (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Min’s invention with the progressive resistance curves as taught by Hawkins in order to simulate rolling resistance and air resistance by increasing electromagnetic braking along the curves (Hawkins: Col 27:54-57).
Regarding claim 13, modified Min teaches the exercise machine of claim 11, and Hawkins further discloses wherein selecting an adjustment curve associated with the target area of the gaming environment includes: identifying an experience level associated with the user of the exercise machine; and selecting the adjustment curve from multiple adjustment curves mapped to the target area of the gaming environment based on the identified experience level associated with the user of the exercise machine (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57; the determination of which progressive resistance curve to use can be based on the user’s experience level).
Regarding claim 14, modified Min teaches the exercise machine of claim 11, and Hawkins further discloses wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bike and wherein selecting an adjustment curve associated with the target area of the gaming environment includes: determining a current cadence of the user pedaling the exercise bike; and selecting the adjustment curve from multiple adjustment curves mapped to the target area of the gaming environment based on the current cadence of the user pedaling the exercise bike (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57; the determination of which progressive resistance curve to use can be based on the user’s current cadence).
Regarding claim 16, modified Min teaches the exercise machine of claim 11, and Hawkins further discloses wherein selecting an adjustment curve associated with the target area of the gaming environment includes: identifying a current effort level performed by the user of the exercise machine; and selecting the adjustment curve from multiple adjustment curves mapped to the target area of the gaming environment based on the identified current level performed by the user of the exercise machine (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57; the determination of which progressive resistance curve to use can be based on the user’s current effort level).
Regarding claim 17, modified Min teaches the exercise machine of claim 11, and Hawkins further discloses wherein selecting an adjustment curve associated with the target area of the gaming environment includes: identifying a current performance metric for the user of the exercise machine; and selecting the adjustment curve from multiple adjustment curves mapped to the target area of the gaming environment based on the current performance metric for the user of the exercise machine (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57; the determination of which progressive resistance curve to use can be based on the user’s current performance metric).
Regarding claim 18, Min discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium whose contents, when executed by an exercise machine, causes the exercise machine to perform a method, the method comprising:
presenting a gaming environment to a user of the exercise machine via a display of the exercise machine (Col 10:6-16);
determining an avatar representing the user of the exercise machine is moving along a three-dimensional path within the gaming environment (Col 10:6-16).
However, Min does not disclose applying an adjustment curve to a difficulty parameter of the exercise machine while the avatar representing the user is moving along the three-dimensional path within the gaming environment.
Hawkins teaches an analogous method comprising: applying an adjustment curve (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57) to a difficulty parameter of the exercise machine while the avatar representing the user is moving along the three-dimensional path within the gaming environment (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Min’s invention with the progressive resistance curves as taught by Hawkins in order to simulate rolling resistance and air resistance by increasing electromagnetic braking along the curves (Hawkins: Col 27:54-57).
Regarding claim 20, modified Min teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 18, and Hawkins further discloses wherein the exercise machine is an exercise bike, and wherein applying the adjustment curve to the difficulty parameter of the exercise bike includes continuously adjusting a resistance parameter of the exercise bike as the avatar representing the user moves along the three-dimensional path within the gaming environment (progressive resistance curves are shown in FIG. 21B that can be continuously applied to a bicycle trainer system 1900 - Col 27:48-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record are: US 11,173,342 (Min et al.) and US 10,576,348 (Hawkins, III et al.).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Min et al. in view of Hawkins, III et al. teach the exercise machine of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above). However, neither Min et al. nor Hawkins, III et al. teaches wherein the selected adjustment curve maps to a shape of the hill traversed by the avatar within the target area. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art of record that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Min et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm Eastern.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/Joshua Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights