DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
2. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 12/02/2025.
Currently, claims 1, 9, 17 have been amended; and therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 9 and 17 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
receive, from a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user; [send] an invite to the competition; responsive to receiving acceptance of the invite, receive first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user and second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user; aggregate the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate aggregated athletic data; and [show] the aggregated athletic data; a request to view additional data; and [show] a second subset of the aggregated athletic data .
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior (e.g., social activities), wherein a user sends an invitation to each of one or more users to participate in a competition; and based on the acceptance of the invitation, the competition is conducted; and wherein performance results related to the competition is also presented; such as, presenting the user with a subset of a first athletic data; and furthermore, responsive to the user’s request, the user is presented with a second subset of the aggregated athletic data, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of: receiving first athletic activity data (generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user) and second athletic activity data (generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user); and aggregating the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate aggregated athletic data, etc., the claims also overlap with the group mental processes; such as, an evaluation and/or a judgment process, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a first computing device, a second computing device, a communication network, etc., are utilized to facilitate the recited steps/functions regarding: collecting inputs from a user (e.g., “receiving, from a first computing device associated with a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user”); transmitting data to one or more devices (e.g., “outputting, to a second computing device associated with the second computing device, an invite to the competition”); collecting further data, including performance parameters related to users (e.g., “responsive to receiving acceptance of the invite from the second computing device, receiving, via a network, first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user and second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user”); analyzing the collected data using an algorithm (“aggregating the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate aggregated athletic data”); generating a first result (e.g., “displaying . . . a subset of the aggregated athletic data”); generating a second result based on a request (e.g., “receiving, at the first computing device, a user request to view additional data; and displaying, at the first computing device, a second subset of the aggregated athletic data”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate social activities; such as, allowing two or more users to communicate with one another in order to participate in a competition, including generating one or more performance data based on data collected regarding each of the users, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., US 2006/0136173; US 2002/0045519, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 12/02/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while attempting to summarize part of the USPTO’s 2019 PEG, Applicant is asserting that “the present claims are clearly patent-eligible. For example, analyzing the claims under the first prong of the Step 2A inquiry, reveals that none of the claims recite an abstract idea . . . Clearly, features such as, ‘receiving, from a first computing device associated with a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user,’ ‘outputting, to a second computing device associated with the second computing device . . . ‘displaying, at the first computing device, a second subset of the aggregated athletic data,’ as recited in claim 1, do not fall into any of the enumerated subgroupings as evidenced by the examples shown in the PEG Oct 2019 Update . . . a technical solution to outputting displays to various computing devices based on analyzing aggregated data and receiving user interactions” (emphasis added).
However, while incorrectly conflating the recited computer-elements with the abstract idea, Applicant is attempting to challenge the Office’s findings presented under prong-one of Step 2A. For instance, Applicant is referring to each of the first and second computing devices, and/or the process of displaying information via the first computing device, etc., in order to challenge the findings under prong-one of Step 2A. In contrast, the inquiry per prong-one of Step 2A does not require one to consider any of the claimed computer-elements. Instead, prong-one requires one to identify just the claimed limitations that recite the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.07(a), emphasis added),
For Step 2A Prong One, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as itis recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s findings presented under prong-one, while incorrectly relying on the claimed computer-elements, is not persuasive. In contrast, when one correctly applies the inquiry per prong-one, it is possible to recognize that the current claims recite an abstract idea; namely, the groupings, certain methods of organizing human activities, and/or mental processes (e.g., see above the analysis under prong-one of Step 2A).
Note also that Applicant’s alleged “technical solution to outputting displays to various computing devices based on analyzing aggregated data and receiving user interactions” has nothing to do with prong-one of Step 2A. This is once again because prong-one of Step 2A does not consider any computer-element, much less an alleged technical solution to a computing device. Nevertheless, the process of collecting and analyzing data related to one or more users and/or the user’s environment, including displaying—in response to the user’s input/selection—one or more relevant results to the user, is indeed one of the fundamental features of the existing computer/network technology. Accordingly, Applicant’s attempt to substantiate the alleged eligibility of the current claims, while mistaking one or more features of the existing computer/network technology for an advanced feature(s), is certainly not persuasive.
Secondly, besides failing to properly construe the Office’s analysis presented under prong-two of Step 2A, Applicant is also mischaracterizing the Office’s findings. Applicant is asserting that “the claims are not ‘directed to’ an abstract idea because the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into ‘a practical application.’ . . . the claims nevertheless recite a practical application of the alleged abstract idea . . . The Office merely considers some aspects of the claim and does not consider the actual claim language, alone and in combination with other elements of the claim . . . evaluating whether the additional claim elements integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application ‘specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity.’ (Id. at 55 (emphasis added).) Indeed, ‘a claim that includes conventional elements may still integrate an exception into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of Section 101.’ (Id.) Accordingly, the purported generic nature of the claimed computer components is not a proper basis to conclude that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” (emphasis modified).
However, Applicant’s assertions above do not appear to make any sense since the assertions are not consistent with any of the findings presented in the office-action. For instance, unlike Applicant’s incorrect assertion above, the claims are evaluated as a whole, under prong-two of Step 2A (e.g., see pages 3 and 4 of the office-action dated 07/15/2025). In contrast, despite asserting that “[t]he Office merely considers some aspects of the claim and does not consider the actual claim language, alone and in combination with other elements of the claim” (emphasis added), Applicant fails to even cite a section from the office-action to substantiate the above assertion. Consequently, Applicant’s assertion above is not even valid, much less persuasive. Moreover, except for making a subjective speculation regarding the alleged integration of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application, Applicant still does not appear to appreciate the eligibility test that one must apply in order to determine whether a given claim is integrating an abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. For instance, despite stressing the need to consider the “actual claim language, alone and in combination with other elements of the claim”, Applicant fails to point out the alleged “claim language” (if any), and/or the alleged “other elements of the claim” (if any), required be evaluated in combination with the “claim language” above. In contrast, given the currently claimed (and originally disclosed) implementation, an integration (if any) of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application is demonstrated if any of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing technology. However, as already pointed out above, the claimed (and the disclosed) system/method is utilizing the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea (see the abstract idea identified under prong-one).
So far, due to the lack of technological improvement per the claimed—and originally disclosed—method/system, Applicant appears to resort to subjective speculations while mischaracterizing the Office’s findings. Consequently, Applicant’s argumenta are not persuasive.
Similarly, Applicant’s assertion, “the purported generic nature of the claimed computer components is not a proper basis to conclude that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” (emphasis added), is also irrelevant since the above assertion is not consistent with the facts presented under prong-two of Step 2A. For instance, despite making the above assertion, Applicant once again fails to provide evidence (e.g., a citation from the previous office-action) in order to substantiate the assertion above. In contrast, again as evident from the analysis presented under prong-two of Step 2A (see pages 3 and 4 of the previous office-action), the Office has not considered any generic/conventional attributes of any the claimed computer-elements. This is because the generic/conventional attributes of the claimed computer-elements are considered per Step 2B of the eligibility analysis (see pages 4 and 5 of the previous office-action). Consequently, Applicant’s assertion above is also not valid. The above is yet another evidence, which confirms that Applicant is attempting to substantiate the alleged eligibility of the current claims while mischaracterizing the Office’s analysis.
Thirdly, regarding current claim 1, Applicant asserts that “claim 1 recites features such as, ‘receiving, from a first computing device associated with a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user,’ . . . ‘displaying, at the first computing device, a second subset of the aggregated athletic data,’ that, particularly when considered in combination, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application . . . clearly impose a meaningful limit on the purported judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it. In other words, these meaningful details limit any alleged abstract idea to a practical application that does not monopolize every possible way of performing the alleged abstract idea. The alleged abstract idea is instead limited to a practical application of doing so, including particular steps relying on particular devices performing particular processes in a particular order” (emphasis added)
However, except for speculating the alleged integration of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application, while simply quoting the limitations that the claim is reciting, Applicant once again fails to properly apply the inquiry that one must apply per prong-two of Step 2A. In particular, as already pointed out above, an integration (if any) of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application is demonstrated if any of the claims is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. In contrast, when considering each of the current claims as a whole, including the original disclosure, the claimed (and the disclosed) method/system is utilizing the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the abstract idea identified above under prong-one of Step 2A. Accordingly, given the lack of technological improvement, none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application (i.e., each of the current claims fails to implement an element—or a combination of elements—that imposes meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note also that it is immaterial whether Applicant assumes that the current claims are not “designed to monopolize” a judicial exception (or the claims do not monopolize “every possible way of performing” the abstract idea). This is because the above is not necessarily a standalone eligibility test per prong-two of Step 2A. Of course, the Supreme Court has described the concern driving the judicial exceptions as preemption; however, the courts do not use preemption as a stand‐alone test for eligibility. Also see MPEP 2106.04(I) (emphasis added),
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection").
Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion above fails to demonstrate whether any of the claims—when considered as a whole—satisfies the eligibility criteria per prong-two of Step 2A.
Similarly, while failing to properly construe the Office’s analysis presented under Step 2B, Applicant asserts, “claim 1 recites features such as, ‘receiving, from a first computing device associated with a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user,’ . . .’displaying, at the first computing device, a second subset of the aggregated athletic data,’ that are clearly additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. These limitations, when taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application. Therefore, the claims, as a whole, recite patent eligible subject matter. Stated differently, the combination of features recited in claim 1 does not provide a well-understood, routine or conventional way of performing the alleged abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea” (emphasis added).
However, here also except for simply listing the limitations that the claim is reciting, Applicant fails to properly apply the inquiry established per Step 2B. In contrast, the eligibility test per Step 2B requires one to determine, while considering the claim as a whole, whether the claim is implementing a non-generic and non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements. In the instant case, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements a non-generic and non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements. This is because each of the current claims, including the original disclosure, is implementing a generic and conventional arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, considering current claim 1 as an example, it is reciting conventional computer devices (e.g., see the generic terminologies that the claim is reciting, including: a “first computing device”, a “second computing device”, a ”network”, etc.), which communicate with one another over the conventional communication network; and thereby, the above arrangement allows users to facilitate one or more social activities; such as, (a) allowing a first user to send an invitation to a second user; (b) allowing the second user to accept or reject the invitation; (c) responsive to the second user accepting the invitation that the first user has sent, collecting corresponding athletic data related to each of the first user and the second user; (d) aggrading the collected athletic data; (e) displaying a first subset of the aggregated athletic data; and furthermore, (f) displaying a second subset of the athletic data responsive to a request received to view additional data.
Accordingly, it is quite clear, at least to one applying basic common sense, that such use of the conventional Internet technology to facilitate social activity is indeed directed to well-understood, routine, conventional activity (hereinafter WRCA) in the art. Of course, Applicant fails to consider—much less challenge—the above fact. Instead, while failing to appreciate the inquiry established per Step 2B, Applicant’s incorrectly asserts that “the Office Action has not performed a proper Step 2B analysis” (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant’s speculative assertion is not persuasive. In particular, basic common sense dictates that it is important to know what proper Step 2B analysis constitutes before making inaccurate assertion.
Note also that the lack of technological improvement, i.e., the finding established per prong-two of Step 2A, also supports the finding above regarding Step 2B (e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
In addition, while attempting to summarize the Office’s 2018 memorandum (i.e., the Berkheimer memo), Applicant is asserting that “[t]he rejection of the claims does not support the conclusion that the actual language of the claims, or the claims as a whole, recite a ‘combination of elements [that represent] well-understood, routine, conventional activity [ ... ] widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry.’ Instead, the Office Action genericizes the claim language and provides alleged support for the genericized feature of the claims. This is not a sufficient showing that the features recited in the claim, considered alone and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional in accordance with the Berkheimer Memo” (emphasis added).
Although not surprising, here also Applicant fails to properly apply one of the basic eligibility tests; namely, the WRCA test per Step 2B. It is worth to note that the WRCA test is evaluating the technology that the claim as a whole is implementing. Accordingly, Applicant’s alleged “actual claim language” does not make any sense since the test, per Berkheimer, does not require any evidence regarding the abstract idea that the claim is reciting. In fact, except for Applicant’s new theory above regarding such “actual claim language”, Applicant does not even cite any authority to substantiate the above alleged requirement. Note that a given claim that relies on the conventional computer/network technology may facilitate a new abstract idea, which the prior art does not contemplate. Although the claim may overcome the prior art due to the new abstract idea, this does not necessarily imply that the claim is beyond WRCA. Also see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a §101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.” (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant’s attempt to substantiate the alleged eligibility of the claims, while relying on the claimed abstract idea, is once again not persuasive. In contrast, the Office’s analysis confirms that each of the current claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to WRCA.
Applicant further asserts that “the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has also refused to sustain§ 101 rejections where the Office fails to sufficiently address the actual limitations of the claims when concluding the additional elements recited fail to provide significantly more than the abstract idea” (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant is strongly encouraged to file an appeal in the next response, instead of making further arguments, since this helps Applicant to easily resolve the eligibility issue while minimizing prolonged prosecution that may exhaust Applicant’s resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1996), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103(a) as being unpatentable over Watterson 2002/0045519 in view of Case 2006/0136173.
Regarding claim 1, Watterson teaches the following claimed limitations: a method, comprising: receiving, from a first computing device associated with a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user ([0134]; [0139]; [0141]; [0155]; [0164]: e.g., a computer-based online system that allows users to participate in one or more fitness activities, including a competition; wherein a user schedules a competition/race by accessing a website and selecting group of users that participate in the competition); outputting, to a second computing device associated with the second computing device, an invite to the competition; responsive to receiving acceptance of the invite from the second computing device (see [0158]; [0165]: e.g., before the scheduled time for the competition, each user logs into the system; and furthermore, when the competition is to begin, the system/server verifies whether all users are logged into the system. The above indicates—at least implicitly—that an invitation has already been sent to each user; and wherein, each logged user has already accepted the invitation), receiving, via a network, first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user and second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user ([0143]; [0159] to [0162]; [0168] to [0170]: e.g., once it is time to start the competition/race, the system/server notifies each user to being the competition/race; and wherein, during the competition, the system gathers performance parameters—such as position data—regarding each user. Thus, the system already receives (i) first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user, and also (ii) second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user); aggregating the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate aggregated athletic data; and displaying, at the first computing device, a subset of the aggregated athletic data (see [0162]; [0163]; [0171]: e.g., the system collects and analyzes performance data regarding each user; and thereby, generates performance results—such as, the finishing order of the users in the race, the ending positions of each of the users, etc., and wherein the results are displayed to each of the users. Accordingly, the system does aggregate the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate an aggregated athletic data; and further displays a subset of the aggregated athletic data).
Watterson does not expressly teach the process of receiving a user request to view additional data; and displaying, at the first computing device, a second subset of the aggregated athletic data.
However, Case teaches a system that collects and analyzes data related to athletic activities—such as, data related to each of a plurality of users engaging in a competition ([0045]); wherein the system comprises at least one computing device in the form of a cellphone or a PDA ([0105]); and accordingly, based on each of one or more selections received from the user, the computing device displays one or more subsets of athletic performance parameters to the user ([0108]; [0109] lines 6-12).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the invention of Watterson in view of Case; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithms so that the system further provides the user with one or more options to selectively view one or more additional subsets of performance results, particularly when (i) the user is utilizing a handheld device to view the various performance results, and/or (ii) there is a large number of performance results available to be viewed, etc.; and accordingly, when the user is making a selection (e.g., via a dropdown menu, a radio-button, etc.), the device displays to the user the relevant performance result(s); so that, the user would be able to easily view and comprehend each of the different results one at a time, etc.
Regarding claim 9, Watterson teaches the following claimed limitations: an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus ([0044] to [0046]: e.g., a computer-based online system that comprises plurality of devices that communicate over a network; and thus, such computer-based system already implements a processor(s) and a memory that stores computer executable instructions) to: receive, from a first computing device associated with a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user ([0134]; [0139]; [0141]; [0155]; [0164]: e.g., the computer-based system already allows users to participate in one or more fitness activities, including a competition; wherein a user schedules a competition/race by accessing a website and selecting group of users that participate in the competition); transmit, to a second computing device associated with the second computing device, an invite to the competition; responsive to receiving acceptance of the invite from the second computing device ([0158]; [0165]: e.g., before the scheduled time for the competition, each user logs into the system; and furthermore, when the competition is to begin, the system/server verifies whether all users are logged into the system. The above indicates—at least implicitly—that an invitation has already been sent to each user; and wherein, each logged user has already accepted the invitation), receive, via a network, first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user and second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user ([0143]; [0159] to [0162]; [0168] to [0170]: e.g., once it is time to start the competition/race, the system/server notifies each user to being the competition/race; and wherein, during the competition, the system gathers performance parameters—such as position data—regarding each user. Thus, the system already receives (i) first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user, and also (ii) second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user); aggregate the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate aggregated athletic data; display, at the first computing device, a subset of the aggregated athletic data (see [0163]; [0171]: e.g., the system collects and analyzes performance data regarding each user; and thereby, generates performance results—such as, the finishing order of the users in the race, the ending positions of each of the users, etc., and wherein the results are displayed to each of the users. Accordingly, the system does aggregate the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate an aggregated athletic data; and further displays a subset of the aggregated athletic data).
Watterson does not expressly teach the process of receiving a user request to view additional data; and displaying, at the first computing device, a second subset of the aggregated athletic data.
However, Case teaches a system that collects and analyzes data related to athletic activities—such as, data related to each of a plurality of users engaging in a competition ([0045]); wherein the system comprises at least one computing device in the form of a cellphone or a PDA ([0105]); and accordingly, based on each of one or more selections received from the user, the computing device displays one or more subsets of athletic performance parameters to the user ([0108]; [0109] lines 6-12).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the invention of Watterson in view of Case; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithms so that the system further provides the user with one or more options to selectively view one or more additional subsets of performance results, particularly when (i) the user is utilizing a handheld device to view the various performance results, and/or (ii) there is a large number of performance results available to be viewed, etc.; and accordingly, when the user is making a selection (e.g., via a dropdown menu, a radio-button, etc.), the device displays to the user the relevant performance result(s); so that, the user would be able to easily view and comprehend each of the different results one at a time, etc.
Regarding claim 17, Watterson teaches the following claimed limitations: a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors ([0044] to [0046]: e.g., a computer-based online system that comprises plurality of devices that communicate over a network; and thus, such computer-based system indicates the implementation of a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors), cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a first computing device associated with a first user, identification of one or more users to invite to a competition, the one or more users including a second user ([0134]; [0139]; [0141]; [0155]; [0164]: e.g., the computer-based system already allows users to participate in one or more fitness activities, including a competition; wherein a user schedules a competition/race by accessing a website and selecting group of users that participate in the competition); transmit, to a second computing device associated with the second computing device, an invite to the competition; responsive to receiving acceptance of the invite from the second computing device ([0158]; [0165]: e.g., before the scheduled time for the competition, each user logs into the system; and furthermore, when the competition is to begin, the system/server verifies whether all users are logged into the system. The above indicates—at least implicitly—that an invitation has already been sent to each user; and wherein, each logged user has already accepted the invitation), receive, via a network, first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user and second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user ([0143]; [0159] to [0162]; [0168] to [0170]: e.g., once it is time to start the competition/race, the system/server notifies each user to being the competition/race; and wherein, during the competition, the system gathers performance parameters—such as position data—regarding each user. Thus, the system already receives (i) first athletic activity data generated during performance of a first athletic activity by the first user, and also (ii) second athletic activity data generated during performance of a second athletic activity by the second user); aggregate the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate aggregated athletic data; display, at the first computing device, a subset of the aggregated athletic data ([0163]; [0171]: e.g., the system collects and analyzes performance data regarding each user; and thereby, generates performance results—such as, the finishing order of the users in the race, the ending positions of each of the users, etc., and wherein the results are displayed to each of the users. Accordingly, the system does aggregate the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data to generate aggregated athletic data; and further displays a subset of the aggregated athletic data).
Watterson does not expressly teach the process of receiving a user request to view additional data; and displaying, at the first computing device, a second subset of the aggregated athletic data.
However, Case teaches a system that collects and analyzes data related to athletic activities—such as, data related to each of a plurality of users engaging in a competition ([0045]); wherein the system comprises at least one computing device in the form of a cellphone or a PDA ([0105]); and accordingly, based on each of one or more selections received from the user, the computing device displays one or more subsets of athletic performance parameters to the user ([0108]; [0109] lines 6-12).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the invention of Watterson in view of Case; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithms so that the system further provides the user with one or more options to selectively view one or more additional subsets of performance results, particularly when (i) the user is utilizing a handheld device to view the various performance results, and/or (ii) there is a large number of performance results available to be viewed, etc.; and accordingly, when the user is making a selection (e.g., via a dropdown menu, a radio-button, etc.), the device displays to the user the relevant performance result(s); so that, the user would be able to easily view and comprehend each of the different results one at a time, etc.
Watterson in view of Case teaches the claimed limitations as discussed per each of claims 1, 9 and 17. Watterson further teaches:
Regarding each of claims 2, 10 and 18, the first athletic activity and the second athletic activity are of the same type of athletic activity ([0141]: e.g., per the exemplary scenario, each user is running on a treadmill; and therefore, the first athletic activity and the second athletic activity are of the same type of athletic activity);
Regarding each of claims 3, 11 and 19, the same type of athletic activity is use of a treadmill or a stationary bicycle ([0141]: e.g., as already pointed out per claim 2 above, each user is running on a treadmill; and therefore, the same type of athletic activity involves the use of a treadmill);
Regarding each of claims 4, 12 and 20, the aggregated athletic data comprises a ranking of the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data (see [0163]; [0171]: e.g., as already indicated per claim 1, the aggregated data already comprises performance results, including the finishing order of the users in the race, etc. Thus, the aggregated athletic data already comprises a ranking of the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data);
Regarding each of claims 7 and 15, the first user configures one or more parameters of the competition ([0155]: e.g., the user can schedule a time when the race will be run and a virtual course upon which the race will be run. Thus, the first user configures one or more parameters of the competition);
Regarding each of claims 8 and 16, the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data are continuous streams of data received in real-time ([0160] to [0163]: e.g., once the competition has started, the system continuously tracks the position of each user, including distance and time parameters, until the competition ends. Thus, the first athletic activity data and the second athletic activity data are already continuous streams of data received in real-time).
Regarding each of claims 5, and 13, Watterson in view of Case teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 9.
Although Watterson does not expressly describe, “the aggregated athletic data comprises a total number of miles traversed in a predetermined time period”, Watterson suggests that the treadmill already allows the tracking of the distance traveled by each user, including the time in which the distance is traveled ([0141]; [143]); and also, a competition scenario that requires each user to run a defined distance, wherein the winner is determined based on the user who traversed the total distance in the shortest time ([0157]).
It is also worth to note that the system is generating the aggregated result, which identifies the finishing order of each user, based on the analysis of “the distances and times” (emphasis added) received from each user (see [0163]).
Accordingly, given the teachings above, above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Watterson’s system; for example, by updating the system’s algorithm, so that, the system further displays, as part of the performance results it is generating, the total distance that each user has traversed (e.g., the total number of kilometers/miles) in one or more defined time periods; so that, the users would have additional metric(s) to gauge their performance, etc.
● Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103(a) as being unpatentable over Watterson 2002/0045519 in view of Case 2006/0136173 and further in view of Lee 2004/0185881.
Regarding each of claims 6 and 14, Watterson in view of Case teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 9.
Watterson in view of Case does not positively teach that the invite is transmitted via SMS.
However, Lee discloses a computer-based online system that allows two or more users to communicate; such as, a user selecting one or more participants to be invited for a game, including sending an invitation to the participants ([0024]; [0029]); and the participants may accept or decline the invitation; and wherein, such communication is conducted via SMS ([0031]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the invention of Watterson in view of Lee; for example, by incorporating additional messaging function—such as, SMS, in order to enable the users to easily exchange messages with one another, including schedule information regarding upcoming races, etc., so that each user would have a better chance to get the message promptly.
Response to Arguments.
6. Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior art have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 12/02/2025). Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amendment made to the current claims. However, a new ground of rejection is presented in this current office-action due to the current amendment; and accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new ground of rejection. In particular, the new ground of rejection already addresses Applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final 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 filled 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715