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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 have been rejected as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: after the term “detecting” in line 6, the phrase “the request to modify one or more power zones that includes” needs to be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 31, 35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Each of claims 31, 35 and 39, recites: “while displaying the first user interface with the first selectable option, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to modify one or more power zones that includes a selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option; and in response to the request to modify one or more power zones that includes detecting the selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option: modify the first power zone range…”. However, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a request to modify one or more power zones that includes a selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option”. Furthermore, it is unclear whether “one or more power zones” recited in each of claims 31, 35 and 39, are part of or separate from the “plurality of power zones” recited in each of claims 1, 11 and 21, respectively, upon which claims 31, 35 and 39 depend. The same also applies to claims 32-33, 36-37 and 40-41 for including the same language. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 32-34, 36-38 and 40-42 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claims 31, 35 and 39, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-30 recites at least one step or instruction for observation, evaluation or judgement of workout information and functional threshold power (FTP) at different times, which are grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG and performing mathematical calculations to estimate the FTP and the calculated power zone ranges, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involve observing various workout information, evaluating such information and making a judgement about whether such information satisfies a set of FTP estimation criteria and performing mathematical calculations using such workout information to determine an estimated FTP and calculated power zone ranges for a plurality of power zones.
A detailed evaluation of each claim has been shown below. Please note that the underlined portions show the abstract idea, the bolded portions show additional elements, and the statement within the parenthesis clarify the specific abstract idea of the specific limitation. Although, the detailed evaluation below are for claims 1, 3-10 and 31-34, the same also applies to claims 11, 13-20 and 21, 23-30 and 35-42.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. A computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
receiving workout information corresponding to a plurality of workout sessions associated with a first user, including: a first set of workout information corresponding to a first workout session; and a second set of workout information corresponding to a second workout session that is separate from and different from the first workout session (i.e. visually observing and mentally noting various workout information corresponding to the plurality of workout sessions of a first user; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG); and
in accordance with a determination that the workout information corresponding to the plurality of workout sessions, including the first set of workout information and the second set of workout information, satisfies a set of FTP estimation criteria, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an estimated functional threshold power for the first user based on the first set of workout information and the second set of workout information, wherein: the first set of workout information does not satisfy the set of FTP estimation criteria, and the second set of workout information does not satisfy the set of FTP estimation criteria, and the workout information corresponding to the plurality of workout sessions cumulatively satisfy the set of FTP estimation criteria (i.e. mentally comparing workout information and determining when a set of FTP estimation criteria are satisfied, mentally calculating/estimating FTP of the user and writing the result on a piece of paper; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and performing mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG),
determining, based on the estimated functional threshold power for the first user, calculated power zone ranges for a plurality of power zones, including: a first calculated maximum power zone value and a first calculated minimum power zone value for a first power zone of the plurality of power zones; and a second calculated maximum power zone value and a second calculated minimum power zone value for a second power zone of the plurality of power zones, wherein the second power zone is different from the first power zone (i.e., mentally considering/determining/calculating different power zones with different calculated max and mins based on the FTP calculations; involves evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG and performing mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG),
displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first user interface, wherein: the first user interface includes representations of the plurality of power zones, including a representation of the first power zone and a representation of the second power zone separate from the representation of the first power zone; and displaying the first user interface includes: in accordance with a determination that the first power zone has been manually modified by a user of the computer system to have a first power zone range that does not correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value, displaying, within the first user interface, a first selectable option that, when selected, configures the computer system to modify the first power zone range of the first power zone to correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value; and in accordance with a determination that the first power zone has not been manually modified by a user of the computer system, forgoing inclusion of the first selectable option within the first user interface (i.e. drawing an interface on a piece of paper showing various power zones, and observing if a user is changing the ranges of such power zones, and providing a check box on the paper in the interface using which the user can express wanting to go back to the previous ranges of power zones, whereby such checkbox would not be provided if the user doesn’t change the ranges of the power zones; involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the FTP estimation criteria include a first criterion that is satisfied when the plurality of workout sessions cumulatively exceed a threshold workout duration (i.e. mentally observing and noting that the plurality of workout sessions cumulatively exceed a threshold workout duration; involves evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the FTP estimation criteria include a second criterion that is satisfied when the plurality of workout sessions cumulatively exceed a threshold duration of time above a threshold level of intensity (i.e. mentally observing and noting that the plurality of workout sessions cumulatively exceed a threshold duration of time above a threshold level of intensity; involves evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
5. The computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
subsequent to displaying the estimated functional threshold power for the first user, receiving workout information corresponding to a second plurality of workout sessions different from the plurality of workout sessions (i.e. visually observing and mentally noting various workout information corresponding to a second plurality of workout sessions; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG); and
in accordance with a determination that the workout information corresponding to the second plurality of workout sessions satisfies the FTP estimation criteria, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a second estimated functional threshold power for the first user different from the estimated functional threshold power, wherein the second estimated functional threshold power is determined based on the workout information corresponding to the second plurality of workout sessions (i.e. mentally comparing workout information of the second plurality of workouts and determining when the FTP estimation criteria are satisfied, mentally calculating/estimating the FTP of the user for the second time and writing the result on a piece of paper; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and performing mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG).
6. The computer system of claim 5, the one or more programs further including instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the second estimated functional threshold power is different from the estimated functional threshold power, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first object that is selectable to update a current functional threshold power for the user to the second estimated functional threshold power (i.e. mentally noting/determining the second estimated FTP is different than the first time and drawing a checkbox on a piece of paper were the user can check if they want to consider the second estimated functional threshold power as their current functional threshold power; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
7. The computer system of claim 6, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the first object, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a request to modify one or more power zones that includes a selection input corresponding to selection of the first object; and in response to receiving the request to modify one or more power zones that includes the selection input corresponding to selection of the first object, updating power values corresponding to a plurality of power zones based on the second estimated functional threshold power, including: updating a first maximum power value and a first minimum power value corresponding to a first power zone; and updating a second maximum power value and second minimum power value corresponding to a second power zone different from the first power zone (i.e. drawing an update checkbox via a pen on a piece of paper and manually checking via a pen or pointing to the update checkbox on the piece of paper, and in response thereto, mentally updating the power values of the plurality of power zones based on the second estimated FTP and/or writing the updated power values on the paper; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
8. The computer system of claim 11, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while a current functional threshold power for the first user is set to a first value, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first set of user inputs corresponding to a user request to change the current functional threshold power for the first user to a second value different from the first value; and in response to receiving the first set of user inputs, changing the current functional threshold power for the first user to the second value (i.e. observing that the user has indicated on the piece of paper their request to change the current FTP to a second value, and mentally changing or writing on the piece of paper the value of the current FTP to the second value; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
9. The computer system of claim 8, the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to receiving the first set of user inputs, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first option that is selectable to update power values corresponding to a plurality of power zones (i.e. mentally noting and observing the user requesting the change, and provide another checkbox regarding updating the power values of the plurality of power zones; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
10. The computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: displaying, via the one or more display generation components, at a first time, a first user interface that includes: an indication of a current functional threshold power for the user that indicates that the current functional threshold power for the user is a first value at the first time; a representation of a third power zone, including a first maximum power zone value and a first minimum power zone value corresponding to the third power zone; and a representation of a fourth power zone, including a second maximum power zone value and a second minimum power zone value corresponding to the fourth power zone; and at a second time subsequent to the first time, re-displaying the first user interface, including: the indication of the current functional threshold power for the user that indicates that the current functional threshold power for the user is a second value at the second time, wherein the second value is different from the first value, and the second value was entered by a user on a first external device different from the computer system; the representation of the third power zone, wherein the representation of the third power zone is updated to have a first updated maximum power zone value different from the first maximum power zone value and a first updated minimum power zone value different from the first minimum power zone value, wherein the first updated maximum power zone value and the first updated minimum power zone value were entered by the user on the first external device; and the representation of the fourth power zone, wherein the representation of the fourth power zone is updated to have a second updated maximum power zone value different from the second maximum power zone value and a second updated minimum power zone value different from the second minimum power zone value, wherein the second updated maximum power zone value and the second updated minimum power zone value were entered by a user on the first external device (i.e. writing or drawing power zones having different ranges for the user on a piece of paper based on the first estimate of the FTP, mentally noting/observing that the user has wrote another value for the FTP and other ranges for the power zones on another piece of paper, and redrawing the power zones based on the user’s written FTP and power ranges on the piece of paper; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
31. The computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the first user interface with the first selectable option, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to modify one or more power zones hat includes a selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option; and in response to detecting the selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option: modifying the first power zone range to have a maximum value that is equal to the first calculated maximum power zone value and a minimum value that is equal to the first calculated minimum power zone value (i.e. observing whether the user has checked off the check box and in response thereto, changing the values back to the calculated maximum/minimum values by writing them with a pen on the paper; involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
32. The computer system of claim 31, the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the request to modify one or more power zones that includes the selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option, displaying, via the one or more display generation components and within the first user interface, a visual indication that the first power zone range has been modified (i.e. observing whether the check box has been checked off, and providing via drawing or writing on the paper that the values have been changed; involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
33. The computer system of claim 31, the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the request to modify one or more power zones that includes the selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option, ceasing to display the first selectable option within the first user interface (i.e. observing whether the check box has been checked off, then deleting/erasing the checkbox from the interface; involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
34. The computer system of claim 33, wherein ceasing to display the first selectable option within the first user interface comprises ceasing display of the first selectable option while maintaining display of the first user interface (i.e. deleting/erasing the checkbox from the interface without deleting/erasing the interface; involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 3-10, 13-20 and 23-42 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 (and their respective dependent Claims 3-10, 13-20 and 23-42) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 11 and 21), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a computer system comprising one or more processors and memory (storing one or more programs including instructions), one or more display generation components, one or more input devices, and a first external device, are generically recited computer elements, in independent claims and their respective dependent claims, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and mathematical concepts) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., one or more processors, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a computer system comprising one or more processors and memory (storing one or more programs including instructions), one or more display generation components, one or more input devices, and a first external device.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks in various exercise areas. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0064]-[0066], the claimed terms one or more processors, memory, one or more display generating components, one or more input devices, and a first external device, are reasonably construed as a generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer system. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system, non-transitory computer-readable medium and the method of Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or mathematical concept) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-42 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Although the amendments filed on 11/12/2025, overcome the previous rejection of some of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the amendments have introduced further indefiniteness in various other claims (see above for further details).
35 U.S.C. §101
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to Step 2A-Prong One of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, stating that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept as they are only based on or involve a mathematical concept, that while the claim recites: “the first set of workout information does not satisfy the set of FTP estimation criteria, and the second set of workout information does not satisfy the set of FTP estimation criteria, and the workout information corresponding to the plurality of workout sessions cumulatively satisfy the set of FTP estimation criteria”, the MPEP is clear that is it not enough that a limitation be based on or involve a mathematical concepts for a limitation to receive a mathematical concept, and that so long as the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim, the claim does not recite a mathematical concept, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
According to MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number… There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”.
The independent claims currently recite: “in accordance with a determination that the workout information corresponding to the plurality of workout sessions, including the first set of workout information and the second set of workout information, satisfies a set of FTP estimation criteria, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an estimated functional threshold power for the first user based on the first set of workout information and the second set of workout information…determining, based on the estimated functional threshold power for the first user, calculated power zone ranges for a plurality of power zones, including: a first calculated maximum power zone value and a first calculated minimum power zone value for a first power zone of the plurality of power zones; and a second calculated maximum power zone value and a second calculated minimum power zone value for a second power zone of the plurality of power zones, wherein the second power zone is different from the first power zone”, and ¶ [0352] of applicant’s own specification recites: “In some embodiments, an FTP for a user is determined based on workout information corresponding to one or more workouts performed and/or completed by the user. In some embodiments, heart rate information and power output information collected during those workouts are used to estimate an FTP for the user”. As such, the limitations regarding displaying an estimated functional threshold power for the first user, and determining, based on the estimated functional threshold power for the first user, calculated power zone ranges for a plurality of power zones, including first calculated maximum and minimum power values for a first power zone and second calculated maximum and minimum power values for a second power zone, in light of the specification, require mathematically calculating or performing mathematical calculations in estimating a functional threshold power (FTP) of the user and in determining first and second calculated maximum and minimum power values for the first and second power zones. Furthermore, as stated before, such calculations can be performed mentally and/or using a pen and paper.
In response to applicant’s further arguments stating that the claims do not recite a mental process, that the limitations reciting: “displaying the first user interface includes: in accordance with a determination that the first power zone has been manually modified by a user of the computer system to have a first power zone range that does not correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value, displaying, within the first user interface, a first selectable option that, when selected, configures the computer system to modify the first power zone range of the first power zone to correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value; and in accordance with a determination that the first power zone has not been manually modified by a user of the computer system, forgoing inclusion of the first selectable option within the first user interface” cannot practically be performed in the human mind as it is not equipped to perform these steps, that for example, human mind is not equipped to conditionally display, in a user interface, a first selectable option that, when selected, configures the computer system to modify the first power zone range of the first power zone to correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value, nor is it possible to “draw” a first selectable option on a piece of paper that can be selected to configure the computer system to perform the required action and these steps can only be performed via an electronic device, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)…The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674…If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea...The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another”. As such, with respect to these limitations, the display of the first user interface having different power zones can be performed using a pen and paper, through drawing such interface with various power zones, each having different power ranges, on the paper using a pen and observing if a user is changing (values of) the ranges of such power zones, and based on such observation, providing/drawing with a pen, a check box on the paper in the interface, using/checking which the user can express wanting to go back to the previous ranges of power zones, and thereby providing/modifying, by writing with a pen in the interface on the paper, the previous ranges for the power zones, which were mentally calculated (with or without using a pen and paper), whereby such checkbox would not be provided if the user doesn’t change the ranges of the power zones. Such steps involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG, and the mental calculations of the first and second maximum and minimum power zone values involve performing mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG. Please note that the human mind (with or without a pen and paper) can be considered a computer system.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A-Prong Two, stating that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, that the features of the claims are similar to features of claim 1 of Example 37 of the MPEP Guidelines that were considered additional elements and were found to integrate alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and further stating: “Similar to how claim 1 of Example 37 includes additional elements that provide a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices, so too do the instant claims include additional elements that provide specific improvement over prior system resulting in an improved user interface for electronic device. For example, the above-cited features are additional elements that recite automatically displaying a first selectable option based the specified conditions, where the first selectable portion, when selected, configured the computer system to modify the first power zone range of the first power zone to correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value. This is a specific improvement over prior art systems”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above cited limitations of the instant claims are abstract ideas and abstract ideas cannot be additional elements themselves. The instant claims, do not include any additional elements that provide specific improvement over prior system resulting in an improved user interface for electronic device. Unlike Claim 1 of Example 37, the instant claims include recitation of displaying, via one or more display generation component in communication with a computer system having a processor, a first user interface which is a workout user interface that is based on user’s FTP. As can be seen from various Figures in Applicant’s drawings, the electronic device of the instant application, can display different user interfaces, including a main user interface in which various applications/apps are presented, as well as user interfaces that are associated with each of the apps and displayed upon selection of a corresponding application. The features of the instant claims that applicant asserts are the additional elements reciting: “automatically displaying a first selectable option based the specified conditions, where the first selectable portion, when selected, configured the computer system to modify the first power zone range of the first power zone to correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value”, are directed towards displaying a first user interface, which is a workout user interface, that is based on user’s FTP either entered manually or determined from a plurality of workout information. The above cited features do not provide any improvement to the functionality of the computer system/electronic device itself. Furthermore, since the cited features are directed to the first user interface (workout user interface that include the user’s FTP) and not to all the user interfaces that are displayable by the computer system including the main user interface (see Fig. 4A), such cited features do not provide improvement to the functionality the user interfaces of the computer system/electronic device. However, claim 1 of Example 37, recites specific manner of determining amount of usage of icons on a computer graphical user interface (i.e., a graphical user interface that is generic to a computer or a main graphical user interface that is displayed to the user in order to navigate through various icons), and based on such determination, automatically rearranging them to place them closer to the start icon. Therefore, claim 1 of Example 37 is providing improvement to the functionality of the user interface of a computer system (regardless of the content that is being displayed on the user interface).
In response to Applicant’s similar arguments stating that similar to claim 1 of Example 23 of the MPEP Guidelines, claim 1 also encompasses dynamically displaying the first selectable option that when selected configures the computer system to modify the first power zone range of the first power zone to correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated power zone value based on a detected condition (e.g., the first power zone has been manually modified by a user to have a first power zone range that is different from the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value), this is not similar to any abstract idea identified by the court and is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem arising in graphical user interface, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Similar to the previous argument, the instant claims and the specific argued feature, are not the same as claim 1 of Example 23. Furthermore, they are not solving any problems that arise in any type of graphical user interface. The instant claim involve displaying a first user interface which is a workout user interface that is based on user’s FTP. Displaying, within the first user interface and in response to determining that the first power zone has been manually modified by the user, a first selectable option that, when selected configured the computer system to modify the first power zone range of the first power zone to correspond to the first calculated maximum power zone value and the first calculated minimum power zone value and forgoing inclusion of the first selectable option within the first user interface in response to determining that the first power zone has not been manually modified, is not only abstract idea itself (see above for details), it is also not overcoming a problem arising in the graphical user interface technology as it is not rooted in computer technology.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating: “Applicant maintains its arguments in its previous response dated June 4, 2025, that the above-cited features improve the user-device interaction and the overall functionality of the device. For example, the claimed device selectively displays the first selectable option only when it would perform a useful function (e.g., only when a user has manually modified one or more power zones), and does not display the first selectable option when selection of the first selectable option would not perform any function (e.g., when the user has not manually modified any power zones). This feature, according to paragraphs [0339]-[0341] of the specification, "enhances the operability of the system and makes the user system interface more efficient" by, for example, "helping the user to provide proper inputs and reducing errors" (e.g., by displaying the selectable option only when it would modify the power zone values and not displaying the selectable option when it would not modify the power zone values, for example, because the power zone values have not been manually modified). Helping the user to provide proper inputs and reducing errors also reduces power usage and improves battery life by reducing the number of erroneous inputs and helping the user to use the system more quickly and efficiently”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated, the “displaying” step is an abstract idea. Abstract ideas cannot provide practical application or significantly more (e.g., improvement), and both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract ideal, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., improvement). In this case, the additional elements of claims 1, 11 and 21 are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant, in paragraph [0064] of the specification, recites: “Embodiments of electronic devices, user interfaces for such devices, and associated processes for using such devices are described. In some embodiments, the device is a portable communications device, such as a mobile telephone, that also contains other functions, such as PDA and/or music player functions. Exemplary embodiments of portable multifunction devices include, without limitation, the iPhone®, iPod Touch®, and iPad® devices from Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California. Other portable electronic devices, such as laptops or tablet computers with touch-sensitive surfaces (e.g., touch screen displays and/or touchpads), are, optionally, used. It should also be understood that, in some embodiments, the device is not a portable communications device, but is a desktop computer with a touch-sensitive surface (e.g., a touch screen display and/or a touchpad). In some embodiments, the electronic device is a computer system that is in communication (e.g., via wireless communication, via wired communication) with a display generation component. The display generation component is configured to provide visual output, such as display via a CRT display, display via an LED display, or display via image projection. In some embodiments, the display generation component is integrated with the computer system. In some embodiments, the display generation component is separate from the computer system. As used herein, “displaying” content includes causing to display the content (e.g., video data rendered or decoded by display controller 156) by transmitting, via a wired or wireless connection, data (e.g., image data or video data) to an integrated or external display generation component to visually produce the content”. In light of Applicant’s own specification (paragraphs [0064]-[0066]), the claimed terms one or more processors, memory, one or more display generating components, one or more input devices, and a first external device, are reasonably construed as generic computing devices, and therefore these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers with their already available basic functions, to use as tolls in executing the claimed steps/process. In other words, the display generating components were (already) available to perform their basic function (i.e. displaying content, a first user interface) without any improvements disclosed by the specification.
With respect to paragraph [0339] of the specification reciting: “Automatically displaying a reset object when a user modifies a power zone allows for these operations to be performed with fewer user inputs. Doing so also enhances the operability of the system and makes the user-system interface more efficient (e.g., by helping the user to provide proper inputs and reducing errors) which, additionally, reduces power usage and improves battery life of the device by enabling the user to use the system more quickly and efficiently”, the Examiner would like to mention that such display of reset object/first selectable option, when a user modifies a power zone to allow for the operations to be performed with fewer user inputs, and reduce errors and therefore power usage and improve battery life by enabling the user to use the system more quickly and efficiently, does not improve the functionality of the computer system itself. Reducing user errors by providing fewer inputs/choices, does not provide any improvement to the functioning of the computer system. Furthermore, reducing power usage/improving battery life by enabling the user to use the system more quickly by providing fewer user inputs/options, does not improve the functioning of the computer. Please note that the specification (in paragraphs [0339]-[0341]), provides a bare assertion of an improvement in a conclusory manner without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the specification lacks any details regarding how such display of the first selectable option, when it is determined that the user has manually modified the power values of a power zone, reduces power usage and how such reduction of power usage improves the functioning of the computer system, and specifically which functions of the computer system is being improved (i.e. increased processing speed, reduced memory consumption, optimized data handling). Also, it appears from the specification, including the cited paragraphs, that the reduction in power usage and improvement of battery life of the device depends on how quick a user uses the selectable option. As such, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating: “Additionally, the above-cited features provide an improvement to the computer because they declutter the user interface and reduce the number of inputs to modify the values of the first power zone range when they have been changed. Selectively displaying the first selectable option declutters the user interface, as depicted in the user interfaces depicted in FIGS. 10N and 10R, where object 1015 is selectively displayed. This improves the user interface by reducing the number of inputs needed to navigate a cluttered user interface and/or reduces the amount of power usage based on displaying a cluttered user interface”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to refer the applicant to the Examiner’s explanations provided above. As stated previously, the above-cited features are abstract ideas and not additional elements. The above cited features of the instant claim are specific to the first user interface which is a workout user interface that is based on user’s FTP. As such the above cited features are not rooted in computer technology and would not overcome cluttering and displaying numerous inputs arising in graphical user interface.
With respect to applicant’s similar arguments stating: “Additionally, the above-cited features provide an improvement to the computer because they reduce the number of inputs needed to change the values of first power zone back to the calculated values. Reducing the number of inputs needed to change the values of first power zone back to the calculated values improves battery life because it eliminates the additional inputs needed to navigate through various user interfaces and select various user interfaces objects to change the values (see e.g., FIGS. 10N-10R). In this way, the claimed system improves the functioning of the computer, thereby integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is thus allowable under Step 2A, Prong 2”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to refer the applicant to the Examiner’s response provided above regarding similar arguments.
Conclusion
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 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 SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784