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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 9 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 9 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-15 are directed to chatting between people exercises. Specifically, the claims recite based on a chat session between at least one external device and the electronic device, the first execution screen comprising a first visual element indicating a first user of the at least one external device and an exercise progress of a second user of the electronic device, receive a user input for the second visual element, wherein the first execution screen comprises a chat message, provided through the chat session, obtained from the at least one external device, a first and wherein the display of at least one of the first visual element or the second visual element is maintained while the chat message is updated and displayed on the first execution screen, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as touchscreen display, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, and a processor merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the touchscreen display, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of display a first execution screen of a first application on the touchscreen display, display a second execution screen of the first application on the touchscreen display based on the user input, wherein the second execution screen includes at least one of the first visual element and the guidance message. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a touchscreen display, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, and a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of chatting between people exercises. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the touchscreen display, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of display a first execution screen of a first application on the touchscreen display, display a second execution screen of the first application on the touchscreen display based on the user input, wherein the second execution screen includes at least one of the first visual element and the guidance message. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of chatting between people exercises. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 further describe the abstract idea of chatting between people exercises. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhary (U.S. Patent App Pub 20220157428) in view of Lamond (U.S. Patent App Pub 20150302761)
Regarding claim 1,
Choudhary teaches an electronic device comprising: a touchscreen display; at least one processor, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: (See fig 9-10, paragraphs 120, 121, 131, Choudhary)
display a first execution screen of a first application on the touchscreen display based on a chat session between at least one external device and the electronic device, the first execution screen comprising a first visual element indicating a first user of the at least one external device and an exercise progress of a second user of the electronic device, and a second visual element for outputting a guidance message for guiding the exercise progress; (See fig 9-10, paragraphs 120, 121, 131, Choudhary)
Choudhary does not explicitly teach but Lamon teaches wherein the first execution screen comprises a chat message, provided through the chat session, obtained from the at least one external device, a first visual element indicating a first user of the at least one external device and an exercise progress of a second user of the electronic device, and a second visual element for outputting a guidance message for guiding the exercise progress, and (See figure 7, paragraphs 27, 29, Lamond teaches players interact with other players to get acknowledge via the track chat platform)
wherein the display of at least one of the first visual element or the second visual element is maintained while the chat message is updated and displayed on the first execution screen; (See figure 1, 7, paragraphs 27-29, 36, Lamond teaches the chats can be live or delayed and can offered encouragement)
receive a user input for the second visual element; and (See figure 7, paragraphs 35-37, Lamond teaches brief messages can be exchanged)
display a second execution screen of the first application on the touchscreen display based on the user input, wherein the second execution screen includes at least one of the first visual element and the guidance message. (See figure 7, paragraphs 36-38, Lamond teaches the support player can offer encouragement and accumulate rewards shown in progress bar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Lamond with Choudhary because both deal with chatting in an app. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Lamond into Choudhary is that Lamond teaches an effective way is provided for service providers e.g. fitness professionals to provide consultation, guide and encourage their clients to improve fitness, and monitor and acknowledge their clients progress in implementing respective tracks, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Lamond)
Regarding claim 2,
Choudhary and Lamond teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first execution screen further includes a third visual element indicating a current exercise status of the first user of the at least one external device. (See figures 3, 10, and paragraphs 84-90, Choudhary teaches current exercise)
Regarding claim 3,
Choudhary and Lamond teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first execution screen further includes a text message of the first user of the at least one external device received through the chat session and a fourth visual element indicating whether the first user of the at least one external device is receiving the guidance message. (See figures 9-11, and paragraphs 99-101, Choudhary teaches cheering messages)
Regarding claim 4,
Choudhary and Lamond teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first execution screen further includes a fifth visual element indicating ranking information according to the exercise progress of the first user of the at least one external device. (See figures 9-11, and paragraphs 125-127, Choudhary teaches a ranking of info of users)
Regarding claim 5,
Choudhary and Lamond teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to identify a difference between a predetermined target value and a current exercise status of the second user of the electronic device, and provide information on the identified difference as the guidance message. (See figures 9-11, and paragraphs 123-125, Choudhary teaches target values based on duration or date and 99, 177, taunting messages as well as cheering messages can be sent)
Regarding claim 6,
Choudhary and Lamond teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to provide the guidance message, based on ranking information according to the exercise progress of the first user of the at least one external device and the second user of the electronic device. (See figures 9-11, and paragraphs 126-128, Choudhary teaches leaderboard)
Regarding claim 7,
Choudhary and Lamond teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first execution screen includes a chat room based on the chat session, and wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to display a type of an exercise for generating the chat room and a third execution screen for setting at least one sensor for acquiring biometric information of the first user and the second user according to the type of the exercise. (See figures 9-11, and paragraphs 123-125, Choudhary teaches different metrics 193 teaches can be gotten from biometric sensors)
Regarding claim 8,
Choudhary and Lamond teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first execution screen further includes a sixth visual element indicating an exercise performance time of the first user of the at least one external device. (See figures 9-11, and paragraphs 122-123, Choudhary teaches performance time ie active mins)
Claims 9-15 list all the same elements of claims 1-7, but in medium form device than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-7 applies equally as well to claims 9-15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of chatting between people exercises which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to chatting between people exercises does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “touch screen display”, “processor”, “memory”, and non-transitory computer readable recording medium” perform(s) the steps or functions display a first execution screen of a first application on the touchscreen display, display a second execution screen of the first application on the touchscreen display based on the user input, wherein the second execution screen includes at least one of the first visual element and the guidance message. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to chatting between people exercises does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “touch screen display”, “processor”, “memory”, and non-transitory computer readable recording medium” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of chatting between people exercises. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Cooper, U.S. Patent App 2020315531, teaches the invention is directed to systems and methods that can determine a user's fitness based on a single factor such as oxygen lung volume (pmVO2). A heart rate measurement is conducted on the user after the user performs a physical test specified by a fitness application of the system. The heart rate measurement is converted into a pmVO2 value and compared to pmVO2 values of other individuals. The system assigns the user a fitness grade based on the comparison result. The system further includes an artificial intelligent system that helps the user to move from a grade to a higher grade.
2. Jung, U.S. Patent 9775554, teaches the avatars, computer program products, devices and systems are described that relate to at least one cohort-linked avatar comprising at least one avatar attribute that is at least partly based on an association of at least one physiologic activity of at least one member of a population cohort with at least one mental state.
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 NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444