Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/775,870

LIVE WORKOUT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Examiner
CORBO, NICHOLAS T
Art Unit
2424
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Tonal Systems, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
282 granted / 416 resolved
+9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
432
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 416 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, and 17-19 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woltermann WO 2020264099 A1 in view of Orady et al (hereinafter Orady) US 20200070032. Referring to claim 1, Woltermann discloses a method, comprising: in response to an exercise machine joining a video stream of a live workout (see Abstract and Paragraphs 0022, 0026-0027), receiving a timeline comprising a set of events that are to occur over the course of the live workout (see Paragraphs 0018-0019 and 0079 for disclosing receiving a file/timeline (e.g., a JSON file) containing of a set of timed events that are to occur over the course of the live workout); receiving a portion of the video stream of the live workout, wherein the portion of the video stream has embedded a synchronization identifier (see Paragraphs 0018-0019 for disclosing the portions of the video stream have embedded command data/synchronization identifiers for the purpose of synchronizing the output of the fitness apparatus with the media content featuring the instructor conducting the workout session); rendering the portion of the video stream (see Paragraph 0019); and updating a hardware state of the exercise machine at least in part by evaluating the timeline using the synchronization identifier embedded in the portion of the video stream, at least in part to synchronize the exercise machine with the live workout (see Paragraphs 0018-0019, 0079, and 0121 for disclosing updating a hardware state of the exercise machine (i.e., output of the fitness apparatus, such as an increase in intensity or delivered electrical impulses) at least in part by evaluating the information contained in the file/timeline using the command data embedded in the video stream, at least in part to synchronize the fitness apparatus with the live workout), wherein the hardware state of the exercise machine that is updated includes a suggested amount of resistance (see Paragraphs 0028, 0034, and 0121 discloses the exercise machine suggests intensity, weight, and/or resistance, depending on the fitness apparatus being used to be customized to the user in that if the user was already running at 50% of the intensity of the instructor, the suggested intensity/weight of the output of the user’s fitness apparatus is weighted accordingly) that is provided by a motor of the exercise machine against a user (see Paragraphs 0034 and 0129 for disclosing output provided by the fitness apparatus can be varying levels of resistance applied against a user via a motor). Woltermann is unclear as to resistance via a cable routed through an arm of an exercise machine. Orady discloses resistance via a cable routed through an arm of an exercise machine (see Paragraph 0087). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the cable routed through the arm of an exercise machine of Orady with the system of Woltermann in order to rely on cable loading/tension to determine load conditions, which are measured by sensors, which may take advantage of modern electronic technologies and materials and the controller data acquisition is sufficiently fast to be able to detect very rapid load changes, which load changes are representative of abnormal operation. Responsive to these predetermined threshold load points, the system controller and hardware may separately or in combination cause a rapid reduction in the energy transfer rates so as to limit or prevent further movement of the machine elements that may either injure the user or cause damage to the exercise machine itself (see Orady, Paragraphs 0085 and 0087). Referring to claim 2, Woltermann discloses the video stream of the live workout is an encore live workout from the past (see Abstract and Paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0027, 0030, 0037, 0044, 0062, 0075, 0102, 0111, 0118, and 0127). Referring to claim 3, Woltermann discloses the encore live workout comprises addition of a timestamp to transition from a video streaming service to a content delivery network (see Paragraphs 0020, 0030, 0102, and 0111 for disclosing the on-demand/encore live workout comprises adding timestamps to the command data embedded in the video stream). Referring to claim 5, Woltermann discloses the portion is a chunk of a video stream, and the synchronization identifier is a section group identifier (see Paragraph 0041 for disclosing the command data/synchronization identifier is a section group identifier, wherein it identifies the exercise movement that is to be performed during the portion/chunk, or finite time/duration specified by the command data, of the workout session). Referring to claim 6, Woltermann discloses updating the hardware state of the exercise machine is based at least in part on an initial offset based on when the exercise machine joins the video stream of the live workout, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 (the rejection of claim 1 discloses the command data containing timestamps that trigger the hardware changes in the hardware state of the fitness apparatus during live workout sessions, wherein the user/client will receive the command data containing timestamps that update the hardware state of the exercise machine at whatever offset time in which they join the live stream (i.e., the user will receive command data offset from the beginning of the live stream to the point at which they join the live stream)). Referring to claim 7, Woltermann discloses updating the hardware state of the exercise machine includes a display change (see Paragraph 0041 for disclosing the display of the exercise machine changes with the updated state of what exercise is to be performed). Referring to claim 10, Woltermann discloses the synchronization identifier is resent a plurality of times to enhance reliability (see Paragraphs 0060, 0085, and 0101-0102 for disclosing the iterative transmission of the timestamp data, seen above to be part of the command data/synchronization identifier). Referring to claim 12, Woltermann discloses the synchronization identifier is delayed by an alignment delay based at least in part on a latency between a video stream and a live console (see Paragraph 0043 for disclosing the command data/synchronization identifier are ensured to be synchronized with visual and auditory cues of the video stream, wherein the time synchronization accounts for inherent latency between the video stream and the fitness apparatus/live console to playback the video data, wherein if the video stream is what is inherently delayed, the ensuring of the command data/synchronization identifies would need to delayed to align them with the video stream output accordingly). Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, further noting Woltermann discloses a system, comprising a communication interface and a processor coupled to the communication interface (see Paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0034), configured to perform the method as seen in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2. Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3. Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, further noting Woltermann discloses a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions (see Paragraph 0026) for performing the method as seen in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2. Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woltermann WO 2020264099 A1 in view of Orady et al (hereinafter Orady) US 20200070032, and further in view of non-patent literature “Internet of Things for Fitness Tracking: How to Implement Devices for Your Smart Gym”, authored by Sofia Golovnya (hereinafter Golovnya). Referring to claim 11, Woltermann in view of Orady discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of claim 1. Woltermann in view of Orady is unclear as to transmitting a web socket message to be routed to a client exercise machine. Golovnya discloses transmitting a web socket message to be routed to a client exercise machine (see page 13 for disclosing the transmission of messages via WebSocket technology between the client exercise machines and the trainer). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of WebSocket with the system of Woltermann in view of Orady in order to allow the trainer/coach to receive workout data to track the customer’s progress, also allowing the trainer coach to modify the exercising routine (see Golovnya, page 13). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bird US 20140038777 for disclosing coupling the cable or other means connected to motor 102 to a fixed handle arm to be used with a work-out bench, to be used for bench pressing and other related resistance training movements; and Norris WO 2021011563 for disclosing the cables may be oriented in different positions (e.g., arms of the exercise machine) to allow for performance of a plurality workouts with varying levels of difficulty based, for example, on the amount of resistance provided via the motor components of the weight-training section. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 NICHOLAS T CORBO whose telephone number is (571)270-5675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. 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. /NICHOLAS T CORBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424 03/31/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598335
Method for Managing Playback of Multimedia Content
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598365
OBJECT ATTRIBUTE-BASED WATERMARKING METHOD FOR PREVENTING LEAKAGE OF DIGITAL CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12574574
METHOD, APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR VIDEO BITRATE SWITCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568277
OPTIMIZING SELECTION OF MEDIA CONTENT FOR LONG-TERM OUTCOMES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12556770
Multi-Variant Content Streaming
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 416 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month